facilities planning committee · facilities planning committee monday, june 15, 2020 at 5:00 pm...

NOTICE OF MEETING Vancouver School Board Secretary-Treasurer’s Office Facilities Planning Committee June 15, 2020 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 on Teams Live Broadcast on Monday, June 15, 2020 at 5:00 PM.

Trustees: Fraser Ballantyne Estrellita Gonzalez Lois Chan-Pedley Barb Parrott Janet Fraser Student Trustee: Joshua Harris

District Management Staff: Chris Allen Lisa Landry Carmen Batista Jody Langlois Deena Buckley Patricia MacNeil Aaron Davis Jim Meschino Pedro da Silva David Nelson John Dawson Collette O’Reilly Rosie Finch Alison Ogden Mette Hamaguchi Lorelei Russell Joann Horsley-Holwill Rob Schindel Michele Kelly Shehzad Somji Adrian Keough Richard Zerbe Reps: Terry Stanway, VSTA Alt: Joanne Sutherland, VESTA Jill Barclay, VESTA Angie Haveman, VASSA Rick Lopez, VASSA (Alt. 1)

Kelly Egilsson, VASSA (Alt. 2) Harjinder Sandhu, VEPVPA Rosa Fazio, VEPVPA (Alt. 1)

Carrie Sleep, VEPVPA (Alt. 2) Tim Chester, IUOE Tim De Vivo, IUOE Ajaz Hassan, PASA Tammy Yazdanyar, CUPE 15 Amanda Hillis, DPAC Peter Couch or Sandra Bell, DPAC Neil Munro, Trades Brent Boyd, CUPE 407 Josh Fung, VDSC Others: Secretary-Treasurer’s Office Ron Macdonald District Parents Jim de Hoop Communications Ihor Politylo Bithia Chung Will Chan Lynda Bonvillain Ed. Centre Engineers Kathie Currie, CUPE 15 Rentals

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

COMMITTEE MEETING

FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE Monday, June 15, 2020 at 5:00 pm

Teams Live Broadcast

AGENDA The meeting is being held on the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. The meeting is being live-streamed and the audio and visual recording will also be available to the public for viewing after the meeting. The footage of the meeting may be viewed inside and outside of Canada. 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 Land & Assets Strategy Update Theresita Rogers 1.2 Land & Assets Strategy Update Susan James 1.3 UNDRIP Roz MacLean 1.4 Land & Assets Strategy Update Andrea Glickman 1.5 Land & Assets Strategy Update Kyla Epstein, Parent & PAC Executive Member,

Van Tech Secondary School 1.6 Land & Assets Strategy Update Steph Swenson 2. Information Items 2.1 Land & Assets Strategy Update D. Green, Secretary-Treasurer

L. Landry, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer J. Meschino, Director of Facilities

2.2 2020/2021 Annual Facilities Grant – Funding Allocation J. Meschino, Director of Facilities 2.3 Vancouver Project Office MOU D. Green, Secretary-Treasurer 3. Discussion Items 4. Items for Approval 4.1 Draft 2020/2022 Five Year Capital Plan Submission D. Green, Secretary-Treasurer

J. Dawson, Director of Educational Planning J. Meschino, Director of Facilities

4.2 Notice of Motion referred from the May 25, 2020 Board Meeting Trustee Reddy 5. Information Item Requests Date and Time of Next Meeting September, 2020 (date and time TBC).

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.

Date: June 15, 2020

To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer

Lisa Landry, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities

RE: Land & Assets Strategy Update

REFERENCE TO STRATEGIC PLAN:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance, and stewardship

Objective:

1. Implement the recommendations of the Long Range Facilities Plan

2. Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities

INTRODUCTION:

As indicated at the January 22, 2020 meeting of the Facilities Planning Committee, a professional consulting firm, Urban Systems Ltd, was selected to prepare the Land & Assets Strategy for the District.

The Land & Assets Strategy will be a broad plan with recommended actions by the consultants.

District staff is considering the Urban Systems report as a first step in the development of a longer

term strategy that will support the objectives in a Long Range Facilities Plan to be eventually

approved by the Board of Education.

In bringing forward a Land & Assets strategy, District staff and the Board of Education will need

to establish relationships with public service partners and First Nations. With respect to First

Nations, that would be an important step in Reconciliation by recognizing the District operates on

their unceded lands.

This report is for information only and does not contain a recommendation.

BACKGROUND:

One of the 2019 draft Long Range Facilities Plan approved recommendations includes the following:

That the District build on the initial work done on a Capital Asset Management Plan to develop a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the District in effectively managing the asset inventory in the future.

As the manager of a number of facilities in the City of Vancouver, many of which are in need of

seismic upgrading and modernization, it is incumbent on the District to develop that strategic

ITEM 2.1

plan to generate capital funds in order to effectively plan for the future. As stated in the Urban

Systems report:

“The Land & Assets Strategy recognizes the importance of strategic land management for the VSB and has identified opportunities to generate new revenues through the lease or disposition of several surplus land holdings. School Districts that recognize and leverage land holdings as an asset can generate additional revenues to support new school projects, address deferred maintenance issues and respond to school facility concerns. A Land & Assets Strategy and the strategic management of potential surplus properties can provide the following benefits to school districts and their communities:

■ New Revenue Stream from Surplus Land Holdings (lease or sale);

■ Provision of Additional Capital for Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) and/or New School Projects;

■ Capture of Increased Land Values associated with New Facilities/Infrastructure;

■ Creation of Opportunities for Community and Economic Development;

■ Facilitation of Strategic Acquisitions for New Facilities; and,

■ Opportunities to establish Partnerships with other Public and Private Sector Partners.”

GUIDING PRINCIPLES DEVELOPMENT:

Local governments, school districts, and other public agencies are among the largest land holders

in the Province. A Land & Assets Strategy is a valuable planning tool that can assist with long

range facility planning and guide the management of land assets so that new revenue sources

can be generated.

School District staff met with the consultants at the end of January 2020 to prepare for a facilitated

workshop with Trustees. District staff worked with a set of objectives to develop guiding principles

for the Trustees to consider. As a starting point the guiding principles in the draft Long Range

Facilities Plan were presented:

• 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; and

• Sustain and strengthen our relationships with the City of Vancouver, and community

partners to facilitate the delivery of services to the broader community.

With respect to the development of a Land & Assets Strategy, the following specific guiding

principles were developed and presented to the Trustees at a workshop held on February 10,

2020:

• To have modern, safe, and healthy schools;

• Optimize capital revenue generation, balanced with community use

• Reduce operating costs and deferred maintenance; and

• Effective management of capital assets.

The workshop also provided the Trustees with an overview of the project.

DISCUSSION:

Policy Direction With these principles in place, the implementation of the Land & Assets Strategy by the Board of Education will be guided by the following policies from the Board Policy Handbook.

Board Policy 1: Foundational Statements includes a statement of Vision, Mission, Motto, Guiding Principles and Goals. The Land & Assets Strategy aligns most directly with Goal 4 of the District’s Strategic Plan: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship. Within this goal are these objectives:

• effectively utilize school district resources and facilities,

• develop and implement a long term financial planning model, and

• implement the recommendations of the Long Range Facility Plan.

There is a clear expectation that implementation of the Land & Assets Strategy will contribute positively towards the achievement of these foundational goals.

Board Policy 7: Board Operations contains specific language to protect the confidentiality of the work going forward. It states:

There are times when public interest is best served by private discussion of specific issues in "private" sessions. The Board believes it is necessary to protect individual privacy and the Board's own position in negotiating either collective agreements or contracts and therefore expects to go in private for issues dealing with individual students, individual employees, land, labour, litigation or negotiation.

Any proposed disposition of land would have to initially be discussed in private board meetings before being presented publicly for consultation. If the Board of Education contemplates the possible disposition of a property, or portion thereof, it would have to seek the approval of the Minister in accordance with the Disposal of Land or Improvements Order which contains specific directions for public consultation on the proposed disposition.

Board Policy 20: Disposal of Land or Improvements provides for the disposition of land through lease or sale where the Board has determined the land to be surplus to the needs of the Board. Policy 20 establishes the consultation requirements and processes necessary for the consideration of the disposition of property. The Board has discretion in various circumstances to determine whether a public request for proposals or tender is necessary. Dispositions of real property require the adoption of a Board By-law. Policy 20 also includes a Board of Education restriction through a motion adopted on October 13, 2015; That the VBE commit to not sell school lands but maintain or increase our current number of school sites to preserve neighbourhood sites for current and future educational and community use. This would not preclude land swaps or the sale of surplus portions of school sites provided that educational programs could still be offered.

Board Policy 14: School Closure identifies the factors to consider in the assessment of schools for potential closure consideration, as well as the procedural requirements of the School Closure process including the requirement for public consultation. The final decision on a school closure will be made through the first, second, third and final reading of a School Closure Bylaw at a public Board meeting. The Board may then determine to proceed with Policy 20 for the Disposition of Land or Improvements.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/e/m193_08.pdf

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/administration/legislation-policy/legislation/schoollaw/e/m193_08.pdf

Land Inventory A first step in the development of the Land & Assets Strategy was the preparation of a Detailed

Land Inventory of all Vancouver School Board (VSB) land holdings. This work began in late 2018

when a Comprehensive Review of school district land assets was conducted. That review

assessed the prospects for the long-term retention of assets as well as the opportunity for the

potential revenue generation from these sites. There was recognition of VSB’s very strong asset

portfolio and capacity to generate additional revenue while preserving sites for future needs.

Using the data from that review the inventory was further refined with a reliance on the

development of a GIS Platform (ESRI) based on web maps prepared for the VSB Facilities

Planning Department. The new land inventory shows all land ownership within the boundaries of

the School District.

Most of the land holdings currently in the District are used for public education purposes. Although

the VSB does have sites that are not used for public education, traditional school uses are the

foundation of the VSB land portfolio. The Detailed Land Inventory has categorized the VSB

land portfolio into:

Annexes (16)

Elementary Schools (75)

Secondary Schools (18)

VSB District Facilities (5)

Potential Opportunities for Disposition

Urban Systems identified all school sites for review and analysis using objective multiple criteria

including facility condition, seismic mitigation rating, site area, assessed value, zoning, capacity

and capacity utilization. Opportunities for potential alternative use or redevelopment of sites

through minor subdivisions, and consolidations resulting in full school sites being potentially

available were also identified for consideration. The same criteria were also applied to non-

enrolling sites, except for capacity and capacity utilization. Then, preliminary reviews and

development assessments were completed on selected sites, or portions of sites, to identify

development opportunities and/or constraints. Potential capital revenue generating sites, or

portions of sites, were then identified as either short, medium, or long-term prospects for

lease or disposition based on the level of anticipated time and effort required to prepare the

parcel for disposition. Potential sites were classified over the following timelines: 1 - 3 years,

3 - 5 years, and 5 - 10 years. The report also contains several other potential opportunities

beyond a ten year timeframe.

In looking at these timelines Urban Systems provides this perspective and suggests a semi-

annual review:

“The timeline related to each of the terms applies generally to the dedication of time, resources, and focus during the implementation process, rather than the expected timeline for completion of the identified project. As projects advance, there will be an ongoing need to review and adjust the time frame for individual sites. This is anticipated to arise where multiple sites become integrated, or aligned with other sites, and as a consequence of project approvals through the Capital Plan and Seismic Mitigation Program processes.”

Land & Assets Categories

In examining the disposition opportunities, the consultants attempted to group them into

categories with common features and characteristics. The following categories were identified:

• Non-Enrolling Sites (NE)

• Closed Annexes (CA)

• Minor Site Subdivisions (MS)

• Partnership Planning (PP)

• Annexes/Alternate Programs (AA)

• Consolidations (CC)

In considering the opportunity, timing, and implementation process related to each of the

candidate locations, it is important to note that none of the short term opportunities in the 1 to 3

year timeframe involve enrolling spaces. There would be no impact on students, and none of the

short term opportunities involve a consolidation of school communities. The timeline of 1 to 3

years is within the purview of the current Board.

Urban Systems describes the short term opportunities in their report as follows:

Short Term Opportunities are potential Surplus Sites available for disposition within 1 to 3 years. These sites require little work to add value and can be quickly leased or sold. Short Term Opportunities can be profiled as sites requiring:

■ Minor Development Approvals; ■ City Supported Subdivisions /Consolidations/ Road Closures; ■ Minor Rezonings /ODP Amendments; ■ Completion of Statutory Right of Way or Easement Plans; with ■ Modest Public Interest/Opposition.

Short Term Opportunities are relatively straight forward leases/sales that can provide additional capital revenue for VSB

Moving Forward with Short Term Opportunities

The District contemplated the specialized nature of implementing land dispositions in the original

request for proposal (RFP) and project terms of reference, and included an option to extend

consulting advisory services to work with staff in a focused and sustained effort to deliver on the

short term opportunities. District staff is therefore recommending that the consultants be retained

under a General Service Agreement to work with the District and the community to address the

opportunities. The short term priority sites will require considerable attention over the next 12-18

months to ensure VSB can move forward with disposition (either lease or sale) and secure new

revenues. As stated earlier, the disposition of these sites will initiate VSB Board Policy 20:

Disposal of Land or Improvements and require consultation and Board Approval, as illustrated in

the diagram below:

Moving Forward with First Nations and other Key Partners

The Urban Systems team has recommended that the District develop working relationships

with its partners at the First Nation, municipal, provincial and crown corporation levels. District

staff concurs with that recommendation and intends to approach the First Nations in the

District to develop a protocol agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to

establish a relationship that recognizes the District operates on their unceded lands and to

commit to consultation on any proposed disposition of land. The District will also approach

each of its public service partners and propose that an MOU be co-developed with each

organization to establish a new relationship focused on asset management. With that in mind,

the Urban Systems report provides this guidance for the Board to consider:

“An MOU is a non-binding, yet important type of agreement. It is a reference point for the signing parties to establish an ongoing working relationship for one, or a range of activities. A MOU can set the stage for more substantive agreements (and contracts) in the future and can be used to ensure that the parties engage with one another on an ongoing basis. MOUs are designed to keep the signatories’ interests in mind when development, lease or sale of land is being considered by one of the agencies.

We think that a general MOU, for a range of activities, with the City of Vancouver would help ensure a level of understanding that VSB has constraints on its capacity, and that it is keen to participate on all land decisions that may impact VSB operations, current planning or future opportunities. With that sort of understanding, resources should be found to ensure full participation by VSB officials or representatives before major projects are approved, even those financed by other public entities given the more rigorous spending constraints imposed by the Province on VSB.

The Urban Systems team also believes a protocol agreement and MOU should be co-operatively developed with the Musqueam Indian Band, Squamish Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation and potentially, the MST Development Corporation. The Musqueam community is an important part of the Vancouver School District and the school community includes many MIB members. Similarly, the Sen̓áḵw Project on the Squamish Reserve will introduce new students into the VSB community, many of whom will be members of the Nation.

As previous sections have shown, VSB has been very successful over the years in co-operating with other public agencies, enabling its Land Assets to be used for numerous non-school based, public serving initiatives.

By gathering together and entering into an MOU, each entity should expect equal and, in some cases, preferential consideration reflecting the statutory and sometimes constitutional authority that each body possesses.”

By entering an MOU, each organization stands to benefit from the coordination with and

understanding of the other’s organization. Each organization can bring their resources and

statutory or constitutional authority to bear in a coordinated fashion to benefit the residents of

Vancouver that they serve. With respect to the First Nations, this is an important step in

Reconciliation by recognizing the District operates on their unceded lands.

CONCLUSION

The approach taken by Urban Systems in their report recognizes that strategic land management

and disposition is focused on finding new and innovative approaches for the lease and/or sale of

surplus lands. Urban Systems describes the potential for the District as follows:

The Vancouver School Board is perhaps the best suited public agency in the Province when it comes to strategic land management and disposition. The land values in the City of Vancouver are amongst the highest in the country and increased residential and commercial densities are a key objective of the City. The project team has identified Short Term Disposition Sites that offer VSB the potential to realize substantial revenues through either lease or sale of surplus Land Assets.

The investment of additional capital revenue generated through the implementation of the Land

& Assets Strategy will provide the District with enhanced opportunities to convert seismic upgrade

projects to new replacement schools, enabling a significant reduction in future deferred

maintenance liabilities, decreased operating costs, and a reduction in energy consumption and

green-house gas emissions. Educational benefits will also be achieved through the ability to

design instructional spaces for the delivery of innovative programs in a caring and responsive

learning environment.

Urban Systems concludes their report with:

“The implementation of the Land & Assets Strategy will be measured and reported on the basis of the effectiveness of the Land & Assets Strategy in supporting VSB strategic objectives and Guiding Principles, including:

■ the generation of capital revenue;

■ modernization of facilities for improved health & safety and delivery of innovative educational practices;

■ reduced operating costs for VSB facilities, with reduced deferred maintenance liabilities and improved energy efficiency;

■ better utilization of sites and facilities;

■ increased partnerships/agreements with the City, improved availability of childcare spaces;

■ consideration of opportunities for reconciliation with local First Nations; and

■ provision of workforce housing to support employee recruitment and retention.”

The Board of Education has expressed many of these objectives during its term in office and has

begun work on many of them. The Land & Assets strategy is a foundational support document

for the “Building for Modern Learning” engagement that is currently underway. To provide the

necessary capital funds to realize the objectives in that engagement is of significant importance

to the District. Together, both will form the basis of the District’s Long Range Facilities Plan that

will serve as a guiding document for years to come.

NEXT STEPS:

The Senior Management Team has identified the following steps to advance the

implementation of the Land & Assets Strategy in a timely manner:

1. The Board of Education to receive the Land & Assets Strategy for approval, in

principle.

2. The Board of Education to engage with the First Nations and public service partners

to develop MOU’s and where applicable protocol agreements.

3. The Board of Education to consult with First Nations on any proposed disposition.

RECOMMENDATION:

This report is provided for information.

Date: June 15, 2020 To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: James Meschino, Director of Facilities RE: 2020-2021 Annual Facilities Grant – Funding Allocation


Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship Objectives:

• Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report is for information.

BACKGROUND:

The Ministry of Education provides funding in the form of an Annual Facilities Grant for the purpose of maintenance and capital work on the District’s facilities. The grant is based on the Ministry’s fiscal year (April 1 to March 31) and consists of a capital component and an operating component. In April 2020, the Ministry of Education provided the 2020-2021 Annual Facilities Grant (AFG) to districts totaling $115.5 million (Attachment A). The capital component of the provincial grant is $92.0 million, and the operating component is $23.5 million. The gross operating component of the grant is reduced by $1.75 million for Capital Asset Management System (CAMS) resulting is a total of $113.7 million being allocated to school districts. CAMS is a Ministry initiative to provide funding to pay for VFA facility audits which regularly take place throughout the province and which all BC school districts use for their capital planning. The total grant allocated to Vancouver is $11,001,097 consisting of a capital component of $8,763,112 and an operating component of $2,237,985. After the reduction of $166,690 for CAMS, the District’s grant for 2020-2021 is $10,834,407. The following chart illustrates that with a lower reduction for CAMS for 2020-2021 the operating component of the District’s grant is $23,812 higher than the 2019-2020 grant.

ITEM 2.2

DISCUSSION:

The District has more than 110 sites consisting of approximately $1.7 billion in physical plant assets. The district relies heavily on AFG funding to maintain its building infrastructure. The District’s deferred maintenance balance as identified by the most recent VFA facility audits is approximately $845 million, a value that continues to grow as buildings age. It is obvious the current annual level of AFG funding is insufficient to address the deferred maintenance needs and hence the district focuses its funding on its highest priority projects. The Expenditure Plan for the 2020-2021 AFG spending in the amount of $10,834,407 is attached as Appendix B. The Plan was submitted to the Ministry of Education in April and work is underway on many of the projects. The District followed the direction of the Ministry’s AFG Policy in developing the Expenditure Plan which states:

A board of education may expend its annual facility grant for the purpose of:

• upgrading or replacing existing facility components throughout the expected

economic life of an existing capital asset.

• enhancing the service potential of an existing capital asset or a component of an

existing capital asset by correcting deficiencies in design or construction, and unsafe

conditions.

• significantly lowering the associated operating costs of an existing capital asset; or

• extending the life of an existing capital asset or a component of an existing capital

asset beyond its original life expectancy.

The projects in the Expenditure Plan are identified in AFG Categories and whether the project is a VFA requirement. There are 12 categories of eligible annual facility grant expenditures:

• Roof Replacements (including scheduled roof replacements and major roof repairs)

• Mechanical System Upgrades (improvements, replacements or provision of heating,

ventilation, air conditioning or plumbing systems)

• Electrical System Upgrades (improvements or replacements of power supply and

distribution systems)

2020-2021 2019-2020 Change

Capital Component 8,763,112$ 8,763,112$ -$

Operating Component 2,237,985 2,237,985 -

CAMS (166,690) (190,502) 23,812

Net Operating Component 2,071,295 2,047,483 23,812

Total Grant 10,834,407$ 10,810,595$ 23,812$

• Facility Upgrades (improvements to protect the fabric of the plant, including exterior

painting, window and door replacement, building envelope repair and replacement,

structural and nonstructural seismic mitigation)

• Loss Prevention Projects (improvements, replacements or provision of fire protection

system)

• Functional Improvements (improvements of school facilities related to the provision of

educational programming)

• Technology Infrastructure Upgrades (improvements to accommodate computer and

telecommunications networks)

• Site Upgrades (site improvements including positive site drainage; repairs to sidewalks,

parking lots, site access/egress, paved work areas, paved play areas, and play fields;

repairs, upgrading or replacement of playground equipment; perimeter safety fencing;

contaminated soil remediation; underground storage tanks removal)

• Disabled Access (improvements related to access for persons with physical disabilities)

• Asbestos Abatement

• Health and Safety Upgrades (improvements related to indoor air quality, traffic safety,

and non-structural upgrades)

• Site Servicing (improvements, replacements or provision of sewer, drainage or water

services; underground irrigation systems)

RECOMMENDATION:

This report is for information.

Attachment:

1. APPENDIX A - 2020-2021 Annual Facilities Grant (AFG) Allocations

2. APPENDIX B - AFG Expenditure Plan template

Ministry of Education - 2020/21 Annual Facility Grant Allocation

Operating Portion TotalTotal Capital Withheld Allocation

School District AFG Portion Gross (CAMS) Net to Districts5 Southeast Kootenay 1,410,772 1,123,775 286,997 21,376 265,621 1,389,396 6 Rocky Mountain 962,511 766,705 195,806 14,584 181,222 947,927 8 Kootenay Lake 1,374,350 1,094,762 279,588 20,824 258,764 1,353,526

10 Arrow Lakes 307,001 244,547 62,454 4,652 57,802 302,349 19 Revelstoke 321,325 255,957 65,368 4,869 60,499 316,456 20 Kootenay-Columbia 952,982 759,114 193,868 14,440 179,428 938,542 22 Vernon 1,752,473 1,395,963 356,510 26,554 329,956 1,725,919 23 Central Okanagan 3,860,494 3,075,143 785,351 58,495 726,856 3,801,999 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin 1,532,440 1,220,691 311,749 23,220 288,529 1,509,220 28 Quesnel 880,371 701,275 179,096 13,339 165,757 867,032 33 Chilliwack 2,244,139 1,787,608 456,531 34,003 422,528 2,210,136 34 Abbotsford 3,401,484 2,709,511 691,973 51,540 640,433 3,349,944 35 Langley 3,343,503 2,663,325 680,178 50,661 629,517 3,292,842 36 Surrey 11,610,859 9,248,830 2,362,029 175,929 2,186,100 11,434,930 37 Delta 3,022,838 2,407,894 614,944 45,802 569,142 2,977,036 38 Richmond 4,075,710 3,246,577 829,133 61,756 767,377 4,013,954 39 Vancouver 11,001,097 8,763,112 2,237,985 166,690 2,071,295 10,834,407 40 New Westminster 1,159,460 923,588 235,872 17,568 218,304 1,141,892 41 Burnaby 4,576,114 3,645,182 930,932 69,338 861,594 4,506,776 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows 2,543,836 2,026,336 517,500 38,544 478,956 2,505,292 43 Coquitlam 5,601,964 4,462,341 1,139,623 84,881 1,054,742 5,517,083 44 North Vancouver 3,078,527 2,452,254 626,273 46,646 579,627 3,031,881 45 West Vancouver 1,314,355 1,046,972 267,383 19,915 247,468 1,294,440 46 Sunshine Coast 966,354 769,766 196,588 14,642 181,946 951,712 47 Powell River 604,278 481,348 122,930 9,156 113,774 595,122 48 Sea to Sky 939,564 748,426 191,138 14,236 176,902 925,328 49 Central Coast 296,372 236,080 60,292 4,491 55,801 291,881 50 Haida Gwaii 542,638 432,248 110,390 8,222 102,168 534,416 51 Boundary 557,184 443,835 113,349 8,443 104,906 548,741 52 Prince Rupert 666,723 531,090 135,633 10,102 125,531 656,621 53 Okanagan Similkameen 618,616 492,769 125,847 9,373 116,474 609,243 54 Bulkley Valley 696,344 554,685 141,659 10,551 131,108 685,793 57 Prince George 3,279,793 2,612,576 667,217 49,696 617,521 3,230,097 58 Nicola-Similkameen 618,533 492,703 125,830 9,372 116,458 609,161 59 Peace River South 1,404,568 1,118,833 285,735 21,282 264,453 1,383,286 60 Peace River North 1,469,596 1,170,632 298,964 22,267 276,697 1,447,329 61 Greater Victoria 3,983,030 3,172,751 810,279 60,351 749,928 3,922,679 62 Sooke 1,655,653 1,318,839 336,814 25,087 311,727 1,630,566 63 Saanich 1,503,270 1,197,456 305,814 22,778 283,036 1,480,492 64 Gulf Islands 509,403 405,774 103,629 7,719 95,910 501,684 67 Okanagan Skaha 1,319,685 1,051,218 268,467 19,996 248,471 1,299,689 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith 2,731,329 2,175,687 555,642 41,385 514,257 2,689,944 69 Qualicum 979,910 780,564 199,346 14,848 184,498 965,062 70 Alberni 1,040,992 829,220 211,772 15,773 195,999 1,025,219 71 Comox Valley 1,722,574 1,372,146 350,428 26,101 324,327 1,696,473 72 Campbell River 1,293,438 1,030,310 263,128 19,598 243,530 1,273,840 73 Kamloops/Thompson 3,450,044 2,748,192 701,852 52,275 649,577 3,397,769 74 Gold Trail 686,502 546,845 139,657 10,402 129,255 676,100 75 Mission 1,226,511 976,998 249,513 18,584 230,929 1,207,927 78 Fraser-Cascade 527,288 420,020 107,268 7,990 99,278 519,298 79 Cowichan Valley 1,887,945 1,503,875 384,070 28,606 355,464 1,859,339 81 Fort Nelson 317,606 252,995 64,611 4,812 59,799 312,794 82 Coast Mountains 1,515,315 1,207,050 308,265 22,960 285,305 1,492,355 83 North Okanagan-Shuswap 1,683,261 1,340,831 342,430 25,505 316,925 1,657,756 84 Vancouver Island West 389,367 310,157 79,210 5,900 73,310 383,467 85 Vancouver Island North 729,369 580,991 148,378 11,051 137,327 718,318 87 Stikine 298,627 237,876 60,751 4,525 56,226 294,102 91 Nechako Lakes 1,422,725 1,133,296 289,429 21,557 267,872 1,401,168 92 Nisga'a 266,943 212,638 54,305 4,045 50,260 262,898 93 Conseil scolaire francophone 1,365,632 1,087,818 277,814 20,692 257,122 1,344,940

Provincial Total 115,495,587 92,000,000 23,495,587 1,750,000 21,745,588 113,745,588

APPENDIX A

Ministry of Education - Capital Management Branch Submission Date (YYYY/MM/DD): 4/14/2020

Annual Facility Grant (AFG) - 2020/21 Expenditure Plan

District: 39 Vancouver

Name Email Phone

Contact: IHOR POLITYLO [email protected] (604)713-5640

FACILITY INFORMATION

Facility Name Description of WorkEstimated

Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL

SECONDARYFLOORING UPGRADE $ 64,598 Facility Upgrade Yes

HASTINGS COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYFLOORING UPGRADE $ 119,377 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR ALEXANDER MACKENZIE


LORD ROBERTS ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 5,282 Facility Upgrade Yes

TECUMSEH ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 31,770 Facility Upgrade Yes

DAVID THOMPSON SECONDARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 11,304 Facility Upgrade Yes

TYEE ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 19,142 Facility Upgrade Yes

WAVERLEY ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 11,500 Facility Upgrade Yes

LORD BEACONSFIELD

ELEMENTARYEXTERIOR PAINTING $ 74,787 Facility Upgrade Yes

GT CUNNINGHAM ELEMENTARY EXTERIOR PAINTING $ 146,558 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES KINGSFORD-SMITH




DR. R.E.MCKECHNIE


TECUMSEH ELEMENTARY EXTERIOR PAINTING $ 79,039 Facility Upgrade Yes

DAVID THOMPSON SECONDARY EXTERIOR PAINTING $ 225,463 Facility Upgrade Yes

QUEEN MARY ELEMENTARY BUILDING FABRIC RESTORATION $ 197,488 Facility Upgrade Yes

SD#39 - WORKSHOP BUILDING FABRIC RESTORATION $ 98,744 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES TUPPER

SECONDARY

DUST COLLECTOR SAFETY

UPGRADE $ 54,090 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARY

DUST COLLECTOR SAFETY

UPGRADE $ 62,977 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARYELEVATOR/ LIFT UPGRADE $ 13,000 Functional Improvement Yes

EDUCATION CENTRE ELEVATOR/ LIFT UPGRADE $ 15,000 Functional Improvement Yes

THUNDERBIRD ELEMENTARY ELEVATOR/ LIFT UPGRADE $ 10,401 Functional Improvement Yes

ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATION

APPENDIX B



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 333,623 Roof Replacement Yes

BRITANNIA COMMUNITY ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 342,909 Roof Replacement Yes

WINDERMERE COMMUNITY

SECONDARYROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 210,054 Roof Replacement Yes

LORD ROBERTS ELEMENTARY ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 150,670 Roof Replacement Yes

SOUTH HILL EDUCATION CTRE ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 120,979 Roof Replacement Yes

ADMIRAL SEYMOUR

ELEMENTARYROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 150,670 Roof Replacement Yes


SECONDARYROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 484,264 Roof Replacement Yes

TEMPLETON SECONDARY ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 62,469 Roof Replacement Yes

RENFREW COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 56,443 Roof Replacement Yes

POINT GREY SECONDARY ROOFING REPLACEMENT $ 34,935 Roof Replacement Yes

KILLARNEY SECONDARY STEEP REPAIR ROOFING $ 6,398 Functional Improvement No

CHIEF MAQUINNA ELEMENTARY STEEP REPAIR ROOFING $ 6,398 Functional Improvement No

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARYLED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 250,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES TUPPER

SECONDARYLED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 250,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

MOUNT PLEASANT ELEMENTARY LED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 100,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

SIR JOHN FRANKLIN

ELEMENTARYLED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 120,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes


ELEMENTARYLED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 5,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

SD#39 GROUNDS YARD LED LIGHTING UPGRADE $ 5,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

GLADSTONE SECONDARY FIRE ALARM UPGRADE/EPE $ 220,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE ANNEX FIRE ALARM UPGRADE/EPE $ 160,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE

ELEMENTARYFIRE ALARM UPGRADE/EPE $ 150,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

ALL SITES SD#39 FIRE ALARM UPGRADE/EPE $ 90,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

DR. H N MACCORKINDALE

ELEMENTARY

EMERGENCY LIGHTING

UPGRADE $ 45,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

KERRISDALE ANNEX

ELEMENTARY

EMERGENCY LIGHTING


LORD ROBERTS ANNEXEMERGENCY LIGHTING


ADMIRAL SEYMOUR

ELEMENTARY

EMERGENCY LIGHTING


LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARY PA UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT $ 75,000 Functional Improvement Yes

CHAMPLAIN ELEMENTARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

CAPTAIN JAMES COOK

ELEMENTARYELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARYELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

SIR WILFRED GRENFELL

ELEMENTARYELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A



KINGSFORD SMITH SECONDARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

GLADSTONE SECONDARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

KILLARNEY SECONDARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

TEMPLETON SECONDARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,500 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL


CROSSTOWN ELEMENTARY ELECTRICAL VAULT SERVICE $ 5,000 Electrical System Upgrade N/A

SIR JOHN FRANKLIN

ELEMENTARYSECURITY UPGRADE $ 10,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes


ELEMENTARYSECURITY UPGRADE $ 10,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

WORKSHOP GROUNDS

NURSERYSECURITY UPGRADE $ 10,000 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

LORD TENNYSON ELEMENTARY PANEL UPGRADE $ 3,800 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

ADMIRAL SEYMOUR

ELEMENTARYPANEL UPGRADE $ 1,200 Electrical System Upgrade Yes

MAGEE SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM

UPGRADE $ 30,000 Functional Improvement N/A

ERIC HAMBER SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


TEMPLETON SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARY

TECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


LORD BYNG SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


UNIVERSITY HILL SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


KING GEORGE SECONDARYTECHNICAL SHOP PROGRAM


VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARYGYM DOOR UPGRADES $ 12,000 Functional Improvement Yes

SIR ERIC HAMBER SECONDARY GYM DOOR UPGRADES $ 12,000 Functional Improvement Yes

JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY GYM DOOR UPGRADES $ 12,000 Functional Improvement Yes



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


DAVID THOMPSON SECONDARY GYM DOOR UPGRADES $ 19,000 Functional Improvement Yes

SIR ERIC HAMBER SECONDARY HANDICAP DOOR UPGRADES $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade N/A

JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY HANDICAP DOOR UPGRADES $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade N/A

WAVERLEY ELEMENTARY HANDICAP DOOR UPGRADES $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade N/A

JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY COMPRESSOR UPGRADE $ 10,000 Functional Improvement Yes

QUILCHENA ELEMENTARY COMPRESSOR UPGRADE $ 7,500 Functional Improvement Yes


ELEMENTARYCOMPRESSOR UPGRADE $ 7,500 Functional Improvement Yes


SECONDARYMOTOR REPLACEMENTS $ 2,000 Functional Improvement N/A

SIR ERIC HAMBER SECONDARY MOTOR REPLACEMENTS $ 1,500 Functional Improvement N/A


SECONDARYMOTOR REPLACEMENTS $ 1,500 Functional Improvement N/A

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY DOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 20,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES TUPPER

SECONDARYDOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 24,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

QUILCHENA ELEMENTARY DOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 20,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARY DOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 16,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

KILLARNEY SECONDARY DOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 4,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARYDOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 15,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR JOHN FRANKLIN

ELEMENTARYDOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 15,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

GRANDVIEW ELEMENTARY DOOR & HARDWARE UPGRADE $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

EMILY CARR ELEMENTARY STEPS & LANDING UPGRADE $ 15,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR WILLIAM VANHORNE

ELEMENTARYSTEPS & LANDING UPGRADE $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR JOHN FRANKLIN


ADMIRAL SEYMOUR



ELEMENTARYCEILING UPGRADE $ 37,000 Functional Improvement Yes

LORD ROBERTS ANNEX

ELEMENTARYCEILING UPGRADE $ 5,000 Functional Improvement Yes

TEMPLETON SECONDARY CEILING UPGRADE $ 15,000 Functional Improvement Yes

LAURIER ANNEX ELEMENTARY BUILDING FABRIC RESTORATION $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SOUTHLANDS ELEMENTARY BUILDING FABRIC RESTORATION $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

NOOTKA COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYLOCK & KEY UPGRADE $ 12,000 Functional Improvement N/A



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


RENFREW COMMUNITY


JOHN HENDERSON

ELELMENTARYLOCK & KEY UPGRADE $ 12,000 Functional Improvement N/A



JOHN OLIVER SECONDARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 20,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES TUPPER


MAGEE SECONDARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 23,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

LORD SELKIRK ANNEX FLOORING UPGRADE $ 14,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

MOUNT PLEASANT ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

LORD BYNG SECONDARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 20,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

MACCORKINDALE ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 45,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

UNIVERSITY HILL ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 30,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

QUEEN ALEXANDRA


SIR CHARLES TUPPER


LORD ROBERTS ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

CAPTAIN JAMES COOK


GARIBALDI ANNEX ELEMENTARY FLOORING UPGRADE $ 30,000 Facility Upgrade Yes

LORD STRATHCONA

ELEMENTARYMASONRY UPGRADE $ 8,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARYMASONRY UPGRADE $ 8,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

GLADSTONE SECONDARY CONCRETE RENEWAL $ 8,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

SIMON FRASER ELEMENTARY CONCRETE RENEWAL $ 8,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY GLAZING/ LEXAN REPLACEMENT $ 10,000 Functional Improvement Yes


SECONDARYGLAZING/ LEXAN REPLACEMENT $ 10,000 Functional Improvement Yes

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL


BRITANNIA COMMUNITY


SD#39 WORKSHOP GLAZING/ LEXAN REPLACEMENT $ 10,000 Functional Improvement Yes


SECONDARYCOUNTERTOP RENEWAL $ 10,000 Functional Improvement N/A

KING GEORGE SECONDARY COUNTERTOP RENEWAL $ 15,000 Functional Improvement N/A





Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


SIR CHARLES TUPPER


RENFREW COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYDRAPERY RENEWAL $ 15,000 Functional Improvement N/A

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARYDRAPERY RENEWAL $ 15,000 Functional Improvement N/A

SIR A.R. LORD ELEMENTARY DRAPERY RENEWAL $ 10,000 Functional Improvement N/A

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY DRAPERY RENEWAL $ 15,000 Functional Improvement N/A

RENFREW COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYWINDOW UPGRADE $ 10,000 Facility Upgrade Yes



SIR JOHN NORQUAY


ALL SITES SD#39 ASBESTOS REMOVAL $ 610,000 Functional Improvement N/A

ALL SITES SD#39 FAUCET REPLACEMENTS $ 120,400 Functional Improvement N/A

SIR WILLIAM JAMIESON

ELEMENTARY

PLAYGROUND RESURFACING

REPLACEMENTS $ 38,400 Functional Improvement No

DR. R.E. MCKECHNIE

ELEMENTARY

PLAYGROUND RESURFACING


SIMON FRASER ELEMENTARYPLAYGROUND RESURFACING


TYEE ELEMENTARYBULKHEAD

UPGRADE/REPLACEMENTS $ 3,800 Site Upgrade Yes

SIR JAMES DOUGLAS

ELEMENTARY

BULKHEAD



SECONDARY

BULKHEAD


HASTINGS COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARY

PERIMETER DRAINAGE

UPGRADE $ 16,000 Site Upgrade Yes


ELEMENTARY

FENCING


ANNIE B JAMIESON ELEMENTARYFENCING


TYEE ELEMENTARYFENCING


SIR WILFRED LAURIER

ELEMENTARY

FENCING


LORD BYNG SECONDARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 1,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

VANCOUVER TECHNICAL

SECONDARYTREE REPLACEMENT $ 9,800 Facility Upgrade N/A

ECOLE LAURA SECORD

ELEMENTARYTREE REPLACEMENT $ 4,000 Facility Upgrade N/A



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


SD#39 EDUCATION CTRE TREE REPLACEMENT $ 3,200 Facility Upgrade N/A

HENRY HUDSON ELEMENTARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 4,000 Facility Upgrade N/A

TYEE ELEMENTARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 2,500 Facility Upgrade N/A

STRATHCONA COMMUNITY


QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 5,400 Facility Upgrade N/A

SIR WILLIAM OSLER


ERIC HAMBER SECONDARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 15,300 Facility Upgrade N/A

EMILY CARR ELEMENTARY TREE REPLACEMENT $ 7,800 Facility Upgrade N/A

QUILCHENA ELEMENTARY BLACKTOP RENEWAL $ 47,800 Site Upgrade Yes

HASTINGS COMMUNITY

ELEMENTARYBLACKTOP RENEWAL $ 42,200 Site Upgrade Yes

GT CUNNINGHAM ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

CHARLES DICKENS

ELEMENTARYUPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

CHARLES DICKENS ANNEX UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

SIR JAMES DOUGLAS ANNEX UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

GRANDVIEW ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes



HENRY HUDSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

KERRISDALE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

SIR WILFRED LAURIER


DAVID LLOYD GEORGE


SIR A.R. LORD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes



MAPLE GROVE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

CHIEF MAQUINNA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE ANNEX UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

DR. R.E. MCKECHNIE


SIR WALTER MOBERLEY




XPEY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE WATER SITES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

NOOTKA COMMUNITY




Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARYWATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 39,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

LORD BYNG SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes



GLADSTONE SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 20,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SIR ERIC HAMBER SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 35,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 22,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SIR CHARLES TUPPER



ELEMENTARYWATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 20,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

EMILY CARR ELEMENTARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 5,500 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

KILLARNEY SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes


ELEMENTARYWATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 20,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

TEMPLETON SECONDARY WATER LINE/PIPE UPGRADES $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes


ELEMENTARY

BOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE

PLACEMENT $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

JOHN OLIVER SECONDARYBOILER/CONTROS/UPGRADE/RE


PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARYBOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE


POINT GREY SECONDARYBOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE


GLADSTONE SECONDARYBOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE


TEMPLETON SECONDARYBOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE


QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARYBOILER/CONTROLS/UPGRADE/RE


SIR RICHARD MACKENZIE

ELEMENTARY

BACKFLOW PREVENTOR

UPGRADES $ 30,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARYBACKFLOW PREVENTOR

UPGRADES $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

POINT GREY SECONDARYFIRE SPRINKLER

UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT $ 7,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

TEMPLETON SECONDARYFIRE SPRINKLER


WAVERLEY ELEMENTARYFIRE SPRINKLER


PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU

ELEMENTARY

FIRE SPRINKLER




Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


MAGEE SECONDARYFIRE SPRINKLER


SIR CHARLES DICKENS

ELEMENTARY

FIRE SPRINKLER


SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE

ELEMENTARY

FIRE SPRINKLER


FALSE CREEK ELEMENTARYFIRE SPRINKLER


XPEY ELEMENTARYFIRE SPRINKLER



SECONDARYUPGRADE/REPLACE LOW WATER $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SD#39 EDUCATION CTRE CO2 SENSOR REPLACEMENT $ 35,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE

ELEMENTARYVALVE UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

FALSE CREEK ELEMENTARY VALVE UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY COIL UPGRADE/REPLACEMENT $ 20,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

BRITANNIA COMMUNITY

SECONDARY

BOILER CONTROLS &

REFRACTORY UPGRADES $ 12,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

KING GEORGE SECONDARYBOILER CONTROLS &


SOUTH HILL EDUCATION CTREBOILER CONTROLS &


TECUMSEH ELEMENTARYBOILER CONTROLS &


TYEE ELEMENTARY FURNACE REPLACEMENT $ 12,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARY FURNACE REPLACEMENT $ 15,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SOUTH HILL EDUCATION CTRE FURNACE REPLACEMENT $ 25,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

UNIVERSITY HILL ELEMENTARY DDC VALVE UPGRADE $ 5,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

JOHN NORQUAY ELEMENTARY DDC VALVE UPGRADE $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARY PNEUMATIC CONTROL UPGRADE $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

DAVID THOMPSON SECONDARY PNEUMATIC CONTROL UPGRADE $ 10,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

TEMPLETON SECONDARY PNEUMATIC CONTROL UPGRADE $ 8,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

SIR GUY CARLETON

ELEMENTARYGUTTERS/FLASHING UPGRADES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes

LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARY GUTTERS/FLASHING UPGRADES $ 20,000 Site Upgrade Yes

LORD TENNYSON ELEMENTARY

(FRAME BLDG)GUTTERS/FLASHING UPGRADES $ 5,000 Site Upgrade Yes



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


GLADSTONE SECONDARY ROOF BARRIER UPGRADE $ 2,000 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A

MAPLE GROVE ELEMENTARY ROOF BARRIER UPGRADE $ 2,000 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A

WILLIAM OSLER ELEMENTARY ROOF BARRIER UPGRADE $ 2,500 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A

LECOLE LAURA SECORD

ELEMENTARYROOF BARRIER UPGRADE $ 4,000 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A

POINT GREY SECONDARY ROOF BARRIER UPGRADE $ 6,000 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A


ELEMENTARYLADDER SAFETY UPGRADE $ 10,000 Health and Safety Upgrade N/A

TYEE ELEMENTARY PORTABLE ROOF REPLACEMENT $ 12,000 Roof Replacement Yes

SOUTH HILL EDUCATION CTRE PORTABLE ROOF REPLACEMENT $ 20,000 Roof Replacement Yes

QUEEN ELIZABETH ELEMENTARY PORTABLE ROOF REPLACEMENT $ 20,000 Roof Replacement Yes

SD#39 - VARIOUS VENTILATION UPGRADES $ 30,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

JOHN OLIVER SECONDARYWASHROOM PARTITION

UPGRADE $ 3,000 Site Upgrade N/A


ELEMENTARY

WASHROOM PARTITION


GRAHAM BRUCE ELEMENTARYWASHROOM PARTITION


PRINCE OF WALES SECONDARYWINDOW SCREEN

REPLACEMENTS $ 5,000 Site Upgrade N/A

ALL SITES SD#39INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

UPGRADES $ 100,000

Technology Infrastructure

UpgradeN/A

SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE

ELEMENTARYWASHROOM UPGRADE $ 13,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

HENRY HUDSON ELEMENTARY ACCESSIBILITY UPGRADE $ 50,000 Disabled Access N/A

ALL SITES SD#39

PLUMBING FIXTURE

UPGRADES/WATER

CONSERVATION

$ 40,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes

ALL SITES SD#39 MECHANICAL UPGRADES $ 40,000 Mechanical System Upgrade Yes


SECONDARY

WORKSAFE HEALTH & SAFETY

UPGRADES $ 23,000 Functional Improvement N/A


ELEMENTARYLOSS PREVENTION $ 23,000 Functional Improvement N/A

AFG OPERATING ALL SITES

SD#39CARPENTRY UPGRADES $ 828,066 Facility Upgrade N/A

AFG OP - ALL SITES SD#39PLUMBING & HEATING

UPGRADES $ 483,388 Facility Upgrade N/A

AFG OP - ALL SITES SD#39 ELECTRICAL UPGRADES $ 326,343 Facility Upgrade N/A

AFG OP - ALL SITES SD#39 SHEET METAL UPGRADES $ 161,849 Facility Upgrade N/A

AFG OP - ALL SITES SD#39 MECHANICAL UPGRADES $ 108,602 Facility Upgrade N/A



Cost AFG Category

VFA

Requirement

(Yes/No)

Comments


AFG OP - ALL SITES SD#39HEAT & FROST INSULATOR

UPGRADES $ 140,860 Facility Upgrade N/A

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ -

$ - Total Estimated Cost 10,834,407$

Total AFG Allocation 10,834,407$

Variance -$

1

Date: June 15, 2020 To: Facilities Planning Committee From: J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer Re: Vancouver Project Office – Memorandum of Understanding (Renegotiation)


Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship Objectives:

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

INTRODUCTION:

The operation of the Vancouver Project Office is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) to which the Project Office, the Ministry of Education and the Vancouver Board of

Education are parties. The current MOU (attached) was signed in August 2017 for a three year

term ending on August 20, 2020. During the discussion in 2019 on the development of a Long

Range Facilities Plan for the District, the following motions pertaining to the MOU were passed at

the May 27-29, 2019 Board Meeting:

That the Board engage with the Ministry of Education in a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Seismic Mitigation Projects. As part of a renewed MOU the District would seek increased opportunities to engage the public in the process and to increase transparency. That the Board request of the Minister of Education to have a trustee serve as a non-voting member of the Vancouver Project Steering Committee.

The Board Chair wrote to the Minister of Education on June 24, 2019 requesting a response to the Board motions.

BACKGROUND:

The Minister responded to the Board Chair’s letter on September 9, 2019, indicating a willingness to renegotiate the MOU to ensure it accurately reflects the requirements of each party. The Minister’s letter is attached. The request to have a trustee serve as a non-voting member of the Vancouver Project Office Steering Committee was not supported. On January 17, 2020 the

ITEM 2.3

2

Secretary Treasurer sent the following email to trustees, asking for suggestions to be included in the negotiation of a new MOU:

In response to the Chair’s letter to the Minister in June requesting a conversation about making amendments to the VPO MOU, the Minister provided the attached letter. In it he indicates a willingness to renegotiate the MOU. As this is a positive response from the Minister in response to a Board motion, there is an opportunity to have a conversation about the terms of the MOU. In order to move this forward District staff needs to know what changes you as Trustees would like to see so that a response can be formulated. I’ve also attached the MOU for your reference as well as the Project Timeline that Ministry of Education and District staff have agreed on. The Minister references this work in his letter. As the MOU expires in August of this year, any of your suggested changes will likely be part of the negotiation of a new MOU and the District response to the Minister’s letter would reflect that. Please provide your thoughts by January 31, 2020.

ANALYSIS:

The following responses to the email were received. Attached to this report is the current MOU with the changes or omissions that the trustees below suggested, where possible. Some of the suggestions are questions for further consideration. Some answers (in red) from staff are provided. Trustee Cho

One of the most important issues is the rising cost of projects. I think we all agree that the funding for SMP projects should include actual escalation costs not just projected escalations costs. Can this requirement be added to the MOU? Could we suggest that the lowest cost option include deferred maintenance costs and the rationale would be that it is a more effective use of public money and would give the public more confidence in the value of the SMP.

Trustee Fraser – Response to Trustee Cho I fully agree with and support Carmen's suggestion that the lowest cost option include deferred maintenance costs, however I'm not sure if that is an issue that would fall within the VPO MOU. Maybe there's a different and more appropriate route to bring this to the Minister's attention, should the board wish to do so.

Trustee Reddy

Item 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 who take direction from the Board of Trustees; and...

3

Item 2.5

• OMIT: 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

Item 2.17

• SMP projects will be selected from a variety of options included but not limited to upgrades to existing facilities, full facility replacements and other hybrid options depending on educational needs, community input, accommodation options, and cost OMIT: are expected to be upgrades to existing facilities and not full facility replacement projects, except where replacement is the lowest cost option

Trustee Fraser

As this renegotiation is discussed with trustees it may be helpful to better understand the reasons trustees wanted these changes to see if there are measures that can be taken within the VSB that can help address the concerns.

For the MOU itself:

1. I am concerned that the current process does not adequately account for escalation costs which results in the board agreeing to:

o Reduced project scope to narrow the gap between the money available and the lowest tender. This results in schools that have reduced ability to meet students' educational needs and/or reduced building quality.

o No risk reserves which results in additional financial risk for the VSB. o Additional funding from the VSB. This is an unanticipated use of our capital

funds which are then not available for enhancement projects.

2. I would also like to know if any unused funds from VSB projects, both above and below the line (I think that is the correct terminology), could be allocated to future VSB projects. Answer: A Certificate of Approval (COA) is provided for all VSB Projects so the District can draw down funds as projects proceed. Initially the COA will be the funds above the line (those allocated to fund the project without dipping into the escalation and other risk reserves). If the use of escalation and other risk reserves (below the line items) are approved, the COA is increased accordingly. At the end of the project all approved funding that has not been used will be transferred to Ministry Restricted Capital and be available, with Ministry approval, to contribute to other projects. Project funding that is not approved will not be transferred to Ministry Restricted Capital.

3. Section 2.8. Is the funding mechanism adequate and working well?

Answer: The VPO budget comes from Project Management Fees that are part of the Capital Project Funding Agreements and those fees are adequate to cover the expenses of the Office.

4. Section 3. The term of our MOU is three years and for Richmond and Surrey this is five years. Is there an advantage in changing to five years?

4

5. Schedule A. "Submit a long range facilities plan to the Province for approval annually” Given the change in LRFP guidelines should this just be submit the LRFP annually?

6. Schedule A. I think the approval of VBE funding should be tied to Section 2.15 and not 2.16 (there may have been renumbering for the 2017 version).

7. Schedule A. Are the roles and responsibilities of the VPO Director appropriate?

8. Do staff have any recommendations on how to improve the MOU?

District Staff Suggested Changes

1. Could Life-Cycle costing be included in the Low Cost Option analysis? – If the Board could arrive at an arrangement with the Ministry of Education to co-fund the difference between the Low Cost Option and the Low Cost Life Cycle Costed Option, subject of course to the District having sufficient capital revenue to fund the difference.

2. The other concern that staff shares with trustees is the increased pressure to complete projects within approved budgets due to escalating construction costs. Staff would be recommending that language be included in a renegotiated MOU that would address that concern, either in the form of a set percentage for escalation costs or an ability to have a project agreement revised to account for increased escalation.

District Staff Analysis As the Minister indicated in his letter, District staff and Ministry of Education staff had started work on potential amendments to the MOU. An example is the creation of a timeline for a seismic project that allows for some community involvement during the development of a Project Definition Report for a project in the form of a School Advisory Group to work with District staff and the VPO. The timeline is located at this link Seismic Roadmap Timeline. One of the concerns that had been expressed by communities impacted by seismic work was a perceived lack of public consultation in that the VBE was bound by the terms of the MOU not to select or publicly present a preferred option for a SMP project unless and until that option has been endorsed by the Steering Committee. The District has established School Advisory Groups for recent projects and the communication between those and the VBE and the VPO is working well. Recently the Ministry introduced a new step in the major capital plan approval process. The following chart illustrates the new need for districts to submit a Concept Plan. In addition, with respect to seismic projects, there is now an additional requirement for a more detailed costing earlier in the approval process. Because of these changes District staff will be engaging in discussion with the Ministry staff on making changes to the current seismic timeline. Staff is recommending the timeline be an actual schedule included as part of the renegotiated MOU.

https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Seismic_Mitigation_Program/Documents/sbfile/190822/VSB-Long-Timeline-11x17.pdf

5

RECOMMENDATION:

There is no recommendation. This report is provided for the Committee’s information and discussion. Staff are looking for further direction from the Board of Education on the suggestions they have made and the recommendations from staff. ATTACHMENTS:

- APPENDIX A – Letter from the Ministry of Education to Trustee Chair - APPENDIX B – DRAFT MOU

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") consider

student safety to be a top priority, and have committed to reducing seismic risk to protect students

through the Seismic Mitigation Program ("SMP") for schools. The primary objective of the SMP

is to achieve a life-safety standard for schools by minimizing the probability of local structural

collapse as a result of a seismic event.

The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is to facilitate the establishment of

a project office (the "VPO") to manage all of the VBE's SMP projects, to define the terms of

reference for the VPO, the director (the "Director") and the steering committee (the "Steering

Committee"), and to identify the respective roles and responsibilities of the VBE, the Province,

the Steering Committee, the VPO and the Director. The Parties intend that the VBE will

complete its SMP projects in an effective and efficient manner and within the parameters of the

SMP.

While the VPO is to be a part of the VBE, the intent is that the VPO will function with limited

interaction with the day-to-day VBE operations.

2. Terms and Conditions

2.1 The VPO is hereby established to manage the SMP in the Vancouver school district.

2.2 The Steering Committee that shall provide oversight and direction to the VPO, and be

comprised of the following members, is hereby established:

two representatives of the VBE, being the VBE's Superintendent and Secretary-

Treasurer, or their designates, who take direction from the Board of Education; and

two representatives of the Province, including its Deputy Minister of Education and

· another Deputy Minister, or their designates.

Additionally, staff of the VBE and the Province may be invited to attend meetings of the

Steering Committee as non-voting members, as and when appropriate from time to time.

Commented [DG1]: Trustee Reddy suggestion

APPENDIX B

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 and

criteria required for the Director position. The Steering Committee will oversee the

hiring of the Director through a competitive process.

2.1 l The Steering Committee will provide guidance regarding the overall structure of the VPO

and approve and monitor the annual budget of the VPO.

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 will be selected from a variety of options included but not limited to

upgrades to existing facilities, full facility replacements and other hybrid options

depending on educational needs, community input, accommodation options, and

cost 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 the

Parties agree the term of the MOU may be extended at any time by written agreement, and either

Party may terminate this Agreement on at least ninety days written notice to the other Party.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

The Province (through the Ministry of Education), the VBE, the Steering Committee, the VPO and

the Director shall have the respective roles and responsibilities set out in Schedule A attached

hereto.

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia,

by the authorized representative of the Minister of Education

Name: Honourable Rob Fleming

Title: Minister of Education

Ministry of Education

The Board of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver)

Per:


Commented [DG4]: Question from Trustee Fraser – could

the term be for five years?

4 AGK 21868 6

Authorized Signatory

Name: Dianne Turner

Title: Official Trustee

5 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.

Commented [DG5]: Given the change in the Long Range

Facilities Plan guidelines should this just say submit

annually?

1

Date: June 15, 2020 To: Facilities Planning Committee From: J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer John Dawson, Director of Educational Planning

Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities

RE: Draft 2021/2022 Five Year Capital Plan Submission


Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship.

Objectives:

• Effectively utilize school District resources and facilities. • Implement the recommendations of the Long-Range Facilities Plan.

Reference: Capital Planning Documentation

INTRODUCTION:

This report contains a recommendation for consideration by the Board of Education at the June

22, 2020 Board meeting.

BACKGROUND:

In April 2020, the Ministry of Education issued Capital Plan Instructions for the Five-Year Capital

Plan Submission for 2021-2022. The instructions are found at the link above.

The normal deadline for submission of the Five-Year Capital Plan is June 30th. The submission

deadline has been extended to July 31, 2020 this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. A

Board-approved Capital Plan Resolution is required along with the Capital Plan submission. This

report includes proposed Capital Plan submissions for each of the following Capital Programs.

Major Capital Programs

A. Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) - Table 7-12

B. Expansions (EXP) or (New schools and School Capacity Additions) - Table 13 & 14

Minor Capital Programs

C. Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) - Table 6

D. Playground Equipment Program (PEP) - Table 7

ITEM 4.1

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/education-training/k-12/administration/capital/planning

2

E. School Enhancement Program (SEP) - Tabe 15

F. Building Envelope Program (BEP) - Table 18

STATUS UPDATE - SMP and EXP:

Completed Projects

Table 1 illustrates completed major capital projects (new, replacement and upgraded schools)

that have been funded through the SMP or EXP since the inception of the Vancouver Project

Office (2014).

Table 1

Elementary School Projects Currently in Progress

Table 2 summarizes the status of elementary school projects currently in progress.

Table 2

School Name Capital Program

Project Type Project Stage

Bayview SMP Replacement Construction

Begbie SMP Replacement Construction

Fleming SMP Replacement Construction

Maple Grove SMP Replacement Construction

Maquinna SMP Upgrade Construction

Selkirk SMP Upgrade Construction

Wolfe SMP Upgrade Construction

Tennyson SMP Replacement Construction

Cavell SMP Upgrade Design

Livingstone SMP Upgrade Design

Weir SMP Partial Replacement

Design

False Creek SMP TBD Feasibility

Grenfell SMP TBD Feasibility

Hudson SMP TBD Feasibility

School Name School Type Capital Program Project Type Year Completed

Nelson Elementary SMP Replacement 2019

Kitsilano Secondary SMP Replacement 2018

Jamieson Elementary SMP Upgrade 2018

Kingsford-Smith

Elementary SMP Upgrade 2018

Crosstown Elementary EXP New School 2017

Strathcona Elementary SMP Partial Upgrade 2017

Gordon Elementary SMP Replacement 2016

L'Ecole Bilingue

Elementary SMP Replacement 2016

Queen Mary Elementary SMP Partial Upgrade 2016

Norma Rose Point

Elementary EXP New School 2014

3

Secondary School Projects Currently in Progress

Table 3 summarizes the status of secondary school projects currently in progress.

Table 3

School Name Capital Program

Project Type Project Stage

Byng SMP Upgrade Construction

Hamber SMP Replacement Design

David Thompson

SMP n/a Feasibility

Killarney SMP n/a Feasibility

PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS:

Funding and Approval

Through the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) the Ministry of Education has made a commitment

to fund the projects necessary to accommodate all VSB students in seismically safe schools. The

SMP commitment from the Ministry does not ensure that all VSB schools currently in use will be

funded for seismic upgrading or replacement. The SMP priorities identified in the proposed Five-

Year Capital Plan reflect the need to prioritize schools that have the capacity to receive students

from nearby schools that may not be upgraded or replaced through the SMP.

The Ministry of Education has added the additional requirement of a Concept Plan to the Capital

Project Approval process for major capital projects. The addition of this new requirement may

lengthen the approval process for major capital projects.

Observations about the Seismic Program

The SMP functions differently for secondary and elementary schools. Table 4 shows a

comparison of considerations for elementary and secondary seismic mitigation projects.

Table 4

Consideration Secondary Elementary

Approval Process Some supported projects may not be funded

Supported projects are generally funded.

Timeline 7 – 9 years from feasibility to occupancy.

5 – 6 years from feasibility to occupancy

Costs Range $90-$120M Range $20- $40 M

Procurement Design-Build or Construction Management

Design – Bid – Build or Construction Management

Temporary Accommodation

Single site required to move students offsite

Challenging but feasible, more options available

Educational Programming

Comprehensive programming - sustaining educational programming options requiring specialty spaces is a primary concern

Less requirement for specialty spaces

Capital Plan – Ministry Practices

• Projects that are supported by the Ministry cannot have their priority lowered in subsequent capital plan submissions

4

• Capital requests in years 1-3 of the Capital Plan are subject to detailed review by Ministry Staff

• Capital requests in years 4 and 5 of the Capital Plan are considered notional

• In order to be considered for approval there must be a defensible business case o Enrolment and capacity utilization are fundamental considerations in establishing

a business case for funding

PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY (SMP):

Capital funding from the province has been committed to address seismic mitigation requirements

of high risk schools identified in the SMP. The Five-Year Capital Plan submission allows the

Ministry to identify the highest priority projects to consider for major capital investment.

Prioritization 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.

In consideration of the context of the VSB, District Staff have identified and categorized seven

planning criteria to support the development of the Capital Plan Submission in Table 5.

Table 5

Criteria Priority Description

High Seismic Risk Factor

1 Statistic - % High risk X Enrolment

Geographic Location is Essential

1 Geographic accessibility or isolation

Capacity 2 Prioritizing schools that have sufficient capacity to accommodate students from nearby schools that are not seismically safe

Forecast CU is high 2 Forecast Capital Utilities % is high (2025)

Capacity of Surrounding Schools

3 Assessment of safe capacity in surrounding schools to receive students

Availability of TA 3 Temporary Accommodation site is available

Limited Scope 3 Potential for MOE support due to limited scope

Zonal Analysis – Elementary Schools and Annexes

The SMP has progressed to a point where there are discrete zones in the District that contain

clusters of elementary schools that are not yet seismically safe. Many of these zones have overall

low capacity utilization.

In the District, there are 35 elementary schools and 5 annexes that have a high seismic risk rating.

The Seismic Status chart does not show the following schools which have the District as their

catchment: Quesnel, Queen Elizabeth Annex, Tennyson, L’Ecole Bilingue, Tyee, Xpey’ and

Douglas Annex.

5

The nominal capacity of elementary schools in the following categories is 21,500.

• Completed Seismic Projects

• New Schools

• Schools with Medium or Low Seismic Risk

• SMP Projects with a Project Agreement

Zonal Analysis – Secondary Schools

There are six District secondary schools that are seismically safe as listed in Table 6 below. Lord

Byng Secondary is currently in the construction phase. The seismic upgrading is scheduled for

completion in 2021. There are twelve secondary schools that have some seismically unsafe

areas. Each of these twelve schools have an overall seismic risk rating of H1 and their total

nominal capacity is 17150 students.

6

Table 6 – Seismically Safe Secondary Schools

School Nominal Capacity

*Byng 1200

Kits 1500

Magee 1200

Tupper 1500

University Hill 1000

Van Tech 1700

Total 8100

*In construction phase of project

The four zones identified on the chart below are areas where there is low capacity utilization of

secondary schools. On the westside Prince of Wales and Point Grey each enroll a significant

number of International Students and enrolment in this zone is forecast to decline further.

Enrolment in the NE zone with Britannia and Templeton, is forecast to remain stable. Enrolment

in the overlapping zones containing John Oliver, Gladstone and Windermere is forecast to remain

stable. Point Grey is no longer supported by the Ministry.

Based on the criteria for prioritization of projects in Table 5 and the zonal analyses above District

staff have determined that each year of the 2021-2022 Five Year Capital Plan submission will

contain a request for one secondary school and two to three elementary schools.

7

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRIORITIES (SMP)

District staff have applied the criteria identified above to the groups of schools within the identified

zones to prioritize the funding requests in the proposed 2021-22 Capital Plan Submission.

Table 7 – Elementary Schools Year 1

CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015 MOE Nominal Capacity

1 Mackenzie H1 635

1 Renfrew H1 760

Total 1395

Mackenzie is a large centrally located school that currently enrolls 437 students. Mackenzie’s

enrolment is forecast to remain stable. It has sufficient capacity to offer diverse programming

options or receive students from surrounding schools that are not seismically safe. There is

insufficient seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to accommodate students from

Mackenzie. Mackenzie is a site that would be a suitable location for District Programs as it is in a

main transit corridor accessible from different parts of the District.

Renfrew is large school at the east end of the District that currently enrolls 478 students.

Renfrew’s enrolment is forecast to remain stable. It has sufficient capacity to offer diverse

programming options or receive students from surrounding schools that are not seismically safe.

There is insufficient seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to accommodate students

from Renfrew.


CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015 MOE Nominal Capacity

2 Waverley H1 510

2 Nightingale H1 390

2 Carr H1 290

Total 1190

Waverley is a large school in the southeastern area of the District. Waverley currently enrolls 414

students. Waverley’s enrolment is forecast to remain relatively stable. There is insufficient

seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to accommodate students from Waverley. Most

of the schools surrounding Waverley have been seismically upgraded or replaced and there is no

opportunity to increase the number of safe seats in the area to accommodate Waverley students.

Nightingale is a centrally located mid-sized school which serves as an overflow school for Fraser

Elementary. Fraser is in an area with increased enrolment due to residential redevelopment.

Nightingale currently enrolls 259 students and enrolment is forecast to increase due to the influx

of students from the Fraser catchment. There is insufficient seismically safe capacity in

surrounding schools to accommodate students from Nightingale and overflow students for Fraser.

Carr is a medium sized centrally located school with a nominal capacity of 290 students. Carr

currently enrolls 307 students and is forecast to remain above 100% capacity utilization for the

foreseeable future. Carr is in a corridor that will face ongoing enrolment pressure and was

8

designated a full school for the 2020-2021 school year. There is insufficient seismically safe

capacity in surrounding schools to accommodate students from Carr.


CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015

MOE Nominal Capacity

3 Franklin H1 295

3 Osler H1 315

3 Mount Pleasant H3 315

Total 925

With the Burrard inlet to the North, Burnaby to the east, and the Cassiar connector to the west

Franklin serves a catchment that is geographically unique. Franklin has a nominal capacity of 295

and currently enrolls 191 students. Enrolment at Franklin is forecast to remain stable and there

is insufficient seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to accommodate students from

Franklin.

Osler is a medium sized school with a nominal capacity of 315 students. Currently Osler enrolls

233 students. Although the population of school aged children in the Osler catchment is forecast

to decline, Osler is adjacent to schools to the east that are currently experiencing enrolment

pressure. Osler currently serves as an overflow school for neighbouring schools and will continue

to do so in the future. There is insufficient seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to

accommodate students from Osler.

Mount Pleasant is a medium sized school with a nominal capacity of 315 students. Currently

Mount Pleasant enrolls 252 students. Enrolment is forecast to increase as Mount Pleasant

continues to serve as an overflow school for False Creek. To accommodate overflow students

from neighboring schools, Mount Pleasant has undergone renovations to create additional

classrooms. There is insufficient seismically safe capacity in surrounding schools to

accommodate students from Mount Pleasant.

Table 10 – Elementary Schools Years 4 and 5

CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015

MOE Nominal Capacity

4 Champlain Heights H3 495

4 Beaconsfield H1 315

4 MacCorkindale H2 490

5 Grandview H1 220

5 Southlands H1 340

5 Seymour H1 370

Total 2230

Schools listed in years 4 and 5 of the Capital Plan Submission are ‘notional’. Capital requests in

years 1-3 are most closely studied by the Ministry and are typically the topic of planning

discussions between the Ministry and school districts.

9

SECONDARY SCHOOL PRIORITIES (SMP)

District staff have prioritized secondary school funding requests based on the criteria in Table

four.

Table 11 – Secondary Schools Years 1-3

CP year School Name Seismic Risk Nominal Capacity

1 Churchill H1 1900

2 John Oliver H1 1700

3 King George H1 375

Total 3975

Churchill is the largest school in the District with a nominal capacity of 1900 students. Currently

Churchill enrolls over 2000 students. Enrolment at Churchill is forecast to remain stable for the

foreseeable future. The school is centrally located, and it is essential to accommodate a large

population of District secondary students. There is insufficient seismically safe capacity in schools

surrounding Churchill to accommodate its students and this situation will prevail in future years.

John Oliver is ideally located in relation to public transit to serve current and future District

enrolment needs. It is a large school with a nominal capacity of 1700 students. Currently the

school enrolls close to 1100 students. John Oliver’s enrolment and capacity utilization are

forecast to decline in future years. If, through the SMP, a replacement school was built at the

John Oliver site, the availability of the current school building for use as a large centrally located

temporary accommodation facility could potentially accelerate the overall SMP for secondary

schools.

King George serves students in the downtown peninsula of Vancouver. The school is

geographically essential to the District. King George is the smallest secondary school in the

District with a nominal capacity of 375. Currently the school enrolls 558 students and is operating

well above 100% capacity utilization. Demand for catchment enrolment at King George is

forecast to increase as students move from its family of elementary schools into the secondary

grades. King George will be unable to accommodate the forecast increase in catchment

enrolment

Table 12 – Secondary Schools years 4 and 5


4 Windermere H1 1500

5 Templeton H1 1400

Total 4000

Schools listed in years 4 and 5 of the Capital Plan Submission are ‘notional’. Capital requests in

years 1-3 are most closely studied by the Ministry and are typically the topic of planning

discussions between the Ministry and school districts.

SCHOOL EXPANSION PROGRAM PRIORITIES (EXP)

The school expansion program includes new schools, site acquisitions, and additions to existing

schools required to accommodate sustained requirements for additional student enrolment.

10

Table 13 – New School Requests

CP Year School Name Facility Type Nominal Capacity

1 Olympic Village Elementary 510 (60K/450E)

5 UBC South Elementary 410 (60K/350E)

Total 920

A new school at Olympic Village would serve the immediate need of the Olympic Village

community from which there has been steadily increasing enrolment growth. A new school could

also relieve enrolment pressure from further south in the current Fraser catchment, and further

west in the current False Creek catchment.

Table 14 – School Expansion Requests

CP Year School Name Project NC Increase Total NC

1 Hudson Additional Wing

(6 CR) 145 (20K/125E) 510 (60K/450E)

1 False Creek Addition (5 CR) 120 (20K/100E) 410 (60K/350E)

1 Cavell Additional Wing

(9 CR) 220 (20K/200E) 410 (60K/350E)

3 King George Addition / expansion

625 1000

Total 1110 2330

The school addition requests identified for consideration by the Ministry are intended to address

sustained enrolment pressure in the District. The District recognizes that there are potential fiscal

economies that could be realized if expansion requests were approved in alignment with SMP

project agreements which is reflected in the prioritization of funding requests in Table 14.

MINOR CAPITAL PROGRAMS (ALL)

The minor capital programs include the School Enhancement Program (SEP) the Carbon Neutral

Capital Program (CNCP) the Playground Equipment Program (PEP), and the Building Envelope

Program (BEP). These are all programs for funding in the year 2021/2022.

Table 15 – School Enhancement Program (SEP)

Districts are required to demonstrate an improvement in the safety, condition, or functionality of

schools, and to extend the useful life of building improvements by reducing deferred maintenance

in this category of projects. Priority elements for the 2021/2022 application are those projects

which coincide with seismic upgrade (SMP) in the following order of priority:

• Elevators and Accessibility

• Health and Safety

• Fire Safety

Project Type Scope or Location $

Interior Construction Upgrades – Elevators

Selkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Livingstone Elementary

$523,600

Electrical Upgrades Fire Protection Systems

Byng Secondary $500,500

11

Various Plumbing Upgrades Selkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Cavell Elementary, Livingstone Elementary

$492,470

Interior Construction Upgrades

Selkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Livingstone Elementary, Byng Secondary

$260,260

Roofing Upgrades Cavell Elementary $173,250

Total $1,950,080

Note: All the above SEP project requests are in coordination with SMP projects. The scope of

each item is detailed in Appendix A. Cost estimates are subject to adjustment based on final

project scoping.

Table 16 – Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP)

Projects submitted in this category are required to demonstrate a reduction in carbon emissions, and / or operational cost-savings and are limited to five requests (up from three requests in prior

years). The following projects are proposed in the CNCP program:

Priority School Name Type of work $

1 Bayview Elementary Air source heat pump $369,000

2 General Wolfe Elementary

New heating plant $389,000

3 Magee Secondary Boiler replacement and upgrade to DHW system

$475,000

4 MacCorkindale, Nootka

Control system upgrades and connection to network control system

$55,000

5 University Hill Elementary


Total $1,627,200

Cost estimates are subject to adjustment based on final project scoping.

Table 17 – Playground Equipment Program (PEP)

The playground equipment program is available to purchase and install new or replacement

playground equipment that is universal in design. Up to three requests can be made each year,

for $125,000 each.

Priority School Name Type of Work $

1 McBride Elementary Accessible play

structure $125,000

2 Tennyson Elementary Accessible play

structure $125,000

3 Seymour Elementary Request for rubberized

accessible surfacing $125,000

Table 18 - Building Envelope Program (BEP)

The VSB only has one school that is known to have building envelope issues. A building condition

report prepared in 2008 found that some exterior wall and window assemblies are impacted by

moisture affecting primarily interior finishes at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary. The report at that

time indicated that the timing for the work was not urgent, but it is inevitable that the building

envelope remediation is required.

12

This building envelope work proposed for Churchill could be considered and scoped in

conjunction with the SMP project for Churchill cited in Table 11 above.

School Name Type of Work $

Churchill Secondary Building envelope remediation TBD from BC Housing

updated report

Cost estimates are subject to adjustment based on final project scoping.

NEXT STEPS:

The Ministry of Education will inform school districts of supported project(s) through the Capital

Plan Response Letter in March or April of 2021.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that:

In accordance with provisions under section 142 (4) of the School Act, the Board

of Education of School District No. 39 (Vancouver Board of Education) approves

the proposed Five-Year Capital Plan, as provided on the attached Five Year

Capital Plan Summary 2021-2022.

ATTACHMENT:

- APPENDIX A – Capital Plan 2021/2022 – Major Capital Projects – DRAFT SUMMARY

Capital Plan 2021/2022 ‐ Major Capital Projects ‐ DRAFT SUMMARY ‐ June 9, 2020

Capital Plan 2021/2022 for Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP)

Priority Facility Name Project Code Estimated Project Cost Capital PlanYear

1 David Thompson Secondary SMP 95,000,000$

2 Killarney Secondary SMP 154,000,000$

3 False Creek Elementary SMP 37,800,000$

4 Henry Hudson Elementary SMP 30,120,000$

5 Sir Wilfred Grenfell Elementary SMP 17,500,000$

6 Sir Winston Churchill Secondary SMP 117,586,005$

7 Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary SMP 31,588,414$

8 Renfrew Community Elementary SMP 32,027,658$

9 John Oliver Secondary SMP 114,136,386$

10 Waverley Elementary SMP 28,972,580$

11 Florence Nightingale Elementary SMP 24,712,718$

12 Emily Carr Elementary SMP 20,630,478$

13 King George Secondary SMP 46,536,288$

14 Sir John Franklin Community Elementary SMP 23,707,245$

15 Sir William Osler Elementary SMP 24,636,488$

16 Mount Pleasant Elementary SMP 23,187,282$

17 Windermere Community Secondary SMP 125,953,903$

18 Champlain Heights Community Elementary SMP 32,171,679$

19 Lord Beaconsfield Elementary SMP 27,100,136$

20 Dr. H N MacCorkindale Elem. SMP 34,044,344$

21 Templeton Secondary SMP 132,334,733$

22 Grandview Elementary SMP 23,983,798$

23 Southlands Elementary SMP 30,730,100$

24 Admiral Seymour Elementary SMP 35,170,703$

SMP Total: 1,263,630,937$

Capital Plan 2021‐22 for School Expansion Program (EXP): New, Additions, Site Acquisition

Priority Facility Name Project Code Estimated Project Cost Capital Plan Year

1NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT SE FALSE CREEK (OLYMPIC VILLAGE) (60K/450E)

NEW 50,939,200$

2HENRY HUDSON ELEMENTARY (40K/300E) TO (60K/450E)

ADD 8,800,000$

3FALSE CREEK ELEMENTARY (40K/250E) TO (60K/350E)

ADD 8,600,000$

4EDITH CAVELL ELEMENTARY

(40K/250E) TO (60K/450E)ADD 12,000,000$

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐Year 2

(2022/2023)

5KING GEORGE SECONDARY(375S TO 1000S)

ADD 82,327,436$ Year 3

(2023/2024)

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐Year 4

(2024/2025)

6NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT UBC SOUTH CAMPUS (60K/350E)

NEW 45,458,266$ Year 5

(2025/2026)

EXP Total: 208,124,902$

Year 1(2021/2022)

Year 5(2025/2026)

Supported

"PDR phase"

Year 1(2021/2022)

Year 2(2022/2023)

Year 3(2023/2024)

Year 4(2024/2025)

* These are estimates only and are subject to adjustment based on final project scoping *

APPENDIX A

Capital Plan 2021/2022 ‐ Minor Capital Projects ‐ DRAFT SUMMARY ‐ June 9, 2020

CP2021/22 School Enhancement Program (SEP)

Priority Project Type Facility Name Project Description Estimated CostGroup Project

Estimated Cost

LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARYNew LULA lift; accessibility improvement; coordination with SMP work

$128,700

CHIEF MAQUINNA ELEMENTARY

Replace existing broken stair lift with new LULA lift over 2 floors; Health and Safety Upgrades $152,900

DAVID LIVINGSTONE ELEMENTARY

adding an elevator into the school over 3 floors. Purchase of the elevator, installation of the elevator. Make use of rough in. 2500lbs load (hydraulic or traction)

$242,000

2Electrical Upgrades

Fire Protection SystemsLORD BYNG SECONDARY

Fire and life safety improvements including:1. fire alarm wiring, panel and annunciator to be modified to add sprinkler alarm ($75,000+esc)2. full sprinkler protection to blocks 4‐7 and connect back to sprinkler valve station in block 1 ($365,000+esc)3. emergency lighting heads to corridors, cafeteria, shops, music room and vestibules ($15,000+esc)

$500,500 $500,500

LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARY accessible washrooms all levels / hoist $4,950

CHIEF MAQUINNA ELEMENTARY washroom 125A hoist improvements $68,750

EDITH CAVELL ELEMENTARY

Universal washroom requirement per Health Authority. Allowance for walls, fixtures, finishes. Also allow for hoist and interstitial structural supports; meets Vancouver Energy Utilization Bylaw

$187,770


New accessible washroom cubicles, bsmt level Blk 1 ($200,000)New accessible washroom, Blk 4, architectural ($10,000)

$231,000

LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARYhandrail upgrades ($124,000+esc)lever hardware revisions ($25,000+esc, door operator).

$163,900

CHIEF MAQUINNA ELEMENTARYhandrail upgrades ($40,700+esc)lever hardware revisions ($4,500+esc).

$49,720


Replace existing handrails in existing stairs $33,000

LORD BYNG SECONDARYThe addition of accessible shower stalls at boys and girls change rooms in gymnasium re‐construction where clay tiles have been removed ($12,400+esc)

$13,640

5 Roofing Upgrades EDITH CAVELL ELEMENTARY

New roofing for block 1. The seismic work will require access from roof sheathing side. As the result, the affected roof areas will receive extensive amount of roof patching. Therefore we suggest VSB to provide additional funding for reroofing the whole block 1 instead of patching. The order of magnitude that was provided by Clarks Builder for block 1 new roofing is around $157,500. VSB maintenance to provide the latest roofing spec to VPO.

$173,250 $173,250

SEP Total: $1,950,080

CP2021/22 Building Envelope Program (BEP)

Priority Facility Name Project Description Estimated Cost Estimated Total

1SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL SECONDARY

Building envelope upgradeBuilding envelope condition re‐assessment by BC Housing to confirm project cost

TBD TBD

BEP Total: TBD

CP2021/22 Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP)

Priority Facility Name Project Type Project Description Estimated Cost Estimated Total

1BAYVIEW COMMUNITY ELEMENTARY

HVAC

Air source heat pump for providing low carbon space heating. Heat pump technology is one of the key technologies that the VSB is using to meet the Provincial carbon reduction target of making a "50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030" (BC Clean Energy Plan)

$369,000 $369,000

2GENERAL WOLFE ELEMENTARY

HVAC

New heating plant. Replacing the plant with a new condensing boiler plant will reduce carbon emissions, provide better comfort, and reduce the FCI of this building.

$389,000 $389,000

3 MAGEE SECONDARY HVAC

Replacement of the second of two large boilers with modular boilers and replace large inefficient DHW heater and storage tank with modular on demand water heaters.

$475,000 $475,000

4

1. MACCORKINDALE ELEMENTARY

2. NOOTKA ELEMENTARY

HVAC Control system upgrades and connection to network control system $55,000 $55,000

5 UNIVERSITY HILL ELEMENTARY HVACNew heating plant. Existing plant is inefficient and aging ‐ and includes components from an earlier facility.

$339,200 $339,200

CNCP Total: $1,627,200

4Interior Construction

Upgrades

1

Interior Construction Upgrades

Elevators

$260,260

$523,600

3 Plumbing Upgrades $492,470


CP2021/22 Playground Equipment Program (PEP)

Priority Facility Name Number of Existing Playgrounds Project Description Estimated Cost Estimated Total

1SIR RICHARD MCBRIDE ELEMENTARY

2Replacement of existing equipment for accessible equipment

$125,000 $125,000

2LORD TENNYSON ELEMENTARY

1 Replacement of existing equipment for accessible equipment $125,000 $125,000

3ADMIRAL SEYMOUR ELEMENTARY

2 Request for rubberized accessible surfacing $125,000 $125,000

PEP Total: $375,000


Date: June 15, 2020

To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: Trustee Reddy

RE: Notice of Motion by Trustee Reddy

PROPOSED MOTION:

That the Vancouver Board of Education staff and contractors, Urban Systems, meaningfully

consult and cooperate with the Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm), Squamish (Sḵwx̱ wu7mesh

Uxwumixw), and Tsleil-Waututh (səl̓ilw̓ ətaʔɬ) Nations in the development of the VSB’s Land and

Asset Strategy plan to ensure that it is informed by and not in conflict with the principles of these

Nations’ interests and land use plans.

Further the VSB trustees will consider and incorporate the input from each Nation in the

development and implementation of specific projects under the Land and Asset Strategy.

Item 4.2

FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE

The meeting will start shortly

June 15, 2020

The meeting is being held on the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

Live-streamedThe meeting is being live-streamed and the audio and visual recording will also be available to the public for viewing after the meeting. The footage of the meeting may be viewed inside and outside of Canada.

Meeting DecorumThe 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.

Committee Roll Call• Please all unmute• Once your name is called please confirm your presence and mute yourself

DELEGATION

10 minutesQ&A

DELEGATION 1.1Land Asset Strategy Update

Theresita Rogers

QUESTIONS?


Susan James

QUESTIONS?

DELEGATION 1.3UNDRIP

Roz MacLean

QUESTIONS?


Andrea Glickman

QUESTIONS?


Kyla EpsteinParent & PAC Executive Member, Van Tech Secondary School

QUESTIONS?


Steph Swenson

QUESTIONS?

DELEGATION 1.7 [Written]Draft 2020/2022 Five Year Capital Plan Submission

Solomon Wong

Solomon Wong:

We understand there have been communication difficulties between VSB and the Province of BC on long-range planning and Trustee Wong's motion at the last VSB Board meeting will hopefully get clarity.

In reviewing Page 7 for the draft Five Year Capital Plan Submission for 2020/21, we note that last year, Nightingale was also "Year 2" in the 2019/20 plan submitted to the Province.

In the classification of H1 Seismic Risk, we have been extremely concerned at Nightingale about the survivability of a school building defined as "most vulnerable structure; at highest risk of widespread damage or structural failure; not repairable after event."

Given that the lack of approving projects from the Province further delays Nightingale (and other schools) to proceed ahead with SMP, we would ask the following question: could there be consideration to expand the number of schools to be submitted in Year 1, such as Nightingale?

To limit the number of Year 1 projects submitted means further delaying the upgrades that are needed across H1 schools and in particular from our perspective overdue for Nightingale.

QUESTIONS?

INFORMATION ITEMS

ITEM 2.1Land & Assets Strategy UpdateDavid Green, Secretary-Treasurer

LAND ASSET STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

QUESTIONS?Land & Assets Strategy Update

ITEM 4.2Notice of Motion referred from the May 25, 2020 Board MeetingTrustee Reddy

Proposed Motion:That the Vancouver Board of Education staff and contractors, Urban Systems, meaningfully consult and cooperate with the Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm), Squamish (Sḵwx̱ wu7mesh Uxwumixw), and Tsleil-Waututh (səl̓ilw̓ ətaʔɬ) Nations in the development of the VSB’s Land and Asset Strategy plan to ensure that it is informed by and not in conflict with the principles of these Nations’ interests and land use plans.

Further the VSB trustees will consider and incorporate the input from each Nation in the development and implementation of specific projects under the Land and Asset Strategy.

QUESTIONS?Notice of Motion referred from the May 25, 2020 Board Meeting

ITEM 2.22020/2021 Annual Facilities Grant- Funding AllocationJim Meschino, Director of Facilities

QUESTIONS?2020/2021 Annual Facilities Grant- Funding Allocation

ITEM 2.3 Vancouver Project Office MOUTrustee Wong

QUESTIONS?Vancouver Project Office MOU

ITEMS FOR APPROVAL

ITEM 4.1Draft 2021/2022 Five Year Capital Plan SubmissionMajor ProjectsJohn Dawson, Director Of Educational Planning

Major Capital Project Priorities 2021-22

Process and Product

Staff Planning Process

Working Group – Educational Planning and Facilities Staff

Advisory Group – Working Group plus Assistant Secretary Treasurer, Director of Facilities and Director of the VPO

Major Capital Funding Programs

• Replacement Schools• Upgrades• Partial Replacements

Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP)

• New Schools• Additions to existing schools

Expansion Program (EXP)

Major Capital Projects –Ministry Practices

*New – three stage approval process

Generally, projects that are supported by the Ministry cannot have their priority lowered

Capital Requests in years 1 – 3 of the Capital Plan are subject to detailed review

Capital Requests in years 4 – 5 are considered ‘notional’

Must have a defensible business case

Enrolment and capacity utilization appear to be heavily weighted factors

Planning Assumptions

Major Capital Project Prioritization needs to align with the LRFP

MOE has committed to funding safe schools for about 50K students

Not all schools will be seismically safe at the end of the

SMP

Need to prioritize schools that will be able to receive students from seismically unsafe schools

Planning Assumptions continued….

SMP funding is likely to become more difficult to access

School expansion requests are not funded by the SMP

School addition requests are not likely to be funded

SMP - Observations

• Secondary and Elementary Programs Function Differently

Consideration Secondary ElementaryApproval Process Some supported projects

may not be fundedSupported projects are generally funded. (Exception is Carleton)

Timeline 7 – 9 Years from feasibility to occupancy. Potentially longer.

5 – 6 Years from feasibility to occupancy

Scale of Funding Range $90-$150M Range $20- $40 MProcurement –New Replacement Schools

Design – Build Design – Bid – Build

Temporary Accommodation

Single site required to move students offsite

Challenging but feasible

Educational Programming

Sustaining educational programming options requiring specialty spaces is a primary concern

Less requirement for specialty spaces

Observations about Advancing the SMP

Availability of District Capital Resources generated through Land Asset Management is critical to achieve desired and desirable outcomes for our major capital projects

Progress to Date – Since 2014

School Name School Type Type Of Project Year Completed

Nelson Elementary Replacement (SMP) 2019

Kitsilano Secondary Replacement (SMP) 2018

Jamieson Elementary Upgrade (SMP) 2018

Kingsford-Smith Elementary Upgrade (SMP) 2018

Crosstown Elementary New School (EXP) 2017

Strathcona Elementary Partial Upgrade (SMP) 2017

Gordon Elementary Replacement (SMP) 2016

L'Ecole Bilingue Elementary Replacement (SMP) 2016

Queen Mary Elementary Partial (SMP) 2016

Norma Rose Point Elementary New School (EXP) 2014

Projects in Progress -Elementary

School Name Type of Project Project StageFalse Creek n/a FeasibilityGrenfell n/a FeasibilityHudson n/a FeasibilityCavell Upgrade DesignLivingstone Upgrade DesignWeir Partial Upgrade DesignBayview Replacement ConstructionBegbie Replacement ConstructionFleming Replacement ConstructionMaple Grove Replacement ConstructionMaquinna Upgrade ConstructionSelkirk Upgrade ConstructionTennyson Replacement ConstructionWolfe Upgrade Construction

Projects in Progress -Secondary

School Name Type of Project

Stage of Project

David Thompson

N/A Feasibility

Killarney N/A Feasibility

Hamber Replacement Design

Byng Upgrade Construction

Capital Plan Instructions –District Responsibilities

Methodology – Prioritizing Requests

• Which schools are essential to ensure all VSB students can attend seismically safe schools?

Strategic Focus

Prioritized Criteria

Zonal Analysis

Prioritization Criteria

Criteria Level Description

High Seismic Risk Factor 1 Statistic - % High risk X Enrolment

Geographic Location is Essential 1 Geographic accessibility or isolation

Capacity 2

Prioritizing schools that have sufficient capacity to accommodate students from nearby schools that are not seismically safe

Forecast CU is high 2 Forecast CU% is high (2025)

Capacity of Surrounding Schools 3

Assessment of safe capacity in surrounding schools to receive students

Availability of TA 3 Temporary Accommodation Site is Available

Quick Wins 3 Potential for MOE supported due to limited scope

Capital Plan -District Approach

Request one Secondary School per year

Request 2 or 3 elementary schools per year

Changes and Clarifications

Point Grey Secondary is not

supported by the Ministry

Carleton Elementary is not supported by the Ministry

The Capital Plan Instructions do

not differentiate between H1, H2,

and H3 risk ratings

The Ministry requires a 5 Year

Capital Plan

Elementary SchoolsSeismically Safe Capacity

21500 = Nominal Capacity of elementary schools that are not High Risk

• Completed SMP projects• SMP Projects with a Project Agreement• New Schools• Medium or Low seismic risk

Elementary Schools – Year 1

CP Year School Name Seismic Risk Nominal Capacity

1 Mackenzie H1 635

1 Renfrew H1 760

Total 1395



2 Waverley H1 510

2 Nightingale H1 390

2 Carr H1 290

Total 1190


CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015 MOE

Nominal Capacity

3 Franklin H1 2953 Osler H1 315

3 Mount Pleasant H3 315

Total 925

Elementary Schools – Year 4 and 5

CP year School Name Seismic Risk 2015 MOE

Nominal Capacity

4 Champlain Heights H3 495

4 Beaconsfield H1 3154 MacCorkindale H2 4905 Grandview H1 2205 Southlands H1 3405 Seymour H1 370

Total 2230

Secondary Schools

Seismically safe capacity

School Nominal CapacityByng 1200Hamber 1700Kits 1500Magee 1200Tupper 1500UHS 1000Van Tech 1700Total 9800

Secondary Schools - Years 1-3


1 Churchill H1 19002 John Oliver H1 17003 King George H1 350

Total 3950

Secondary Schools – Years 4 and 5With these schools completed the total number of seismically safe seats would be 20,450


4 Windermere H1 15005 Templeton H1 1400

Total 4000

Expansion Program– New School Requests

CP Year

School Name

Facility Type

Nominal Capacity

1 Olympic Village Elementary 510

(60K/450E)

5 UBC South Elementary 410

(60K/350E)

Expansion Program - Additions

CP Year School Name Project NC Increase Total NC

1 Hudson Additional Wing (6 CR) 135(20K/125E) 510 (60K/450E)

2 False Creek Additional Floor (9 CR) 220 (20K/200E) 410 (60K/350E)

3 Cavell Additional Wing (9 CR) 220 (20K/200E) 410 (60K/350E)

4 King George Addition 650 1000

ITEM 4.1Draft 2021/2022 Five Year Capital Plan SubmissionMinor ProjectsLisa Landry, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

Table 15 – School Enhancement Program (SEP)

Project Type Scope or Location $Interior Construction Upgrades –Elevators

Selkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Livingstone Elementary

$523,600

Electrical Upgrades Fire Protection Systems

Byng Secondary $500,500

Various Plumbing UpgradesSelkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Cavell Elementary, Livingstone Elementary

$492,470

Interior Construction UpgradesSelkirk Elementary, Maquinna Elementary, Livingstone Elementary, Byng Secondary

$260,260

Roofing Upgrades Cavell Elementary $173,250

Total $1,950,080

Table 16 – Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP)

Priority School Name Type of work $

1 Bayview Elementary Air source heat pump $369,000

2General Wolfe Elementary


3 Magee SecondaryBoiler replacement and upgrade to DHW system

$475,000

4 MacCorkindale, NootkaControl system upgrades and connection to network control system

$55,000

5University Hill Elementary


Total $1,627,200

Table 17 – Playground Equipment Program (PEP)

Priority School Name Type of Work $

1 McBride Elementary Accessible play structure $125,000

2 Tennyson Elementary Accessible play structure $125,000

3 Seymour ElementaryRequest for rubberized accessible

surfacing$125,000

QUESTIONS?Draft 2020/2022 Five Year Capital Plan Submission

Minor Project

Information Item Request

Date and Time of Next MeetingSeptember 2020 (Date and Time TBC)

Thank you for your time,

The End