Cedar Elementary

PAC SCC Information

Background

School District 68 staff revealed a “scaled-back” construction plan for the conversion of the Cedar

Secondary School, into an elementary school at the March 13 Board Business Meeting. Woodbank and

NCI PAC hosted a SCC (School Construction Committee) community information session at Cedar

Secondary on the evening of April 8th.

The result of this presentation was an action item by community members to create a petition

requesting PAC present community concerns at the next Board meeting.

>>> SIGN THE PETITION (BEFORE APR 12) <<<

This document is an online summary of the presentation given on April 8th and includes three separate

documents:

PowerPoint Slides

Slides shown at the April 8th meeting. (They were designed to be self-supporting, i.e., they should be

understandable and make sense just by flipping through them). They present information about the

make-up of the school construction committee, it’s role in the process, the timeline of events, final plans

from the committee, “scaled-back” plans from the district, concerns, how the project is funded & then

community input action item. (Which resulted in the petition).

Final Architect Drawings

(ADDED) These were not available in time to show at the April 8th meeting, but included are final

architectural plans that resulted from the School Construction Committee (finalized in January, not

shared with the School Construction Committee until March 13th & not provided in digital form until the

afternoon of April 8th) These are the agreed-upon SCC plans that the District scrapped because they

can’t afford to do all of the work.

2014/15 AFG Action Sheet

Presented by Pete Sabo (Director of Planning & Operations) to the Board Business Committee on March

13th, the AFG (Annual Facilities Grant) Action sheet outlines how the AFG money will be spent for the

year and outlines implications of using AFG money for the Cedar Secondary school conversion project.

Cedar Elementary School Construction Committee

Information

What will Cedar Elementary Look Like?

What is an “Enhanced” facility?

Woodbank/NCI PAC Information Session – April 8, 2014

BEGIN THE PRESENTATION

What is the School Construction Committee?

The School Construction Committee (SCC) is made up of:

◦ District Building Committee Reps

◦ Zone Trustee*

◦ Architect

◦ School principal

◦ Staff Representative (1)

◦ Parent Representative (2) + alternates

◦ DPAC representative (Alana Cameron) so Cedar was well represented

What is the School Construction Committee?

The SCC “shall review the construction schedule, make recommendations to the District Building Committee regarding school construction and design, and arrange for consultation with the school staff and school community.”

From SD68 Procedure #4005

Further information on community consultation for Cedar Elementary

“The repurposing of the Cedar Secondary building to an elementary school offers exciting opportunities for elementary education in the Cedar community. Consultation with parents during the planning process will result in a facility and school educational philosophy that is supported by the majority of Cedar parents.”

- Superintendent Hutchinson Report to Trustees, October 23, 2013

Timeline of SCC

The School Construction Committee (SCC) began meeting without parent reps at the beginning of November.

On November 15, 2013 the SCC started including PAC appointed representatives in the meetings.

There were a total of 3 meetings with parent reps present.

Timeline continued…

At meetings in which parents were present they expressed concern over outside facilities of the school because it is known in the community that the two fields closest to the school are not useable during the school year

Also raised issues over: height of bathroom fixtures, safety of second floor mezzanine, importance of use of foods rooms for community schools programs, window heights, traffic safety, lack of exterior doors in 1st-floor classrooms, etc.

Timeline Continued

The district staff invited the facilities team to do an inventory on the outside spaces at the two elementary schools and Cedar Secondary to ensure they would be up to similar or better than the outside facilities we currently have at Woodbank and NCI.

Also invited them to give their opinion on what needs to be changed throughout the building to make it safe and useable for elementary students.

Inventory of school grounds

North Cedar Woodbank Cedar Secondary

Costing

Playground 847 m2

Playground 845 m2

Playground None

$160 000

Hard Surface 1564 m2

Hard Surface 1545 m2

Hard Surface 593 m2

????

Field Area 17212 m2

Field Area 30140 m2

Field Area (usable) 3995 m2

????

SD68 chart

List of Considerations

Field upgrade

Cubbies

White board heights (need to be adjusted)

Desk Heights

Computer Lab desk heights

Locker heights

Field access

SD68 List

Facilities concerns continued

Shop wing (noise and access)

Wood Storage area outside (what use)

No hot or cold water in most classrooms

Sinks with drinking fountains for primary classrooms (grades K-3)

Washrooms for kindergarten and strong start

Existing bathroom vanities need to be lowered

District list

Facilities concerns continued…

Existing urinals need to be lowered

Drinking fountains lowered

Electric hand dryers/mirrors/soap dispensers lowered

H/cap washroom-currently used for storage

Fencing along the outer parameter, some open spots.

Portable (move or remain)

District list

Timeline continued…

Throughout the meetings, the district staff continued to assert the enrolment numbers for Cedar Elementary would be over 400 students.

The parent reps on the committee strongly objected to this, but were told that the construction committee was not the place to discuss this (Staff follows board direction; Board defers to staff, as they are the experts)

The parent reps strongly disagreed with this assertion since the total population of the school would heavily influence the degree of changes made to the school building.

Timeline continued:

On December 10th, after three meetings, the committee had agreed on a plan for the interior of the school (still based on a projected enrollment of 425)

The district agreed that at the next meeting the SCC would focus on talking about the outside of the school

Agreed on ground floor design

Agreed on second floor design

SCC timeline continued:

There was no SCC meeting for three months. Despite emails and questions from PAC representatives on the committee, no meetings were set.

On March 6 the SCC received an email summoning the committee to a meeting on March 13 to learn “new information”, which was 4 hours before staff presented the plan to the Board business committee (no agenda sent, emails about agenda went unanswered, architect was not present during the meeting).

SCC timeline continued: With North Oyster staying open & obvious increased in

project costs, PAC parents thought maybe the plan had been revisited and changed?

The March 13th agenda was a surprise.

District reported recent* enrolment projections now showed that Cedar Elementary would have 277 students (*These projections were done in November & not shared with the SCC committee)

As a result, the project would be a “*scaled back” renovation (*Same budget, same enrolment of approx. 400 students – scale back was because project cost far exceeded original estimates)

District slide

District slide

District slide

District slide

The new elementary school will feature a number of enhanced facilities that are already in the building, including:

List of Enhancements

District slide

• Large library • Two gyms • Woodshop • Art room • Music room • Drama stage • Servery/storage support • Multipurpose room • Large administration area • Large counselling area

The new elementary school will feature a number of enhanced facilities that are already in the building, including (with SCC concerns):

List of Enhancements

District slide

• Large library • Two gyms • Woodshop • Art room – No dedicated art instructor • Music room – No dedicated music instructor • Drama stage • Servery/storage support • Multipurpose room – Common area, not a room • Large admin area – For much-reduced admin staff • Large counselling area – For floating, single counselor

Mothballed & locked – Not accessible to students or community (How can this be considered an enhancement?)

What is not being done:

Fields will not be fixed so they drain properly

Traffic safety will not be addressed

Counter heights stay the same

Foods rooms (2) planned to be hybrid-classrooms (with one or two food “stations” left in the back of each room)

Lockers remain – same height/location

Mezzanine safety will not be addressed

No small learning communities, no collaboration spaces

What is not being done No exterior doors from 1st-floor classes (may be addressed

according to budget)

Window heights not being lowered (not even in kindergarten room)

Washroom fixtures (sinks, toilets, urinals) may be lowered according to principal’s discretion & budget

Water fountains may be lowered according to principal’s discretion & budget

No washrooms or kitchen in Kindergarten classrooms.

Caveat: These assertions are based on SCC understanding of handouts and discussions from the March 13th SCC meeting (small drawings, unfinished discussion & our represents our current understanding – some of these may/may not be addressed. Much depends on actual costs. We have not been provided many cost estimates, digital plans, etc.)

A first-grade child standing in a puddle on one of the fields.

The fields are currently

“condemned” and un-usable from October 1 through May 1 (according to facilities). This is 7 of 10 school months.

How is this being funded?

The district will be using approx. half of their “Annual Facilities Grant” (AFG) over the next two years.

The Ministry of Education defines the AFG as: “The Annual Facility Grant is intended for annual facility projects required to maintain facility assets through their anticipated economic life and to prevent premature deterioration of these assets.”

What does this mean?

The budget for this project remains $2 million.

The Ministry of Education deems anything over $1.5 million to be a “major capital project” and requires that districts submit separate requests + “Project Identification Reports” (PIR). No PIR was done for this project.

Our district chose not to follow those guidelines and instead use maintenance money (earmarked for projects at other, older schools) for the next two years to pay for the project.

What does this mean?

At the business committee meeting on March 13, Pete Sabo (Director of Facilities) stated that “some high priority district wide annual programs, including roof replacement, flooring, anti-vandalism and painting have been reallocated to support the Cedar Elementary priority.”

See “Board of Education of School District 68 Action Sheet” (included in your handout) for more information on the use of the AFG to fund the renovation. (Included with this document, after the last slide)

Next Steps: PAC wants to get your input

Is this an elementary school we’re excited about and one the community wants, as D. Hutchinson said?

Do we want PAC to represent the school communities views on this at the next Board meeting to outline parent concerns & present alternatives?

Q+A session, open mic … let’s hear from everyone. (Thanks to everyone for coming out).

END OF PRESENTATION

BEGIN ARCHITECT DRAWINGS

These are the final plans agreed upon by the School Construction Committee (which were then "scaled-back" by the District, becausethey cannot afford to do all of this work). YET ... the budget never changed. It was $2MM from start to finish. This is the school we were led to believe we would get ... and are now told we won't.

END ARCHITECT DRAWINGS

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 68

ACTION SHEET

TO: Business Committee

FROM: Pete Sabo, Director of Planning and Operations Brent Spohn, Facilities Planning Supervisor

DATE: March 13, 2014

SUBJECT: 2014/15 Annual Facility Grant (AFG)

REFERENCE:

2014-15 AFG Plan – Enhanced Facilities for Learning Priorities (1 page attached).

BACKGROUND:

Each year the Ministry of Education announces the amount of the Annual Facility Grant, to be used by the Districts for projects that meet Ministry of Education Policy 1.1.100.

DISCUSSION:

The Ministry of Education is expected to announce status quo AFG funding on or about March 15, 2014. For 2013-14 School District 68 was allocated a total of $2,613,085. The operating portion was reduced by a contribution of $70,946 toward the continuing implementation of Capital Asset Management Services. A further, yet unknown, contribution to the Ministry initiative to upgrade PL Net is anticipated.

It is expected that all school districts will have to provide the Ministry with 2014-15 AFG plan and cash flow before any funding is allocated.

Past practice suggests that the Ministry of Education will also advise School Districts that:

Existing AFG balances must be fully utilized.

Once the operating portion of the allocation is expended a Certificate of Approval for the capital portion of the allocation will be granted.

A capital bylaw will be required before the Certificate of Approval is issued.

A plan for the expenditure of this anticipated AFG funding has been developed considering the following:

Priority support for the Ten Year Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan.

The remainder of the plan varies from past years as some high priority District wide annual programs including roof replacement, flooring, and painting have been reallocated to support the District priority. This work becomes portions of 10-Year Plan projects. Painting, roofing, flooring and other trade work will be done but in varying amounts as needed to support the focused goals of the District.

S:\FACdept\AFG\2014-15 AFG\PRESENTATION PACKAGE\ACTION SHEETS\March 10\AFG Action Sheet - 2014-15 100314 1438.docx

BEGIN AFG ACTION SHEET

Page 2

IMPLICATIONS:

The AFG process for the next few years is considerably different from past years.

Ten-Year Plan priorities have put significant budget pressures on the 2014-15 & 2015-16 AFG cycles

Planning, budgeting and implementing Ten-Year Plan priorities is complex Educational planning is dynamic and continually evolving The consequence of limited and dynamic planning is less certainty

Less certainty regarding facilities requirements Less certainty regarding budgets

The jeopardy and risk of completing major capital projects like the Cedar Conversion with Annual Facility Grant funding are noteworthy:

o Capital projects can span more than one year (as does the Cedar Conversion) o Annual Facility Grant funding cycles are fixed and funding cannot be carried over o Annual Facility Grant funding for 2014-15 has not been announced o Funding for 2015-16 is not assured and will not be announced for approximately one year o Established timelines limit planning time o Limited and/or incomplete planning makes cost estimates less reliable o Larger contingencies and a choice of fall back options are required

The table below summarizes proposed spending by Ministry AFG category:

# MINISTRY AFG CATEGORY BUDGET % OF BUDGET

1 Roof Replacements $100,000 4.3%

2 Mechanical System Upgrades $250,000 10.74%

3 Electrical System Upgrades $250,000 10.74%

4 Facility Upgrade $0 0%

5 Loss Prevention Projects $0 0%

6 Functional Improvements $1,612,500 69.28%

7 Technology Infrastructure Upgrades $45,000 1.93%

8 Site Upgrades $0 0%

9 Disabled Access $0 0%

10 Asbestos Abatement $0 3.01%

11 Health and Safety Upgrades $70,000 0%

12 Site Servicing $0 0%

TOTAL ALLOCATED BUDGET $2,327,500 100.00%

EMERGENT PROJECTS AND CONTINGENCY $305,687

CAMS CONTRIBUTION $70,946

ESTIMATED PL NET UPGRADE CONTRIBUTION $60,000

TOTAL ANTICPATED FUNDING $2,613,085

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education that the 2014-15 Annual Facility Grant Plan in the value of $2,613,085 be approved.

ANNUAL FACIITY GRANT - PROPOSED THREE YEAR PLANSPENDING FOCUS: 10-YR ENHANCED FACILITIES FOR LEARNING PRIORITIES

S:\FACdept\AFG PROJECT PLANNING\AFG 2013-14\PLANNING\ADVANCE PLANNING\MAR 2014\10\Multi Year AFG Cash Flow 100314.xlsx

RecommendedProgram or project Comments 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Cedar Secondary - Conversion to Elementary (10 Year Plan) $2M implemented over two AFG years. Budget amounts are based on a Class "C" estimate provided by Unitech Construction Management. Project is comprised of core alterations required to convert from a secondary to an elementary based on expected enrollment.

$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0

John Barsby-Cedar Secondary Consolidation (10 Year Plan) 2013-14 includes renos to Life Skills and part of the Home Economics project. 2014-15 project will complete the Home Economics renovation and undertake a Textiles room renovation.

$120,000 $200,000 $475,000

Ladysmith Secondary Grade 7's - Cedar Secondary Consolidation (10 Year Plan) Minor alterations to three or four rooms in the school are required in the school to accommodate incoming Grade 7's. Re-open three portables currently on site.

$150,000 $0 $0

NDSS-VAST Consolidation (10 Year Plan) Alterations to Rooms 164 &166 and relocation of 3 portables from Five Acres to NDSS in support of the Junior Learning Alternatives construction program. $142,500 $85,000 $0

Ladysmith Primary-Ecole Davis Road Consolidation (10 Year Plan) Relocate portables from Davis Road to Ladysmith Primary and provide supporting infrastructure. Receiving school enhancements or alterations follow in subsequent years if necessary.

$200,000 $25,000 $25,000

Ladysmith Intermediate-Ecole Davis Road Consolidation (10 Year Plan) Open closed rooms as required. Receiving school enhancements follow in subsequent years if necessary. $0 $25,000 $25,000

North Oyster-Ecole Davis Road Consolidation (10 Year Plan) Open closed rooms as required and relocate displaced functions in 2014-15. Receiving school enhancements follow in subsequent years if necessary. $0 $25,000 $25,000

Strategic Energy Management Plan The Strategic Energy Management Plan objective for 2014-2015 is to meet BC Hydro Energy Manger Electrical Reduction targets with the installation of automated lighting controls.

$250,000 $250,000 $250,000

Priority Boiler Replacement Priority life cycle boiler replacement subject to the financial requirements of 10-Year Plan projects being satisfied. $250,000 $250,000 $350,000

Maintain Pea Gravel Levels at Playground Equipment This project is a priority Maintenance Department safety item. $45,000 $45,000 $45,000

Re-roofing Program Year 1 and Year 2 have Roofing Program funding is reallocated to 10-Year Plan Initiatives. This budget partially funds the roofer's salary. $100,000 $200,000 $600,000

Information Systems Upgrades This funding maintains the existing program and supports the District's "IT Strategic Plan". $45,000 $45,000 $45,000

Top Dress Playfields This project is a priority Maintenance Department safety item. $25,000 $25,000 $45,000

Provincial PL Net Upgrade Contribution Placeholder for anticipated Ministry of Education mandated initiative. $60,000 $0 $0

Capital Asset Management Services Ministry of Education mandated contribution to province-wide Capital Asset Management Services. $70,946 $70,946 $70,946

Flooring Replacement Program Funding for Year 1 and Year 2 of this ongoing program has been reallocated to flooring replacement in support of the 10-Year Plan. $0 $0 $100,000

Pre-painting repairs to facility exteriors Funding for Year 1 and Year 2 of this ongoing program has been reallocated to pre-painting repairs in support of the 10-Year Plan. $0 $0 $50,000

Exterior Painting Program Funding for Year 1 and Year 2 of this ongoing program has been reallocated to painting in support of the 10-Year Plan. $0 $0 $100,000

Capital Upgrades - Portables Funding for Year 1 of this ongoing program has been reallocated to portable moves in support of the 10-Year Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan. $0 $25,000 $25,000

Non-Structural Seismic Program Funding for Year 1 and 2 of the ongoing program has been reallocated to non-structural seismic in support of the 10-Year Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan.

$0 $0 $85,000

Anti-Vandalism Inititiatives Funding for Year 1 of this ongoing program has been reallocated to anti-vandalism initiatives in support of the 10-Year Enhanced Facilities for Learning Plan. $0 $20,000 $20,000

Contingency Significance of 10-Year Plan spending and unknowns make carrying a contingency fiscally prudent. If available, contingency will also fund emergent high priortity school based projects (subject to review and approval by Learning Services).

$154,639 $322,139 $277,139

Total $2,613,085 $2,613,085 $2,613,085Status quo AFG funding $2,613,085 $2,613,085 $2,613,085

Variance $0 $0 $0

AFG YEARProposed

END OF AFG ACTION SHEET