Notice of Meeting. Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:00 pm. Trustees: Fraser Ballantyne Estrellita Gonzalez

Transcription

1 NOTICE OF MEETING Vancouver School Board Secretary-Treasurer s Office Facilities Planning Committee (Pending Board Approval) November 9, 2018 Allan Wong Oliver Hanson Carmen Cho Jennifer Reddy Suzanne Hoffman, Superintendent of Schools J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer Notice of Meeting A Meeting of the Facilities Planning Committee will be held in Room #180 of the Education Centre, 1580 West Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, on Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:00 pm Trustees: Fraser Ballantyne Estrellita Gonzalez Lois Chan-Pedley Barb Parrott Janet Fraser Student Trustee: Hazel Pangilinan District Management Staff: Carmen Batista Lisa Landry Aaron Davis Jody Langlois John Dawson Patricia MacNeil Pedro da Silva Jim Meschino Mette Hamaguchi David Nelson Joann Horsley-Holwill Lorelei Russell Magdalena Kassis Rob Schindel Michele Kelly Shehzad Somji Adrian Keough Richard Zerbe Brian Kuhn Reps: Terry Stanway, VSTA Alt: Jill Barclay, VESTA Angela Haveman, VASSA Harjinder Sandhu, VEPVPA Tim Chester, IUOE Melissa Werfl, PASA Thomas Leung, CUPE 15 Anne Montgomery, DPAC Stephen Kelly, Trades Brent Boyd, CUPE 407 Fiona Chang, VDSC Karin Bernauer, VESTA Doug Roch/David Murphy, VEPVPA Tim De Vivo, IUOE Peter Powell, PASA Allison Tredwell/Amanda Hillis, DPAC Raymond Szczecinski, Trades Others: Secretary-Treasurer s Office Doug McClary District Parents Ron Macdonald Communications Jim de Hoop Chris Allen Kerry Chuah Lynda Bonvillain Ed. Centre Engineers Kathie Currie, CUPE 15 Rentals Debbie Mohabir, CUPE 15

2 VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:00 pm Room 180, VSB Education Centre The meeting is being held on the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil- Waututh Coast Salish peoples. Meeting Decorum: The Board has a strong commitment to ethical conduct. This includes the responsibility of committee members to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum and professionalism. As Chair of the Committee it is my responsibility to see that decorum is maintained. To do that I ask that: i. All members/delegates request to speak through the chair; ii. Civility towards others is maintained as stakeholder representatives and Trustees share perspectives and participate in debate; iii. Staff be able to submit objective reports without influence or pressure as their work is acknowledged and appreciated; iv. Committee members refrain from personal inflammatory/accusatory language/action; v. Committee Members, Trustees, representatives and /staff present themselves in a professional and courteous manner. Please see reverse for the Purpose/Function and Power and Duties of this Committee. 1. Delegations Presenters 1.1 Cavell Seismic Presentation K. Harris, Cavell Seismic Committee 2. Information Items 2.1 Cavell Seismic Project Update D. Nelson, Deputy Superintendent D. Green, Secretary Treasurer 2.2 Long Range Facilities Plan Update J. Dawson, Director of Educational Planning D. Green, Secretary Treasurer 2.3 Lead in Drinking Water Action Plan D. McClary, Manager of Maintenance and Construction J. Meschino, Director of Facilities 3. Discussion Items 3.1 Notice of Motion Materials for the Arts D. Green, Secretary Treasurer Program 3.2 Notion of Motion Workforce Housing D. Green, Secretary Treasurer 4. Items for Approval No items requiring Board Actions/Motions Date and Time of Next Meeting Wednesday, January 23, 2018 at 5:00 pm

3 Facilities Planning Committee 2.1 Purpose/Function: To review and provide recommendations to the Board in regard to assigned facilities planning matters. 2.2 Powers and Duties: School Closures: Review the materials provided by senior staff to the Board regarding a possible school closure and provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether the committee supports the possible closure advancing to the school closure public consultation process phase Naming and Renaming Schools: Within the constraints of Board direction provided at the outset of any potential school naming or renaming process provide recommendations to the Board Student Enrolment: Annually review enrolment and enrolment trends and the potential impact on capital planning, student accommodation and catchment changes Capital Planning: Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft five year capital plan for submission to the BC Ministry of Education Long Range Facilities Plan: Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft long range facilities plan for submission to the BC Ministry of Education Facilities Planning Matters Referred to the Committee by the Board: Review matters referred and make recommendations as requested.

4 Edith Cavell Elementary Seismic Presentation Facilities and Planning Committee Presented by Kevin Harris on behalf of the Edith Cavell PAC

5 We are here to present solutions for: 1) Inadequate consultation 2) Lack of combined expansion 3) PDR supports New Build New Build with Expansion is Best Option 4) Unacceptable swing site We firmly believe that all of these can be addressed without negatively impacting the Ministry of Education announced timeline from September 28, 2018 (Spring 2020 to Fall 2021)

6 Context Edith Cavell Elementary is high risk (H1) It is located in the Cambie Corridor, an area of planned growth for the City of Vancouver Cavell is already over capacity (~120%) and turns away in catchment Kindergarten students each year The projected growth of Cambie mandates a larger school (VSB projected acceptance rate in Kindergarten of 52% in 2019*) *p129 Agenda Former Committee II, June 20, 2018 In recognition of this the VSB has planned to expand Cavell from 271 students to 485 students Cavell was moved up the Seismic priority list from 2017/18 to 2018/19 due to the need for expansion^ ^Draft Capital Plan June 26, 2017

7 Cavell Moves Up Seismic List To Combine with Expansion 2016: Cavell is #12 on the list after Weir and Grenfell* *Sept 22, 2016 Former Committee II Agenda 2017: Cavell moved ahead of Grenfell due to need for expansion up to #5 *Draft Capital Plan June 26, 2017 Board Meeting Slide 5 November 2017: Cavell moved ahead of Weir no justification documented^ *p9 November 2017, Agenda Former Committee II Notably other schools were moved down the list to wait for a suitable swing site (single site, close proximity) to become available (False Creek and Prince of Wales)* *Draft Capital Plan June 26, 2017 Board Meeting Speakers Notes Slide 8

8 Edith Cavell Has Not Been Prioritized for Capital Funding by VSB Despite Expansion Being Used as Justification To Move Edith Cavell Up Seismic List 5 year Capital Plan (Former Committee II June 13, 2018) Quote from MoE Assistant Deputy Minister Oct 31, 2018 The need for additional space at Cavell was not identified as a priority for the Vancouver School District in their 2018/19 Capital Plan Submission, and was the third priority for expansion (behind new schools at Coal Harbour and Olympic Village) in the upcoming 2019/20 Capital Plan Submission, which is currently under review.

9 Key Dates for Edith Cavell in 2018 PDR signed on July 25, 2018 (no prior consultation) Funding announced by Ministry of Education on September 28, 2018 (no prior consultation) Project Agreement signed October 3, 2018 (no prior consultation) First meeting with VSB representatives and Cavell PAC was October 16, 2018 to provide information about the project (no consultation)

10 Inadequate consultation - Background Under former process, PDR presented to Planning and Facilities (formerly Committee II) for review and endorsement prior to funding approval. Months of public consultation would also occur at this stage. Under current process, these steps no longer occur. Process change initiated by VSB/VPO in late 2016/early 2017 (no public documents track this change which occurred during a time when there were no publically elected VSB Trustees) Change in process is not supported by 2017 renewal of Memorandum of Understanding between VSB and Ministry of Education (appointed Trustee Diane Turner signed on behalf of VSB). The 2017 Memorandum is essentially unchanged from the original first signed in 2014 by elected Trustees.

11 VANCOUVER PROJECT OFFICE - PDR AND APPROVAL PROCESS Typically an annual submission Timing varies Capital Plan Typically an annual submission Ministry Project Support VPO Steering Committee Endorsement of Preferred Option Capital Plan Committee II Information Report VPO Steering Committee Endorsement of Preferred Option Consultant Team Selection Public Consultation 6 months to a year Timing varies Vancouver Project Office (VPO) PDR Development Ministry Project Support Committee II Endorsement of Preferred PDR Option Target 3 months public consultation on preferred PDR option Target 6 months for this stage Committee II Information Report Review PDR options Project Team recommendation of preferred option Internal VSB Steering Committee Private Committee II Information Report Vancouver Project Office PDR and Funding 6 Approval months to a year Process Circa 2016 (After implementation of 2014 MOU) Review PDR options Project Team recommendation of preferred option Board Approval of PDR Option Consultant Team Selection Committee II Project Agreement Bylaw Board Approval of PA Bylaw Vancouver Project Office (VPO) PDR Development Project Design Construction Internal VSB Steering Committee Elementary: 3 to 4 years Secondary: 4+ years Public Consultation Committee II Endorsement of Preferred PDR Option Board Approval of PDR Option Targe public con preferred Target 6 thi

12 VANCOUVER PROJECT OFFICE - PDR AND APPROVAL PROCESS Typically an annual submission Timing varies Capital Plan Typically an annual submission Ministry Project Support VPO Steering Committee Endorsement of Preferred Option Capital Plan Committee II Information Report VPO Steering Committee Endorsement of Preferred Option Consultant Team Selection Public Consultation NOW IN 2018: Project Timing varies Ministry Target 3 months Committee II public consultation on Vancouver Project Endorsement of preferred PDR option 6 months to a year Office (VPO) Support Agreement is Preferred Signed PDR PDR Development Option Target 6 months for this stage Review PDR options Project Team Board Without Internal VSB Prior recommendation of Approval of PDR Trustee Steering Committee preferred option Option Consultant Team Selection Input AND Without Committee II Any Private Committee II Project Agreement Information Report Bylaw Public Consultation Board Approval of PA Bylaw Vancouver Project 6 months to a year Office (VPO) PDR Development Also bypasses VESTA and DPAC Review PDR options Project Team recommendation of preferred option Project Design Construction Internal VSB Steering Committee Elementary: 3 to 4 years Secondary: 4+ years Committee II Information Report Public Consultation Committee II Endorsement of Preferred PDR Option Board Approval of PDR Option Targe public con preferred Target 6 thi

13 Illustrative Example of Recent Consultation Process Kingsford Smith (Additional examples available) Between Oct 5, 2015 and December 8, 2015 there were 18 consultative meetings* *Former Committee II Agenda Feb 2, 2016 Involved: School Staff PAC Parents Seismic Committee Funding announced Jan 27, 2016 Project agreement signed after funding announcement

14 Combining with Planned Expansion The Need for Expansion is Clear: School is already over capacity (120%) Almost half of in catchment children are forced out of catchment in 2018 Further Student Population Growth in Cambie is happening now in accordance with City s Long Term Plan for Cambie Corridor VSB moved Cavell up the Seismic list to coordinate seismic mitigation with expansion PDR confirms separate/later expansion would result in second disruption to school population which is unreasonable and would increase cost Seismic mitigation should proceed with concurrent expansion/right sizing

15 Project Definition Report Supports New Build Evaluated Seismic alone Seismic with upgrades to address deficiencies New Build Right sizing of Cavell has not been included in PDR Current and future schools are planning combined Seismic and Expansion (David Lloyd George and False Creek) Findings from Cavell PDR support a New Build but this option was not selected We believe this would have been corrected through a consultative process We believe that there is a duty to procedural fairness that has not been met in this case leading to a flawed process and short-sighted decision

16 What in the PDR supports New Build as Most Cost Effective Life cycle analysis Demonstrates that by Year 10 a New Build is $1.2M cheaper than seismic alone By Year 40 a New Build is $2.7M cheaper than seismic alone These savings do not include an additional 6.1M in deferred maintenance that would be saved with a New Build (total savings $8.8M over 40 years) This is the best option for school community, VSB and most cost effective

17 Recent History of PDR Decisions Ministry of Education Requires Life Cycle Costing* *p.16 Formerly Committee II Agenda December 16, 2015 Last 7 decisions the lowest cost life cycle option has been selected (blue box) In 2/7 decisions the initial capital expenditure was higher for the option selected (orange arrows, in these cases the selected option was new build) SCHOOL Seismic Upgrade Full Replacement 40yr Seimic Upgrade 40 yr New Build Bayview Begbie David Llyod Maple Grove Tennyson Jamison Kingsford Smith Edith Cavell PDR shows 2.7M in savings in 40-year life cycle analysis and 6.1M additional savings in Deferred Maintenance with New Build

18 Temporary Accommodation ( Swing Site ) Unprecedented distance and travel time from home community (primary consideration of VSB) Split between 2 sites Feedback from current occupants shows severe negative effects on school culture (loss of teachers, loss of principal, inability to have school events due to 2 sites, loss of parent involvement/volunteerism, loss of extracurricular activities, negative impact on needed PAC fundraising) These will be compounded for Cavell due to the extreme distance from home community Better alternatives exist

19 Summary Inadequate consultation needs to be addressed immediately to ensure timely and successful project completion The choice of seismic alone is not the lowest cost option based on life cycle analysis and is not consistent with prior decisions by VSB/VPO/Ministry of Education The lack of coordination with planned expansion must be immediately addressed More appropriate temporary accommodation must be found

20 Potential Solutions EXPANSION: Amend the Capital Fund Request to the Ministry of Education and Advance Cavell to #1 This is unlikely to impact the other 2 projects given the difference in scope (Cavell request is $7M, other requests are $28.2M and $48.1M) and alternative funding sources available for those projects NEW BUILD: Direct communication from the VSB Chair and Superintendent to the Minister of Education to request reevaluation of PDR and decision to proceed with seismic alone, given the lack of input from VSB Trustees, Facilities and Planning Committee, and no prior consultation with newly idenfied concerns raised by Edith Cavell PAC (current decision is not in best interests of VBE or school community and is not justified by PDR) SWING SITE: 1) Build new expanded school on site while students remain in old building 2) Consider alternatives discussions initiated with VSB staff

21 Requests for Action by Facilities and Planning Committee 1) Provide feedback to VPO that meaningful consultation from stakeholders is needed immediately and the project should not advance until this has taken place. Feedback from stakeholders to the VSB trustees should occur prior to moving project forward to ensure adequate oversight given the extreme circumstances 2) Acknowledge that the selected swing site is unprecedented and unacceptable. Provide clear direction to the VPO and VSB staff to use one of the better alternatives that exist. Swing site selection should involved direct consultation with Edith Cavell PAC Seismic Committee based on the following priorities: i) Proximity to home community ii) Keeping school community together

22 Requests for Action by Facilities and Planning Committee (cont.) 3) Report to VSB Board and request full Board review of PDR and decision to proceed with seismic mitigation only instead of more cost-effective option of New Build Given the procedural concerns we have and the impact these may have had on the decision, we request the opportunity to present to the full Board on November 26, 2018 and/or the governanance committee Request that the Superintendent communicate directly with the Minister of Education to request a review of the decision by the VPO in consultation with stakeholders and VSB trustees 4) Notify the VSB Board and Superintendent that Edith Cavell PAC Seismic Committee requests re-engagement with the Ministry to solve the outstanding funding of a combined expansion

23 Questions? Thank you for the opportunity to present We look forward to working together quickly and collaboratively to address the Edith Cavell Elementary Seismic Project Edith Cavell PAC

24 Date: November 14, 2018 To: Facilities Planning Committee From: Senior Management Team Re: Update on Edith Cavell Seismic Upgrade Project ITEM 2.1 REFERENCE TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship Objectives: Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities INTRODUCTION: This report is provided for information. There are no recommendations. BACKGROUND: Development of the Project Definition Report (PDR) for Edith Cavell Elementary began in the spring of 2016 following approval by the Ministry of Education to proceed. The PDR requires the study of three options for seismic mitigation: Option 1: Seismic Upgrading of Existing Building(s) Option 2: Partial Replacement and Seismic Upgrading Option 2: Replacement of the Existing Building(s) The identification of temporary accommodation for students and staff during construction (swing sites) is part of the Project Definition Report. The Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Vancouver Board of Education Seismic Mitigation Project Office requires recommendations concerning individual projects agreed upon by the Steering Committee by consensus will be forwarded to the VBE and the Province for approval, as required. (August 2014 and August 2017 Memorandum of Understanding) In June 2018 the Vancouver Project Office Steering Committee endorsed Option 1. On September 28, 2018 the Minister of Education announced that the Province was advancing funding approval to proceed with Option 1 for Edith Cavell Elementary. On October 3, 2018 a Project Agreement for Edith Cavell Elementary School was signed. 1

25 On October 16, 2018 there was a meeting with Edith Cavell parents regarding the seismic project and process. District staff and Vancouver Project Office staff were in attendance, along with several trustees, to address parent questions and concerns. On October 26, 2018 Superintendent Hoffman and Director of Instruction Da Silva met with the Cavell PAC Chair and the PAC Vice-Chair and Seismic Committee Chair, along with a DPAC representative, regarding parent concerns about seismic upgrade plans for Cavell. As an outcome of this meeting, Superintendent Hoffman agreed to instruct staff to conduct a detailed review of options for temporary accommodation for Cavell students and staff. The parents requested that temporary accommodation options be re-examined with the goal of keeping students closer to home and keeping the school together at one temporary accommodation site, while not delaying the seismic project. On November 2, 2018 Cavell parents were provided with a detailed Q and A regarding the Edith Cavell seismic project. (Attached) On November 6, 2018 a follow up meeting was held with the Cavell PAC Chair, Vice-Chair and a member of the Cavell PAC Seismic Committee to address specific questions and concerns raised at the October 26 th meeting. Also present at the meeting was a DPAC representative. A summary of the meeting discussion is provided below. Superintendent Hoffman has been keeping Ministry of Education staff and the Minister of Education informed on the steps that have been taken to explore all options for the Cavell Community. NOVEMBER 6, 2018 MEETING: In attendance: VBE District Staff: Kathy O Sullivan (District Principal) /David Nelson (Deputy Superintendent) VPO Staff: Janson Ho (Director, Vancouver Project Office) Cavell Principal: Lori Prodan Cavell Parents: Kate Chipperfield (PAC Chair) /Derek Knoechel (PAC Seismic Committee)/Brenda Brown (PAC Vice-Chair; PAC Seismic Committee Chair) DPAC: Amanda Hillis (DPAC Secretary) 1) Expansion to current Cavell building as part of Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) Parents wanted to know why an expansion of Cavell was not being considered as part of the seismic work. A detailed overview of the status of the expansion proposal for Edith Cavell was discussed. Janson Ho informed parents that an expansion was studied along with the development of the Project Definition Report (PDR) for Cavell. Janson informed parents that the Ministry of Education (MOE) did not support the expansion being submitted for funding consideration along with the seismic upgrade options as it was outside of the scope of the seismic program. The 2

26 parents were also informed that the expansion option was studied as part of the PDR and was attached to the Cavell PDR as an appendix. Parents wanted to know if it was still possible to complete an expansion along with the seismic work. Specifically, they wanted to know if the MOE would consider funding this expansion. Parents were informed that the District has already submitted the Cavell addition to the Ministry for funding consideration, as a school expansion project. Staff indicated that we do not know at this point if it will be supported by the Ministry. Janson let parents know that if it were to be funded this spring it could be incorporated into the seismic construction timeline for Cavell. 2) Timeline A detailed overview of the rationale for an expediated timeline and detailed information on what it would mean for the students, families and staff at Cavell was provided. The expedited timeline would see Cavell staff and students moving out of the current building in the summer of 2019 in order to allow work to begin early on the seismic upgrading. This work would involve removal of hazardous materials in advance of permits being received for construction. The expedited timeline would not necessarily mean re-occupancy of the school following construction, but it would decrease the likelihood of unforeseen delays pushing back the date for the school community to re-occupy the building. The expedited timeline would see Cavell students in their swing site for September of 2019 with a project completion target date of August 2021 in time for the start-up of the school year. 3) Temporary Accommodation (Swing Space) Cavell parents raised concerns about the distance from Cavell to the designated swing space at Champlain Heights/MacCorkindale. Specific concerns about time spent on the bus were raised. Staff explained that the Ministry of Education requires the District to use surplus space, within VBE schools, to accommodate students/staff during seismic work. Staff have been working, since the meeting with the Suzanne Hoffman and Pedro Da Silva and the PAC on October 26 th, to review all options for swing space within District facilities, in response to concerns raised by Cavell parents. Parameters for review by staff included: 1. Not delaying the seismic project 2. Not adding excessive additional cost to the project as any additional costs would need to be funded by the District and/or absorbed with the Cavell project budget. 3. Trying to keep students closer to Cavell 4. Looking for options to not split Cavell between two school sites during construction Staff shared an analysis of options explored following the October 26 th meeting. This included an examination of all possible swing sites within the District. Following discussion with the parents, one additional possibility was deemed worthy of further examination by staff. Staff are 3

27 working to investigate this option to determine if it is in viable. This includes validating that there is enough space, that it would not delay project timelines, and that it would not add excessive cost. Staff will report back to the Cavell staff and PAC the results of this investigation once the work is complete. Staff have targeted November 13 th for completion of the investigation. The parents also presented questions about other school sites they wondered about as swing site options. Staff reviewed option presented with parents. It was determined that none of the sites raised by the parents were viable as they did not have enough space to accommodate the Cavell school community. Parents were asked to identify other options, in the event staff missed any. As of the date this report was written staff have not received any further suggestions for exploration. 4) Before and After School Care. Staff have heard that parents want to ensure there are Before and After School Care options closer to Cavell. Kathy O Sullivan provided an update on the work underway with the provider to try and ensure we can offer before and after school care at the Cavell site in a combination of an existing modular building and by using portables on site that are the property of Small Talk. It appears this is a viable solution and work now needs to take place with City of Vancouver licensing. 5) PDR For Cavell Parents have requested a copy of the full PDR be shared. The PDR has been posted to the Cavell Seismic page on the VSB website: Elementary-.aspx 6) Communication Parents expressed frustration with the communication process, with the lack of parent consultation up to this point, and about parameters for communication in the Memorandum of Understanding. David Nelson acknowledged that District and VPO communication with the parent community needs to be better and more transparent moving forward. A discussion of past processes for communication during seismic projects took place as Cavell parents have heard from other PACs that they were involved earlier in the process and received more information. There was discussion regarding the MOU, in place since 2014, which specifies that the VBE shall not select or publicly present a preferred option for a SMP project unless and until that option has been endorsed by the Steering Committee. 4

28 Staff made the commitment to improved communication with the Cavell parents, staff and community as the seismic project proceeds. It was noted that it is very important staff and parents both receive the same information, at the same time, and in a timely manner. NEXT STEPS: Staff will inform the Cavell PAC and staff as to the results of the examination of a potential alternate temporary accommodation site. Staff will schedule another meeting with the Cavell parents, in attendance at the November 6 th meeting, to follow up on items discussed and to determine how best to move forward with the parent community to ensure the seismic project stays on track. Vancouver Project Office staff will schedule an Open House to provide parents with information on the Cavell seismic project, to address outstanding parent questions, and to receive parent feedback. ATTACHMENTS: Attached to this report are the following documents, which will provide the Facilities Planning Committee members with more information on the District s seismic program. 1. Vancouver Project Office Memorandum of Understanding 2. An excerpt from the Ministry of Education Capital Plan instructions for seismic projects 3. Q and A Bulletin provided to Cavell parent community on November 2,

29 Attachment 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECT OFFICE (this "Agreement") is made and is in effect as of August 21st, 2017 (the "Effective Date"), BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, as represented by the Minister of Education (the "Province") AND: THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 39 (VANCOUVER) (the "VBE") 1. Context and Scope The Province and the VBE (individually, a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties") consider student safety to be a top priority, and have committed to reducing seismic risk to protect students through the Seismic Mitigation Program ("SMP") for schools. The primary objective of the SMP is to achieve a life-safety standard for schools by minimizing the probability of local structural collapse as a result of a seismic event. The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is to facilitate the establishment of a project office (the "VPO") to manage all of the VBE's SMP projects, to define the terms of reference for the VPO, the director (the "Director") and the steering committee (the "Steering Committee"), and to identify the respective roles and responsibilities of the VBE, the Province, the Steering Committee, the VPO and the Director. The Parties intend that the VBE will complete its SMP projects in an effective and efficient manner and within the parameters of the SMP. While the VPO is to be a part of the VBE, the intent is that the VPO will function with limited interaction with the day-to-day VBE operations. 2. Terms and Conditions 2.1 The VPO is hereby established to manage the SMP in the Vancouver school district. 2.2 The Steering Committee that shall provide oversight and direction to the VPO, and be comprised of the following members, is hereby established: two representatives of the VBE, being the VBE's Superintendent and Secretary- Treasurer, or their designates; and two representatives of the Province, including its Deputy Minister of Education and another Deputy Minister, or their designates. Additionally, staff of the VBE and the Province may be invited to attend meetings of the Steering Committee as non-voting members, as and when appropriate from time to time. AGK

30 2.3 The Steering Committee will be an advisory committee to the VBE and the Province. 2.4 The VPO shall be led by the Director, who will receive direction from the Steering Committee on issues related to the planning and implementation of seismic projects and the SMP in Vancouver. 2.5 The VBE shall not select or publicly present a preferred option for a SMP project unless and until that option has been endorsed by the Steering Committee. 2.6 Recommendations concerning individual projects agreed upon by the Steering Committee by consensus will be forwarded to the VBE and the Province for approval, as required. 2.7 If the Steering Committee does not reach a consensus on a recommendation for a specific project, then a report will be provided to the VBE and the Province outlining the respective positions. 2.8 The VPO's annual operating budget, including office lease costs, shall be approved by the Steering Committee and funded from SMP capital project budgets. 2.9 For the purposes of managing the SMP, the VPO will consist of project managers and other professional and support staff as are approved by the Steering Committee. 2. l 0 The Steering Committee shall be responsible for developing the qualifications and criteria required for the Director position. The Steering Committee will oversee the hiring of the Director through a competitive process. 2.1 l The Steering Committee will provide guidance regarding the overall structure of the VPO and approve and monitor the annual budget of the VPO The Director shall be responsible for staffing the VPO. VPO staff, including the Director, will be employees of the VBE The VBE staff currently engaged in delivering SMP projects may be assigned to the VPO, if agreed to by the Steering Committee The VPO is to develop a SMP implementation schedule annually, for approval by the VBE and the Province that enables the VBE to complete the SMP within a reasonable and achievable timeframe Building or site improvements will be funded by the SMP only where these are required as a result of necessary SMP structural work. The VBE, at its discretion, may provide AGK

31 additional funding from VBE resources to address building or site improvements not resulting from necessary SMP structural work Off-site improvements and code upgrades that are (i) required by authorities having jurisdiction as a condition of issuing permits for completion of SMP work, and (ii) approved by the Steering Committee, shall be considered SMP project costs to be funded by the Province SMP projects are expected to be upgrades to existing facilities and not full facility replacement projects, except where replacement is the lowest cost option Where temporary accommodation is required as a result of an SMP project, every reasonable effort will be made to provide accommodation in existing schools. Project costs will provide for transportation costs and reasonable costs for upgrades to host schools, where needed The Province's obligation to pay money to the VBE is subject to the Financial Administration Act, which makes that obligation subject to an appropriation being available in the fiscal year of the Province during which payment becomes due. 3. Term of MOU This MOU will be in force for a term of three years from the Effective Date. Provided that the Parties a g r e e t h e t e r m o f t h e M O U may b e extended at any time by written agreement, and either Party may terminate this Agreement on at least ninety days written notice to the other Party. 4. Roles and Responsibilities The Province (through the Ministry of Education), the VBE, the Steering Committee, the VPO and the Director shall have the respective roles and responsibilities set out in Schedule A attached hereto. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, by the authorized representative of the Minister of Education Name: Honourable Rob Fleming Title: Minister of Education Ministry of Education The Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) Per: Authorized Signatory Name: Dianne Turner Title: Official Trustee AGK

32 SCHEDULE A TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING VANCOUVER BOARD OF EDUCATION SEISMIC MITIGATION PROJECT OFFICE Roles and Responsibilities Province (through the Ministry of Education) Approval of supported projects. Approval of Project Definition Reports (PDRs). Approval of Project Agreements (PAs). Approval and provision of provincial funding for SMP projects. VBE Submit a long range facilities plan to the Province for approval annually Approval of PDRs. Approval of PAs. Approval and provision of VBE funding, if required, for additional costs as per Section Steering Committee Develop qualifications and criteria required for the VPO Director. Oversee hiring of VPO Director. Approve the annual budget for the VPO. Approve policies and procedures for the VPO. Recommend PDRs to VBE and the Province (Ministry of Education). Recommend PAs to VBE and the Province (Ministry of Education). Recommend scope, budget, and schedule changes to the VBE and the Province (Ministry of Education). VPO Director Responsible to the Steering Committee for the planning and delivery of seismic projects and the SMP in Vancouver. Responsible for ensuring project upgrades fit with the Province's (Ministry of Education's) and governments overall rules for seismic upgrade projects. Responsible for developing an annual VPO operating budget that must be approved by the Steering Committee. Responsible for hiring staff for the VPO. Responsible for the day-to-day operation of the VPO. VPO Responsible for completing Seismic Project Identification Reports (SPIRs) for supported projects. Responsible for completing PDRs for submission to the Steering Committee. Responsible for obtaining stakeholder input on PDRs, if required. Responsible for completing PAs for consideration by the Steering Committee. Responsible for implementing and completing projects with approved PAs. AGK

33 ITEM2.1 ATTACHMENT 2 FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING PART II: MAJOR CAPITAL FUNDING PROGRAMS 1 Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) 1.1 Background The Ministry has been allocated capital funds by the Province for the ongoing implementation of the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP). Capital funding has been committed to address the seismic mitigation of high risk schools identified in the SMP. The Five-Year Capital Plan submission allows the Ministry to annually identify the highest priority projects that should be considered for major capital investment. Critical to this identification is an assessment of current seismic risk. The Ministry engages structural engineering expertise regarding the assessment and mitigation of seismic risks to public school through the Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC). The EGBC has developed the Seismic Retrofit Guidelines (SRG), by which all seismic assessments and seismic mitigation work will be completed. All seismic risk assessments or seismic risk re-assessments of schools included under the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) must be pre-approved, in writing, by the Ministry. Boards of education will typically be responsible for funding the cost of a seismic risk assessment or seismic risk re-assessment, to be completed by a structural engineer possessing the most recent SRG training (currently in its 3rd edition as SRG3). If an approved seismic assessment or re-assessment of a school indicates a high seismic risk-rating, the documented results must be reported to the Ministry. The Ministry may then request the school district to complete a Seismic Project Identification Report (SPIR) for that school, which should be submitted as part of the Five-Year Capital Plan submission along with a Seismic Project Request Fact Sheet (SPRFS), for SMP projects. (See Appendix G: Seismic Project Request Fact Sheet) The SPIR is a specifically formatted report that was developed by EGBC for the Ministry, which is to be used by SRG-trained structural engineers to document seismic mitigation options for a seismically deficient block in a school. A SPIR will define the preliminary scoping and costing for the different options being proposed. EGBC has provided a guideline for the completion of a SPIR, which also includes fee structures for structural engineers. (See Appendix F: Seismic Project Identification Report Guidelines) The seismic risk rating criteria established by EGBC for public schools are, as follows: High 1 (H1) - structures at highest risk of widespread damage or structural failure; not repairable after event. Structural and non-structural upgrades required. High 2 (H2) - structures at high risk of widespread damage or structural failure; likely not repairable after event. Structural and non-structural upgrades required.

34 ITEM2.1 ATTACHMENT 2 FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING High 3 (H3) - isolated failure to building elements (such as walls), are expected; building likely not repairable after event. Structural and non-structural upgrades required. Medium - isolated damage to building elements is expected; non-structural elements (such as bookshelves, lighting) are at risk of failure. Non-structural upgrades may be required. Low - least vulnerable structure; isolated damage may be expected with building probably repairable after event. Non-structural upgrades may be required. 1.2 SMP Project Prioritization Priority for funding of seismic projects primarily includes consideration of the level of risk, with the funding of H1, H2 and H3 risks receiving the highest priority consideration by the Ministry. When prioritizing a school for a SMP project, a school district should consider factors such as the following: The risk rating of school blocks are H1 or H2 or H3 The LRFP identifies that the school is essential for providing continued education programming for students in the school district The LRFP identifies the local circumstances that will corroborate the continued student enrolment in the future A SPIR has already been submitted in response to a Ministry request Availability of adequate student space at neighbouring schools to accommodate current and forecasted student enrolment Consolidation of students in neighbouring school(s) Seismic strengthening of existing school Seismic strengthening and partial replacement of existing school Full replacement on the existing site Full replacement on a new site The Facility Condition Index (FCI) for the school Consideration of Life Cycle Costs (LCC) for each option, as the cost of ongoing maintenance over the remaining physical life of an asset is an important financial factor, beyond just capital costs. 1.3 SMP Site Acquisition (not applicable for the VSB) 1.4 SMP Project Submission Requirements Review and update any SMP project that was submitted in the Capital Plan Intake Spreadsheet for the previous Five-Year Capital Plan submission Submit a SPIR for each new high-priority project to be considered for funding under the SMP, along with a SPRFS

35 ITEM2.1 ATTACHMENT 2 FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING Any SMP project that was previously supported by the Ministry, but is not yet approved with a signed Capital Project Funding Agreement, must be included in the Capital Plan Intake Spreadsheet and ranked as a high-priority Boards of education are responsible for funding the costs to complete a SPIR and SPRFS. 1.5 Supported SMP Projects The Ministry will inform a school district of its supported SMP projects in the Capital Plan Response Letter. The letter will instruct the school district to develop a Project Definition Report that provides a more detailed business case for each of the feasible seismic mitigation options. While the least cost option is preferred by Government, the Ministry may consider recommending a higher cost option if the board of education can demonstrate a commitment for cost-sharing. If the least cost option is pursued, boards of education are not required to make a cost-sharing commitment for a projects approved under the SMP.

36 Attachment 3

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45 Date November 14, 2018 To: Facilities Planning Committee ITEM 2.2 From: Re: D. Green, Secretary Treasurer J. Dawson, Director of Educational Planning Long Range Facilities Plan Overview REFERENCE TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship Objectives: Effectively utilize school District resources and facilities INTRODUCTION: This report is for information only. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Committee regarding revisions to the District s Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) and to provide an overview regarding the goals, priorities and District context that form the basis for the LRFP. Reference Documents: Ministry of Education Capital Plan Instructions 2018/19 Appendix G Long Range Facilities Plan Guidelines Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Vancouver Board of Education Seismic Mitigation Project Office Aug 21, 2017 LRFP RATIONALE and REQUIREMENTS: The Long Range Facilities Plan Guidelines published by the Ministry sets out the rationale and requirements for school districts with respect to developing and maintaining a current LRFP. Rationale: A LRFP is a mechanism for school districts to effectively demonstrate that proper facility planning is taking place in support of the District s educational plan over a 10-year window. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

46 The fundamental premise of the LRFP is to provide a mechanism for districts to demonstrate they are managing their facilities in an effective, economic and efficient way in support of their educational goals. The LRFP places the need for capital projects in a district-wide context and becomes the basis for submission of capital project requests by the District and for investment decisions by the Ministry. LRFP Development Criteria The Ministry requires that LRFPs meet the following criteria: Be developed, maintained and made available upon Ministry s request. Have the concurrence of the appropriate Ministry Planning Officer (PO) prior to being approved by the Board. Be in planning, development or finalized upon receiving the Capital Plan Instructions which are usually received by the District in March or April The LRFP is expected to be developed in accordance with all Regulations, Orders-In- Council, School Act Ministerial Orders as well as Ministry Policies, Instructions and Guidelines provided by the Ministry. Maintaining and Updating the LRFP The Ministry requires that as part of their annual Five-Year Capital Plan submission, the Board will certify that no significant changes have occurred within the District that warrant a revision to the LRFP. In general LRFPs remain valid until they are changed and are not required to be revised or resubmitted annually. Vancouver has agreed to submit a LRFP to the province for approval annually due to the ongoing seismic mitigation program (SMP). Planning Requirements The Ministry has identified the following requirements for an LRFP: Educational programs operating within the District Future trends or anticipated new initiatives, including both those of the school District and the government Current District enrolment and forecast enrolment trends for 10 years Potential reconfiguration of District programs Current capacity of all facilities, including temporary accommodation and/or rental facilities How maintenance of the District s permanent facilities will be carried out Building condition of all the District s facilities Implementation of sustainability initiatives to meet the goals of the Province Use of temporary accommodation including rental or leased space Transportation of students Further details regarding the terms of reference and framework for the LRFP are available from the Ministry of Education Capital Plan Instructions 2018/19 Appendix G Long Range Facilities Plan Guidelines. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

47 VSB LRFP OVERVIEW: The purpose of creating an LRFP is to provide the District with a detailed 10-year roadmap that coordinates District activities and informs decision-making processes that impact enrolment, student programs, and facilities usage and condition. The two overarching goals for the LRFP are to ensure that the District maximizes operating funds directed for student programs and services and provides safe schools that best serve the needs of students in their communities. The LRFP sets the following priorities that will enable the District to move towards the overarching goals of the LRFP: Provide seismically safe schools for all students Reduce surplus capacity Balance enrolment demand with available space Effectively manage capital assets The guiding principles from the 2016 LRFP have been updated to better reflect the close alignment between the LRFP and the District Strategic Plan (VSB 2021). Guiding Principles from 2016 LRFP Safe and sustainable schools Facilities that support innovative educational approaches, and ultimately provide effective learning environments Schools located where they can support school-aged populations now and in the future Planning that considers economic, community, and environmental benefits for students, families, and all citizens of Vancouver Improved Facility Conditions Updated Guiding Principles for 2018 LRFP Improve the overall safety and quality of facilities Plan for innovative learning environments that promote student engagement, student inclusion, and the delivery of diverse high quality programs Effectively use school District resources and facilities in alignment with long-term financial and sustainability goals Work towards a future where all students wishing to attend their catchment school have the option to do so Sustain and strengthen relationships with the City of Vancouver, and community partners to facilitate the delivery of services to the broader community Enrolment Trends The District has experienced enrolment decline since In 2017 there were 7,500 fewer students attending District schools than in 1997 which represents a 14.4% reduction in of enrolment. Further enrolment decline is forecast with approximately 2,300 fewer students expected to be enrolled in 2027 than in Enrolment decline was first felt disproportionately at elementary schools as the number of children being born in Vancouver declined and smaller grade cohorts moved through the system. Secondary schools experienced the majority of enrolment decline between 2011 and In the future, enrolment decline will be relatively balanced across all grades. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

48 K-12 Headcount Market share measures the number of students enrolling in VSB schools compared with the population of children living within the boundaries of the VSB. VSB market share has remained stable for the past several years. A stable market share indicates that the VSB is not experiencing a significant net loss of students to other school Districts or independent schools. Along with the decline in the number of children living in the District, the neighbourhoods in the District where families reside have changed significantly over time. There are large areas of the city, including the Northeast, Southeast, Central South, and West, that have experienced significant enrolment decline. In these areas schools are operating with large numbers of surplus student seats. At the same time, enrolment pressure has increased in a large portion of the District including areas of Kitsilano, Downtown, Fairview, and the Cambie corridor. Overall, in 2017 the District had a surplus capacity of 8600 seats with significant surplus capacity localized in specific areas. Figure 1 shows the enrolment history and forecast between 2012 and The orange reference line is the current total operating capacity for the District (58766 seats) VSB Enrolment History and Forecast and Current Operating Capacity Figure 1: VSB Enrolment History and Forecast Facility Capacity Utilization K-12 Headcount Operating Capacity The Ministry of Education provides classroom capacity averages (standards) to be used in determining operating capacity for each school. The District determines the operating capacity for each school by using the ministry standards in conjunction with information about the number and type of enrolling classroom space at schools. Operating capacity provides an indication of the number of students that can be reasonably accommodated at a school but is by no means definitive in this regard. Operating capacity is also used to determine capacity utilization which is the ratio of the student enrollment divided by operating capacity. Capacity utilization can be determined for the entire District, an area or zone in the District, or an individual school. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9) Year

49 Many of the schools in the District have low capacity utilization, meaning that they enroll a lower number of students than the defined operating capacity. Capacity utilization for VSB schools ranges from 18% to 159%. Table 1 shows the District capacity utilization for Table 1 - District Capacity Utilization Operating Capacity Enrolment *50374 District Capacity Utilization 85.7% *2017 enrolment includes International fee paying students. Facilities Condition The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is an industry standard index that measures the relative condition of a facility by considering the costs of deferred maintenance and repairs as a percentage of replacement value. An annual audit process determines the estimated cost of deferred maintenance for each VSB facility which is then used to determine its FCI. The total estimated deferred maintenance for VSB facilities is $819M. A low FCI rating indicates better building condition than a high FCI rating. The FCI for VSB schools ranges from 0.0 (for newly built or replaced schools) to Seismic Mitigation Program The District operates a large inventory of old schools, most of which require seismic upgrading to meet current safety standards. Since 2006 there has been an ongoing Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) to upgrade or replace seismically unsafe schools. To date, 31 have been newly built or have moved through the SMP and are seismically safe with a total operating capacity for 17,000 students. There are 77 schools that are not yet seismically safe in the VSB with a total operating capacity of 41,500 seats. Of these 77 schools, 62 are categorized as high risk and 15 are categorized as low to medium risk during a seismic event. In order to advance priorities identified in the Capital Plan for seismic upgrading the District will need to consider decreasing the capacity of schools where appropriate, and school consolidation to address the issue of surplus capacity at schools in surrounding catchments. When schools are being upgraded through the SMP there is often a requirement for temporary accommodation to support seismic projects. The province requires the District to use surplus capacity available before portables will be funded for temporary accommodation. The District has made a commitment to the province to make every reasonable effort to provide temporary accommodation to support seismic projects in schools with surplus capacity. The District has identified several temporary accommodation sites at schools with sufficient surplus capacity to use as the SMP proceeds. The mandate of the SMP is to provide sufficient seismically safe seats to meet the enrollment needs of the District. The consequence of not reducing the surplus capacity in the District will be that at the conclusion of the SMP there will be schools in the District that have not been seismically upgraded. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

50 Funding for Capital Projects and the SMP For each seismic upgrade project the feasibility of three possible options is analyzed. The three options are as follows: An upgrade of the existing building(s) to bring it up to current seismic safety standards. A partial replacement whereby some of the existing building is seismically upgraded and a new portion for the school is built. A full replacement where an entirely new school is built generally on a different location of the same school property. The province provides funds for the lowest cost option identified by the feasibility study. The District has the option of contributing capital funds to enhance seismic projects or advance new school construction. Capital Asset Management To address the priority of effectively managing its capital assets, the District has undertaken a significant review to support its goal of Sustainable Educational Service Delivery. Sound asset management practices will lead to informed decisions in the effective and efficient delivery of educational programs. The Asset Management Plan being developed will shift the District s approach to facilities related decisions from a reactive focus to a proactive and systematic process. The new approach to capital asset management is a priority of the LRFP and will be coordinated and aligned with District priorities. Key Requirements to Meet LRFP Priorities The following list articulates the key requirements to successfully implement the LRFP. Clear alignment of District priorities Staff capacity to complete work Support of the Board of Education Public support and awareness Clear process and expectations CONCLUSION: The Long Range Facilities Plan will meet the requirements set out by the Ministry and will serve as a detailed planning roadmap for the District which aligns with the goals of the Strategic Plan. The LRFP sets the District on a path to achieve the following goals: Maximize operating funds directed to student programs and services Provide safe schools that best serve the needs of students in their communities The District context for the LRFP includes the following factors: Declining Enrolment Surplus capacity in large areas of the District Select areas with enrolment pressure. Older facilities with high deferred maintenance costs S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

51 An ongoing Seismic Mitigation program that has requirements for temporary accommodations for students Provincial funding parameters for seismic upgrades and new capital projects Timeline Early December draft preliminary LRFP available to trustees for feedback December 8, 2018 Trustee Orientation Session Mid- December - Early January - Draft Preliminary LRFP available to stakeholders for feedback Mid- December - Early January Stakeholder workshop January 23, 2019 Draft LRFP and report to Facilities Planning Committee RECOMMENDATION(S): This report is provided for information. S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\ Nov 14\ITEM Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

52 Long Range Facilities Plan Overview Facilities Planning Committee Nov 14, 2018

53 What is a Long Range Facilities Plan A detailed 10 year roadmap that coordinates district activities and informs decision making processes that impact, enrolment, student programs, and facilities usage and condition. The LRFP is a Ministry of Education requirement for all school districts

54 What are the goals for Implementation LRFP? Maximize operating funds directed for student programs and services Provide safe schools that best serve the needs of students in their communities

55 Vancouver School Board LRFP Priorities Seismically safe students for all students Reduce surplus capacity Balance enrolment demand with available space Effectively manage capital assets

56 Guiding Principles from 2016 LRFP Safe and sustainable schools Facilities that support innovative educational approaches, and ultimately provide effective learning environments Schools located where they can support school aged populations now and in the future Planning that considers economic, community, and environmental benefits for students, families, and all citizens of Vancouver Improved Facility Conditions

57 Updated Guiding Principles Improve the overall safety and quality of facilities. Plan for innovative learning environments that promote student engagement, student inclusion, and the delivery of diverse high quality programs. Effectively use school District resources and facilities in alignment with long term financial and sustainability goals. Work towards a future where all students wishing to attend their catchment school have the option to do so. Sustain and strengthen relationships with the City of Vancouver, and community partners to facilitate the delivery of services to the broader community.

58 Enrolment Context Declining enrolment since 1997 Further enrolment decline forecast Stable market share the proportion of 5 17 year old children attending VSB schools versus independent schools is relatively constant Large portions (areas) of Vancouver where schools have surplus capacity Large portion of Vancouver with with insufficient capacity

59 VSB Enrolment History and Forecast and Current Operating Capacity K 12 Headcount K 12 Headcount Operating Capacity Year

60 Market Share = Enr/Pop* Percentage Market Share %

61

62 Facilities Capacity Utilization Table 1 District Capacity Utilization Operating Capacity Enrolment *50374 District Capacity Utilization 85.7% *2017 enrolment includes International fee paying students.

63 Facilities Condition A large inventory of old schools that require seismic upgrading An ongoing Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) to upgrade (or replace) schools Requirement for temporary accommodation to support Seismic Projects Total District deferred maintenance is in excess of $800M

64 Consequence of not addressing surplus capacity When the SMP work is complete there will be sufficient safe seats to meet our district enrolment needs; however the district will still have many schools that have not been seismically upgraded.

65 Funding for Capital Projects and SMP The province funds the lowest cost option to provide seismically safe schools The province requires the District to utilize surplus capacity before they will fund portables The District has committed to making 'every reasonable effort' to provide temporary accommodation in existing schools with surplus capacity The District has the option to contribute funds to enhance seismic projects or advance new school construction

66 Key Requirements to Meet Priorities Clear alignment of District priorities Staff capacity to complete work Support of the Board of Education Public support and awareness Clear process and expectations

67 Next Steps Early December Draft Preliminary LRFP available for feedback December 8 Trustee Orientation Session Mid December Early January Stakeholder workshop January 23, 2019 Draft LRFP and report to Facilities Planning Committee