NOTICE OF MEETING Vancouver School Board Treasurer’s ......Oliver Hanson Carmen Cho Jennifer Reddy Suzanne Hoffman, Superintendent of Schools J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer

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 Karin Bernauer, VESTA

Angela Haveman, VASSA

Harjinder Sandhu, VEPVPA Doug Roch/David Murphy, VEPVPA

Tim Chester, IUOE Tim De Vivo, IUOE

Melissa Werfl, PASA Peter Powell, PASA

Thomas Leung, CUPE 15

Anne Montgomery, DPAC Allison Tredwell/Amanda Hillis, DPAC

Stephen Kelly, Trades Raymond Szczecinski, Trades

Brent Boyd, CUPE 407

Fiona Chang, VDSC

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

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

COMMITTEE MEETING

FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE

Wednesday, November 14, 2018 at 5:00 pm

Room 180, VSB Education Centre

AGENDA

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


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

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

Facilities Planning Committee

2.1 Purpose/Function:

2.1.1 To review and provide recommendations to the Board in regard to assigned facilities planning

matters.

2.2 Powers and Duties:

2.2.1 School Closures:

2.2.1.1 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.

2.2.2 Naming and Renaming Schools:

2.2.2.1 Within the constraints of Board direction provided at the outset of any potential school

naming or renaming process provide recommendations to the Board.

2.2.3 Student Enrolment:

2.2.3.1 Annually review enrolment and enrolment trends and the potential impact on capital

planning, student accommodation and catchment changes.

2.2.4 Capital Planning:

2.2.4.1 Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft five year capital plan

for submission to the BC Ministry of Education.

2.2.5 Long Range Facilities Plan:

2.2.5.1 Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft long range facilities

plan for submission to the BC Ministry of Education.

2.2.6 Facilities Planning Matters Referred to the Committee by the Board:

2.2.6.1 Review matters referred and make recommendations as requested.

Edith Cavell Elementary Seismic PresentationFacilities and Planning Committee

Presented by Kevin Harris on behalf of the Edith Cavell PAC

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)

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

⚫ 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

Cavell Moves Up Seismic List To Combine with Expansion

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.”

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)

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.

Ministry Project Support

Consultant Team Selection

Vancouver Project Office (VPO)

PDR Development

Internal VSB Steering Committee

VPO Steering Committee

Endorsement of Preferred Option

Public Consultation

Committee IIEndorsement of Preferred PDR

Option

BoardApproval of PDR

Option

Committee IIProject Agreement

Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction

Typically an annual submission

Timing varies

6 months to a year

• Review PDR options• Project Team

recommendation of preferred option

• Target 3 months public consultation on preferred PDR option

• Target 6 months for this stage

VANCOUVER PROJECT OFFICE - PDR AND APPROVAL PROCESS

• Elementary: 3 to 4 years

• Secondary: 4+ years

Committee IIInformation Report

Private Committee IIInformation Report




PDR Development




Public Consultation


Option


Option


Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction


Timing varies

6 months to a year













PDR Development




Public Consultation


Option


Option


Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction


Timing varies

6 months to a year










Vancouver Project Office PDR and Funding Approval Process Circa 2016 (After implementation of 2014 MOU)




PDR Development




Public Consultation


Option


Option


Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction


Timing varies

6 months to a year













PDR Development




Public Consultation


Option


Option


Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction


Timing varies

6 months to a year













PDR Development




Public Consultation


Option


Option


Bylaw

Project Design

Capital Plan

BoardApproval of PA

Bylaw

Construction


Timing varies

6 months to a year










• NOW IN 2018: Project Agreement is Signed Without Prior Trustee Input AND Without Any Public Consultation

• Also bypasses VESTA and DPAC

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

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

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

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

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)

⚫ 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

SCHOOL Seismic Upgrade Full Replacement 40yr Seimic Upgrade 40 yr New Build

Wolff

Hamber

Bayview 36,592,900 24,460,700 46, 224, 000 32,706,600

Begbie 20,907,900 22,410,450 37,110,600 26,709,900

David Llyod 32,659,300 24,239,100 44,783,600 35,885,900

Maple Grove 24.4 million 24.7 48 million 40.1 million

Tennyson 36.9 million 26.1 million 52.1 million 35.7 million

Fleming

Jamison 13.1 million 20.1 23.9 23.2

Kingsford

Smith11,612,567 19, 486,559 30,540,000 31,110,000

SCHOOL Seismic Upgrade Full Replacement 40yr Seimic Upgrade 40 yr New Build

Bayview 36.6 24.5 46.2 32.7

Begbie 20.9 22.4 37.1 26.7

David Llyod 32.7 24.2 44.8 35.9

Maple Grove 24.2 24.7 48.0 40.1

Tennyson 36.9 26.1 52.1 35.7

Jamison 13.1 20.1 20.1 23.2

Kingsford

Smith11.6 19.5 30.5 31.1

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

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

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

Requests for Action by Facilities and Planning Committee1) 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 communityii) Keeping school community together

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

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

1

Date: November 14, 2018

To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: Senior Management Team

Re: Update on Edith Cavell Seismic Upgrade Project

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.

ITEM 2.1

2

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 26th 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

3

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 2021-22 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 26th, 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 26th 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

4

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 13th 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:

https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/current-capital-projects/Pages/Cavell-

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”.

https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/current-capital-projects/Pages/Cavell-Elementary-.aspx

https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/current-capital-projects/Pages/Cavell-Elementary-.aspx

5

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 6th 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 Understanding2. An excerpt from the Ministry of Education Capital Plan instructions for seismic projects3. Q and A Bulletin provided to Cavell parent community on November 2, 2018

AGK 21868 6

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") considerstudent safety to be a top priority, and have committed to reducing seismic risk to protect studentsthrough the Seismic Mitigation Program ("SMP") for schools. The primary objective of the SMPis to achieve a life-safety standard for schools by minimizing the probability of local structuralcollapse as a result of a seismic event.

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is to facilitate the establishment ofa project office (the "VPO") to manage all of the VBE's SMP projects, to define the terms ofreference for the VPO, the director (the "Director") and the steering committee (the "SteeringCommittee"), 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 willcomplete its SMP projects in an effective and efficient manner and within the parameters of theSMP.

While the VPO is to be a part of the VBE, the intent is that the VPO will function with limitedinteraction 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 theSteering Committee as non-voting members, as and when appropriate from time to time.

Attachment 1

2 AGK 21868 6

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 andcriteria 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.

2.12 The Director shall be responsible for staffing the VPO. VPO staff, including the Director, will be employees of the VBE.

2.13 The VBE staff currently engaged in delivering SMP projects may be assigned to the VPO, if agreed to by the Steering Committee.

2.14 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.

2.15 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

3 AGK 21868 6

additional funding from VBE resources to address building or site improvements not resulting from necessary SMP structural work.

2.16 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.

2.17 SMP projects are expected to be upgrades to existing facilities and not full facility replacement projects, except where replacement is the lowest cost option.

2.18 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.

2.19 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 theParties 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, andeither 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 andthe Director shall have the respective roles and responsibilities set out in Schedule A attachedhereto.

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

4 AGK 21868 6

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 2.16.

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.

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.


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 educationprogramming for students in the school district• The LRFP identifies the local circumstances that will corroborate the continued studentenrolment in the future• A SPIR has already been submitted in response to a Ministry request• Availability of adequate student space at neighbouring schools to accommodatecurrent 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 ongoingmaintenance 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 IntakeSpreadsheet for the previous Five-Year Capital Plan submission• Submit a SPIR for each new high-priority project to be considered for funding underthe SMP, along with a SPRFS


• Any SMP project that was previously supported by the Ministry, but is not yet approvedwith a signed Capital Project Funding Agreement, must be included in the Capital PlanIntake 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.

Attachment 3

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\2018-11-14 - Nov 14\ITEM 2.2 -

Long Range Facilities Plan Update.docx v1.2 (Nov 9)

Date November 14, 2018 To: Facilities Planning Committee From: D. Green, Secretary Treasurer

J. Dawson, Director of Educational Planning Re: Long Range Facilities Plan Overview



• 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.

ITEM 2.2

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/resource-management/capital-planning/current-resources/capital-plan-instructions.pdf

https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Seismic_Mitigation_Program/Documents/sbfile/181107/Project%20Office%20MOU%20-%20updated%20August%202017%20-%20with%20signatures.pdf



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 re-submitted 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.



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 1997. 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 2017. 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 2017. In the future, enrolment decline will be relatively balanced across all grades.



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 2027. The orange reference line is the current total operating capacity for the District (58766 seats).

Figure 1: VSB Enrolment History and Forecast

Facility Capacity Utilization 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.

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

K-12 Headcount 50882 50433 49791 49261 48958 48634 48119 47799 47402 47127 46948 46830 46795 46585 46370 46320

Operating Capacity 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

K-12

Hea

dco

un

t

Year

VSB Enrolment History and Forecast and Current Operating Capacity



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 2017.

Table 1 - District Capacity Utilization

Operating Capacity 58766

2017 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 0.87. 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.



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



• 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.

Long Range Facilities PlanOverviewFacilities Planning Committee Nov 14, 2018

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

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

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

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• 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 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

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027K‐12 Headcount 50882 50433 49791 49261 48958 48634 48119 47799 47402 47127 46948 46830 46795 46585 46370 46320

Operating Capacity 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766 58766

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000K‐12

Headcou

nt

Year

VSB Enrolment History and Forecast and Current Operating Capacity

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Market Share % 84.1 84.5 84.4 84.6 83.6 83.3 83.2 83.2 83.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0Pe

rcen

tage

Market Share = Enr/Pop*100

Facilities Capacity Utilization

*2017 enrolment includes International fee paying students.

Table 1 ‐ District Capacity Utilization

Operating Capacity 58766

2017 Enrolment *50374

District Capacity Utilization 85.7%

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

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.

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

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

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

1



From: D. McClary, Manager of Maintenance and Construction

Re: Lead in Drinking Water Action Plan


Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship

Objectives:

• Advocate for public education

• Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities

INTRODUCTION:

This report provides an action plan regarding lead in drinking water for review by the Committee. This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND:

At the September 24, 2018 Public Board meeting, the Board received the following recommendations from a report from Committee II – Planning and Facilities regarding the District’s compliance with Health Canada guidelines:

1. That the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that havetested between 5 and 10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead so that no drinking fountain wouldexceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations (fill stations).

2. That the Board direct staff to request additional Ministry capital funding through the SchoolEnhancement Program and approve funding from the Annual Facilities Grant to acceleratethe re-piping and installation of fill stations in the remaining elementary schools, such that allelementary schools will have a water bottle filling station installed.

3. That the Board ensures that all water sources are piped to the source to eliminate exposureto lead. Until that is accomplished, staff works with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority(VCHA) ensuring that signage in schools pertaining to lead in the water is consistent acrossthe District and every parent or guardian is informed of the potential for lead in the water inaffected Vancouver schools by the end of October 2018 so that they may make informeddecisions.

ITEM 2.3

2

ACTION PLAN:

In order to proceed on these motions, all drinking fountains with lead measuring in the 5 – 10 ppb range will either be permanently or temporarily closed by the end of November 2018. Drinking fountains in schools which already have fill stations installed will be permanently closed, and drinking fountains in schools with no existing fill stations will be temporarily closed, until fill stations are installed. Hence by November 30, 2018 all available drinking fountains will be at 5.0 ppb or less. Attachment 1 summaries the action items.

An order of priority list will be developed for the installation of fill stations referencing the percentage of drinking fountains above 5 ppb, along with an order of priority list for the remaining schools which have no drinking fountains above 5 ppb. The target date for the development of this list is December 31, 2018.

The signage currently above sinks was developed in conjunction with Vancouver Coastal Health and indicates that water should be run for 5 minutes or until cold. In order to eliminate this signage in the future, begin program of testing water quality in sinks starting with older schools which will not be affected by the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP). Note that no signage is necessary on drinking fountains unless they have been closed.

Lead testing program will be carried out every 2 years in all the schools that have plumbing system installed prior to 1990.

CONCLUSION:

The above noted action plan has a fast response which allows the VSB to have all its drinking fountains at 5 ppb or less by November 30, 2018 and more than half of all its schools with fill stations piped to source by the end of 2019. The average lead contamination levels in operating drinking fountains in all VSB schools will average just over 1 ppb – essentially lead free. Further, the SMP has been accelerated and currently has eight schools under various stages of construction, design, or approval. This program will enhance VSB efforts to achieve lead free plumbing and fill stations in all VSB schools. In the meantime, staff is working with the communications team to develop effective communication strategies.

This report is for information only.

Attachment: - Summary of Action Items- Letter to Principals – School with Fill Stations and Drinking Fountains with 5-10 ppb

Lead- Letter to Principals – School without Fill Stations and Drinking Fountains with 5-10 ppb

Lead- Letter to Principals – School without Fill Stations and Drinking Fountains with Less than

5 ppb Lead- Letter to Principals – School with Fill Stations and Drinking Fountains with Less than 5

ppb Lead- Letter to Principals – School with New Plumbing System

ITEM 2.3 ATTACHMENT 1 FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\2018-11-14 - Nov 14\ITEM 2.3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of Action Items.docx Nov 14, 2018

Table 1: Summary of Action Items regarding Lead in Drinking Water

Categories Schools Action Items

A - Water bottle filling

stations in place- Lead in drinking

fountains 5-10 ppb

- BritanniaSecondary

- Byng- Carnarvon- Champlain- Gladstone- Henderson- John Oliver

- Killarney- Prince of Wales- Selkirk- Templeton- Thompson- Tupper- Vancouver Technical- Windermere

- Close drinking fountains(5-10 ppb) permanentlyby Nov 30, 2018.

B - Water bottle filling

stations not in place- Lead in drinking

fountains 5-10 ppb

- Begbie- Bruce- Carleton*- Carr- Champlain Annex- Cook- False Creek- Fleming- Franklin- Garibaldi

- Kerrisdale Annex- Livingstone- MacCorkindale- Maquinna- Mount Pleasant- Quilchena- Roberts Annex- Tennyson- Total Ed- Weir

- Close drinking fountains(5-10ppb) temporarilyby Nov 30, 2018.

- Install fill stations withany available 2018/19AFG as well assubmitting for 2019/20AFG and SEP.

- Target fill stationsinstalled by the end of2019, and permanentlyclose fountains that aretemporarily closed.*: Carleton is currently closed.

C - Water bottle filling

stations not in place- Lead in drinking

fountains below5 ppb

- Bayview- Beaconsfield- Brock- Cavell- Cunningham- Dickens Annex- Douglas Annex- Fraser- Grandview- Henderson Annex- Hudson- Laurier- Laurier Annex- Lloyd George- Lord- Mackenzie- Maple Grove- Maquinna Annex- McBride- McBride Annex- McKechnie

- Nelson- Nightingale- Nootka- Osler- Queen Elizabeth- Q.E. Annex- Queen Victoria- Roberts- Secord- Selkirk Annex- Seymour- Southlands- Tecumseh Annex- Tillicum Annex- Trudeau- Tyee- U. Hill Elem- Van Horne- Waverley- Wolfe- Xpey

- Continue installation ofbottle water fillingstations when fundingbecomes available.

- Have all water bottlefilling stations piped tosource at all schools bythe end of 2021 (subjectto funding).

ITEM 2.3 ATTACHMENT 1 FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2018 Reports\2018-11-14 - Nov 14\ITEM 2.3 - ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of Action Items.docx Nov 14, 2018

Categories Schools Action Items

D - Water bottle filling

stations in place - Lead in drinking

fountains below 5 ppm

- Churchill - Hamber - Ideal - King George - Oppenheimer

- Norquay - Point Grey - Shaughnessy - Thunderbird

- No action required.

E - New plumbing

system installed

- Britannia Elem** - Collingwood** - Crosstown** - Dickens - Douglas** - Elsie Roy** - Gordon** - Grenfell - Hastings** - Jamieson**

- Kerrisdale** - Kingsford-Smith** - Kitchener** - Kitsilano** - L’Ecole Bilingue** - Magee** - Moberly - Norma Rose Point** - Queen Alexandra - Queen Mary - Quesnel** - Renfrew - Sexsmith - Strathcona** - Tecumseh - Trafalgar - U. Hill Sec. **

- **No action required - Fill stations installed by

the end of 2021 (subject to funding)

**: Water bottle filling stations in place

November 14, 2018

TO: PRINCIPALS, VICE PRINCIPALS AND BUILDING ENGINEERS [INSERT SCHOOL NAME]

RE: VSB PROGRAM TO FURTHER REDUCE LEAD LEVELS TO BETTER THAN CURRENT HEALTH STANDARDS (CURRENTLY WITH FILL STATIONS)

Current Health Canada guidelines dictate that acceptable drinking water not exceed lead contamination levels of 10 parts per billion (ppb). All VSB drinking fountains currently achieve this level or better. Health Canada has proposed new guidelines which could reduce acceptable levels of lead in drinking water to 5 ppb. It is not known when or if this proposed guideline will be adopted by Health Canada.

However, at the September 24, 2018 Board meeting the Board passed a motion "that the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that have tested between 5-10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead content so that no drinking fountain would exceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations."

Your school has at least one drinking fountain that tested between 5 – 10 ppb, and already has at least one water bottle filling station installed. Subsequently, in order to respect the Board's motion, we are having the drinking fountains in your school that tested above 5 ppb permanently closed by the end of this month.

Signage - Note that there should be no signage above drinking fountains unless they have been deliberately put out of service – in which case they should have “Out of Service” signs above them. Water coming out of sink taps generally has not been tested, consequently Vancouver Coastal Health requires signs above these (untested) sinks indicating that they must be run for 5 minutes or until water is cold, before consumption.

Please let us know if you have any concerns/issues with this initiative.

Regards,

Douglas McClary

Manager of Maintenance and Construction

Attachment 2

November 14, 2018


RE: VSB PROGRAM TO FURTHER REDUCE LEAD LEVELS TO BETTER THAN CURRENT HEALTH STANDARDS (Currently WITHOUT FILL STATIONS)


However, at September 24, 2018 Board meeting the Board passed a motion "that the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that have tested between 5-10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead content so that no drinking fountain would exceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations."

Your school has at least one drinking fountain that tested between 5 – 10 ppb and does not presently have a bottle filling station. Subsequently, in order to make progress on the Board's motion, as a first phase of the strategy to achieve lower lead levels, the drinking fountain(s) in your school that tested above 5 ppb will be temporarily closed by the end of this month. Once an order of priority list has been developed for bottle filling stations (target date December 31, 2018) you will be informed of the scheduled installation of a filling station, and the previously noted drinking fountain(s)testing in the 5 - 10 ppb range will be permanently closed.



Regards,

Douglas McClary Manager of Maintenance and Construction

Attachment 3

November 14, 2018


RE: VSB PROGRAM TO FURTHER REDUCE LEAD LEVELS TO BETTER THAN CURRENT HEALTH STANDARDS (Currently WITHOUT FILL STATIONS & ALL DRINKING FOUNTAINS NOT EXCEEDING 5ppb)


However, at the September 24, 2018 Board meeting, the Board passed a motion "that the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that have tested between 5-10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead content so that no drinking fountain would exceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations."

At the same meeting, the Board also passed the following additional motion “that the Board direct staff to request additional Ministry capital funding through the School Enhancement Program and approve funding from the Annual Facilities Grant to accelerate the re-piping and installation of water bottle filling stations in the remaining elementary schools, such that all elementary schools will have a water bottle filling station installed.”

Your school does not have any drinking fountains that tested above 5 ppb and subsequently no drinking fountains in your school need to be closed. However, district staff are currently working on bottle fill station installation order of priority list. Once this priority list has been developed for bottle filling stations (target date December 31, 2018) you will be informed of the scheduled installation of a fill station.

Signage - Note there should be no signage above drinking fountains unless they have been deliberately put out of service – in which case they should have “Out of Service” signs above them. Water coming out of sink taps generally has not been tested, consequently Vancouver Coastal Health requires signs above these (untested) sinks indicating that they must be run for 5 minutes or until water is cold, before consumption.


Regards,

Douglas McClary


Attachment 4

November 14, 2018


RE: VSB PROGRAM TO FURTHER REDUCE LEAD LEVELS TO BETTER THAN CURRENT HEALTH STANDARDS (CURRENTLY WITH FILL STATIONS)


However, at the September 24, 2018 Board meeting the Board passed a motion "that the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that have tested between 5-10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead content so that no drinking fountain would exceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations."

Your school does not have any drinking fountains that tested above 5 ppb and subsequently no drinking fountains in your school need to be closed. In addition, your school has at least one water bottle filling station installed. Therefore no further action is required for the time being.



Regards,

Douglas McClary


Attachment 5

November 14, 2018


RE: VSB PROGRAM TO FURTHER REDUCE LEAD LEVELS TO BETTER THAN CURRENT HEALTH STANDARDS (Currently WITH FILL STATIONS & NEW PLUMBING)


However, at the September 24, 2018 Board meeting, the Board passed a motion "that the Board explore a strategy of permanently closing all drinking fountains that have tested between 5-10 parts per billion (ppb) of lead content so that no drinking fountain would exceed 5 ppb and replacing them with water bottle filling stations."

Your school has new plumbing system installed. Hence there is no available source for any lead contamination in water within the school. No further action is required at the moment. If your school does not have any filling station installed, it will be installed by the end of 2021 (subject to funding).

Signage - No signage relating to any drinking sources including sinks is required in your school. Please let us know if you have any concerns/issues with this initiative.

Regards,

Douglas McClary


Attachment 6

1



From: Board of Education

Re: Notice of Motion - Materials for the Arts Program



• Advocate for public education • Support effective communication, engagement and community partnerships • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities • Implement the recommendations of the Sustainability Action Plan

INTRODUCTION:

This report is provided for information and committee consideration.

BACKGROUND:

At the September 24, 2018 Trustee Dominato presented the following Notice of Motion. The

Board of Education referred the motion to the Facilities Planning Committee for discussion.

That the Board direct staff to explore the possibility of partnering with the City of Vancouver in the creation of a “Materials for the Arts” program, with the goal of enhancing arts education within Vancouver schools, while enabling creative reuse of materials and diverting them from landfills and City waste streams.

ANALYSIS:

Trustee Dominato provided the following rationale for the Notice of Motion:

The City of Vancouver is exploring the possibility of creating a “Materials for the Arts” (MFTA) program, modelled after New York City’s successful creative reuse centre, which is dedicated to supporting arts and cultural organizations, including more than 90% of New York public schools. New York’s MFTA diverts over 1 million pounds of materials from the landfill each year by collecting reusable materials from businesses and individuals and making these donations available for free of charge to various arts, culture, non-profit, and educational organizations and individuals.

ITEM 3.1

2

By diverting these materials from New York’s waste stream, MFTA reportedly offsets the equivalent of 25 times the CO2 emissions absorbed annually by the trees in New York’s Central Park. New York’s MFTA program is operated by the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs, with additional support from the Departments of Education and Sanitation. The Vancouver School Board’s (VSB) vision is to inspire student success by providing an innovative, caring and responsive learning environment. The VSB strategic plan includes the following goals and objectives: Goal 1: Engage our learners through innovative teaching and learning practices. Objectives:

• Support collaborative relationships with community partners that enhance student learning and well-being.

• Support effective communication, engagement and community partnerships. • Implement the recommendations of the Sustainability Action Plan.

The VSB’s new Environmental Sustainability Plan includes specific goals to reduce consumption of resources and waste generation, as well as lead by example. Research has shown that schools rich in the arts engage the whole student and promote higher levels of achievement. Partnering with the City of Vancouver in the creation of a “Materials for the Arts” program aligns with the VSB’s vision of inspiring student success through the creation of an innovative and responsive learning environment and the VSB goals set out in the new Environment Sustainability Plan. Partnering with the City of Vancouver could enable the VSB to save money by accessing free art materials for schools. A collaboration of this nature is a win-win-win: educational, environmental and financial benefits.

RECOMMENDATION:

This report is for information only and there is no recommendation.

1



From: Board of Education

Re: Notice of Motion – Workforce Housing



• Advocate for public education • Support effective communication, engagement and community partnerships • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities

INTRODUCTION:

This report is provided for information and committee consideration.

BACKGROUND:

At the September 24, 2018 Trustee Gonzalez presented the following Notice of Motion. The

Board of Education referred the motion to the Facilities Planning Committee for discussion.

That the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) request staff to identify, in collaboration with

stakeholders and VBE partners at the City of Vancouver, ways of utilizing VBE-owned land for

the development of workforce housing.

The work would include:

● Developing guiding principles for which VBE land would be suitable for the

development and construction of workforce and possibly other types of housing;

● Consult and work with VBE employee groups regarding workforce housing

solutions to determine the kind of housing needed;

● Identify and consider the capital and operating costs associated with

developing workforce housing and present possible scenarios, and

● Meet with stakeholder groups and the public to solicit feedback on the idea.

ITEM 3.2

2

And that ● The VBE work with the City to identify City requirements regarding zoning, permits,

etc;

● The VBE develop a plan that includes specific goals and targets with timelines

and deliverables; and

● The VBE work with the three levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.

ANALYSIS:

Trustee Gonzalez provided the following rationale for the Notice of Motion:

The cost of housing in Vancouver is so challenging that the city and school district are losing

hundreds of students and families each year. This last year has been an extremely busy time

for the VBE and its recruitment team with over 900 teachers hired. What we know from this

endeavour is that many teachers would love to teach in Vancouver but the cost of living in our

city deters many from actually deciding to teach and live here.

What if we were able to offer our VBE employees a subsidized place to live for up to say two

years? For example, the Recruitment team is still challenged with finding specialty teachers, in

particular French and French Immersion teachers. What if these new French teachers,

perhaps coming from Quebec or even France, could be hired and then live in a place with

other teachers and staff to form a community to support each other while they get used to

working and living in Vancouver?

The VBE owns a lot of land in Vancouver. I believe we could better serve our staff including

teachers, office, trades and other support staff, by offering a way to have them live closer to

where they work. This has other benefits as well as staff retention, environmental with

reduced driving and social by fostering a common community. The intent is that the district

would be generating revenues to pay off the costs of the project over time and eventually the

project would become a revenue-generating asset for the district.

This project could be developed from start to finish by VBE staff or we could partner with the

City or another agency. In its implementation we would involve the public, as it relates to the

neighbourhood identified as a possible location. Options could also be explored for childcare

and other types of housing such as social, co-housing or co-op. My colleague at City Hall,

Adriane Carr, is also putting forth a motion on workforce housing so there is the opportunity to

work closer with City Hall to develop a plan together. There are many options here. This is

NOT about selling land, we need to keep VBE land; this is about leveraging what we have to

fill a need to better serve students and the district.

As a Board it is imperative we look at innovative ways to solve challenges. Utilizing resources

better while offering an important service to staff and the community makes a lot of sense.

RECOMMENDATION:

This report is for information only and there is no recommendation.