Parents and residents raise concerns about high‑school planning and SR 530 gravel mine during Arlington board public comment
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Two members of the public told the Arlington board they were concerned: one parent said the district’s high school planning process limited updates to a student’s career plan, and a resident urged the board not to proceed with a gravel‑mine sale citing water‑quality and salmon habitat risks.
Two public commenters used the board’s public‑comment period to raise separate concerns about student planning and a proposed gravel mine.
Jay Sedavia, who identified himself as the parent of a recent Arlington High School graduate, said his daughter’s “high school and beyond” plan — begun in middle school — no longer reflected her vocational interest in culinary arts and that an advisor told her the plan “cannot be modified to support her pursuit of a career in the culinary arts.” Sedavia said advisors did not address his daughter’s concern during an advisory period and described similar frustrations reported by his son. He requested the district clarify how plans can be adjusted to support vocational pathways and offered to provide the board with a written copy of his comments.
Nate Lance updated the board on intergovernmental communications about a proposed gravel mine on SR 530 property and urged the district to consider not proceeding with the sale. Lance said the City of Arlington and a local tribe had expressed concerns about impacts to water quality and to Chinook salmon, and he warned of possible increases in water temperature, altered flow, and the potential need for public subsidies to pay for water treatment if contamination occurs. Lance also cited dates in the purchase‑and‑sale agreement and asked the board to avoid defaulting on a contract only if the environmental costs could be addressed.
Board policy prohibits board members from responding during the meeting’s business portion, and the board did not offer on‑the‑record responses during the public‑comment period. Both speakers asked staff or the superintendent to follow up with more information: Sedavia sought clarity on how student plans can be revised to support career pathways, and Lance asked the district to consider the environmental implications of the SR 530 property sale if a vote or decision arises.
No formal action was taken on either matter at the meeting; both issues were entered into the record and identified as topics staff or the superintendent may address outside the business meeting.