Votes at a glance: Perryton ISD approves budget amendment, copier lease, election orders, declares no capacity for state seat-belt mandate, extends supt.

PERRYTON ' The Perryton ISD Board of Trustees took several routine and required actions during its meeting, voting unanimously on a series of items including a budget amendment, procurement, election orders and a personnel action.

Budget and investments: The board approved Budget Amendment No. 2 (motion moved and seconded; vote carried 7-0). Treasurer/staff (Speaker 2) presented the district's investment report on a calendar-year basis and reported an approximate prior-year invested balance of $36,000,000 and a current calendar-year ending balance of $44,000,000, with total interest received noted at about $1,400,000 through December. The board approved the district investment program as presented (vote 7-0).

Procurement: Staff presented competitive bids for a replacement copier at Williams Elementary, noting two bidder proposals and lease-versus-purchase factors (60-month lease terms, tax implications on leased equipment, and inclusion of maintenance/supplies with the recommended option). The board approved Proposal 5, the staff'recommended option, by voice vote (7-0).

Elections: The board ordered the May 2, 2016 election with early voting April 20'April 28 and approved a joint election agreement with the City of Perryton; both motions passed 7-0.

Seat-belt cost estimate & required public hearing: In response to a legislative request (discussed as Senate Bill 546), staff presented an estimate of $3,585,000 to replace buses that do not have three-point seat belts. The board moved to formally declare it does not have the financial capacity to spend that estimated amount; the motion passed 7-0. Board members noted that at the next meeting the district must hold a public forum or hearing listing buses without three-point seat belts and provide cost estimates for installations.

Personnel: The board voted to extend the superintendent's contract by one year (motion moved and seconded; vote carried 7-0).

Notes and clarifications: Some transcript lines included inconsistent numeric rendering (one passage later recited the bus figure with extra zeros). The published numbers above reflect the cost figure presented during the staff's cost estimate ($3,585,000) as the working estimate; where the transcript repeats an apparent typographic error (e.g., $3,585,000,000) that figure is not used as the district's estimate.

The board continued with agenda scheduling and a brief discussion about a winter goal-setting meeting; a final planning meeting date was not recorded in these segments.