Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board Committee Measure BB by tkh19408

VIEWS: 25 PAGES: 6

									                          Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
                                      Board Committee
                           Measure BB Advisory Committee Meeting

                                           MINUTES
                                   Monday August 6, 2007,
                                        Time: 4-7:00 pm
                              Location: Board Room, District Office
                           1651 16th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90404

I.     Call to Order- Co Chair Craig Hamilton

II.    Approval of Minutes –Moved and seconded, and all members present approved minutes of July
       30, 2007 Meeting.


III.   Discussion of Brown Act and the Advisory Committee – Virginia Hyatt indicated that there
       would be a training session for the Advisory Committee for Brown Act requirements to assist the
       committee. Specific details will follow.

IV.    Draft Facilities Master Plan and Recommended Measure BB Projects – Craig Hamilton
       introduced Superintendent Dianne Talarico and Sally Chou to discuss the Instructional Program
       Overview.

       Presentation/Overview on Instructional Program – Dianne Talarico introduced the Committee to
       the presentation materials included in her packet. In the left leaf of the folder were five articles
       that focus on technology in the classroom. Dianne promised to keep the committee informed of
       articles of interest as they become available.

       Common Goals & Needs – Dianne discussed the Strategic Plan and the 2025 Vision, as they
       pertain to the facilities needs. The goals are: to improve technology and communications
       infrastructure; build new state-of-the-art classrooms and flexible teaching spaces; to improve
       athletic fields and outdoor common/green areas while focusing on providing a safe environment.

       Some teachers are not comfortable with technology and they will need to be assisted with the new
       technology teaching environment.

       Differentiated Curriculum Offering – Dianne Discussed web-based literacy and programs. As an
       example, she explained the on-line distance learning capabilities that are available with students
       in a classroom having stories read to them by native speakers from remote locations.

       Addressing Needs With FMP & Measure BB Projects – Dianne discussed the facilities needs for
       21st Century learners and the technology that would be needed. For example, two years ago
       only two Smart boards were in existence at the District. At the opening of school this year there
       will be 95. Dianne discussed the need for equitable solutions and flexibility in new and
       upgraded facilities. Many of our existing classrooms are too small.

       Facilities As A Teaching Tool – Dianne discussed sustainability as a teaching tool using the
       Samohi solar alliance as an example.

       Facilities Needs For Schools As Community Centers – Dianne talked about the schools as
       community centers used extensively by various school and community organizations. The facilities
       need to represent the District well by being attractive and safe. Some of the schools are in need
       of face-lifts. Measure BB has also promised safety upgrades as well as technology upgrades to
       the schools.

       Dianne indicated that although Joint Uses with the City of Santa Monica, City of Malibu and



                                                                                                           1
     others was not addressed in this presentation discussions will be occurring in the near future and
     the Committee will be advised of progress.

     Technology And Training Needs

     Craig Hamilton noted that although the technology as a capital expense is funded by the
     Measure BB, the operational support for training and development is not. Dianne reported that a
     recruitment is in progress for a new District Director of Technology that will fill the need for
     providing the in-service training for District staff. Dianne acknowledged that those discussions will
     be on-going with the City of Santa Monica.

     Wi-Fi In Low Income Areas
     William Jepson asked if there would be Wi-Fi capability in low income areas. Dianne indicated
     that there are some challenges to providing WiFi, such as ensuring that internet access restrictions
     are congruent with District policy. William asked that there be further study to address this
     situation.

     Measure BB Funding Of Technology
     Kathy Wisnicki indicated that Measure BB will support the technology upgrades. Kathy
     suggested the District might consider retiring debt from ongoing obligations ($ 1 million per year
     for about $ 18 million in Certificates of Participation) from Measure BB funds. Some specifics from
     the District’s bond consultant could assist the Advisory Committee in understanding how this might
     work. Craig Hamilton agreed that a presentation from the bond consultant would be
     appropriate.

     Measure BB List Of Projects
     Craig Hamilton addressed the Measure BB list of projects. What considerations are in play to
     bring some projects forward and others not? Dianne Talarico indicated the she was passionate
     about high schools as a focal point of the community. She indicated that they serve as community
     centers and are intensely used all days of the week. She indicated that she sees them as needing
     to “shine” to present to the community that the District values the educational facilities. She again
     stated that she was passionate about those facilities making a positive statement, from the athletic
     to the educational aspect of the site, and noted that they are not up to a good standard at this
     time.

     Olympic High School
     Harry Keiley, liaison from SMCCTA, was present and spoke concerning the Board’s request for
     staff to develop options and alternatives for Olympic High School. What would the community
     need for this facility? Kathy Wisnicki noted that the Olympic and Edison sites need facilities as
     well as educational needs to be addressed. She indicated that the future development at the sites
     needs to be consistent with FMP and Measure BB goals.

     Dianne Talarico indicated that there had been a shift away from vocational education to career
     education. The implication is that the educational needs of the sudents needs to be adequately
     addressed, given that fact that not all graduates of high school will attend college or university.

V.   Olympic HS Options & Alternatives
     Virginia Hyatt introduced a variety of options for Olympic High School. Virginia indicated that if
     a site for a school were being identified now, the Olympic site would not be considered due to its
     commercial environment and heavy traffic. Virginia stated that there was a pre-school facility,
     special education, adult education, as well as the Continuation High School at the Olympic site.

     Tom Tomeoni stated that if the site use were to increase, parking would have to increase as well.

     Other options were discussed with Elaine Rene-Weissman asking if the special education
     component could be relocated from the site. Virginia indicated that the special education needs
     currently housed at Olympic may be relocated to the West Washington site under one of the
     scenarios anticipated by the FMP. Tom spoke to the need to have the West Washington site and
     the Olympic site construction schedules coordinated to anticipate the relocation sequence. Elaine



                                                                                                           2
       asked about policy guiding the integration or separation of special education from other school
       curriculum. Dianne indicated that special education should be integrated into each of the school
       sites. Virginia added that special education students progress better with continuity at one
       location; for example, from pre-school through grade 5. Craig discussed that balance needs to
       be found as was addressed in the FMP. Strategies should be explored to move some programs
       from Olympic to other locations, therefore opening up more space, which will allow for some
       further facility choices. Elaine stated that special education parents have strong ideas on what
       options would be acceptable for their students. Kathy indicated that a task force group will be
       forming focusing on development of alternative approaches to high school education including
       identifying what types of programs are not currently offered by the District.

VI.    Santa Monica High School
       Critical Need To Reduce Student Population
       Harry Keiley stated that Samohi is too large and needs downsizing. The current enrollment is
       about 3,100. Board policy restricts any new interdistrict student permits at Samohi. He stated
       that reducing the size of the population at Samohi will benefit everyone. Dianne agreed
       indicating that even 2,000 students maybe too large; smaller schools are better environments for
       students.

       Barbara Stinchfield asked if the projections from the planners, HED, include shifting students from
       Samohi to other sites. Dennis Crane indicated that the plan is to reduce the student population at
       Samohi. Sally Chou stated that not all the potentnial enrollment at the Olympic Continuation High
       School can relocate from Samohi at this time. Over time the enrollment will drop to 2200 students
       as the restriction on permits continues. Barbara asked if the current plan will be for a student
       population at 2,200. Virginia responded that the FMP shows an enrollment capacity of 2,600
       students at build out.

       Moving back to the subject of Olympic High School, Craig asked what ultimately should be
       accomplished at the site. Would another small high school be optimal? Kathy Wisnicki suggested
       a comprehensive high school model for the site. What needs to be at the site that is currently not
       there? What services are not being addressed? A task force will be determining some of those
       needs from a global perspective.

       Judith Meister noted that the task force of the Students of Color may bring alternative needs to
       the facilities discussion as well. This task force will be bringing findings to the Board in a
       presentation this fall.

       High School At SMC
       Barbara Stinchfield asked whether the district could place a high school on the campus at SMC?
       Don Girard indicated that there exists an MOU that addresses that topic. Sally indicated that
       there is not available space at the SMC site at this time.

       Further discussion of integrating high school curriculum with college came as Dianne stated that
       some high performing students are essentially completing high school requirements by the end of
       grade ten and some integration could be realized with college curriculum at the high schools. Don
       stated that currently 20% of SMC college courses are accomplished by students online.

       Elaine Rene-Weissman stated she believed the Measure BB Advisory Committee was engaged in
       addressing the facilities needs of the district and that recommendations related to specific
       curriculum options was not in its realm of responsibilities.

VII.   Budget And Cost Models For Measure BB: Tom stated that there would need to be some further
       study of the budget, based on previous committee discussion of debt retirement that might be
       funded from Measure BB. Construction escalation of 8.5% is anticipated over the next 4 to 6
       years. The District would need to identify nearly $66 million in State matching or other funds to
       accomplish the entire menu of projects already identified for the Measure BB program. Tom
       reminded the committee that this budget does not include increasing the Olympic High School site
       program above the $ 1 million already identified. Tom also discussed a cash flow model and
       suggested that discussions with bond consultant, Piper Jaffray, would bring further detail to the



                                                                                                          3
        model. Further information will be coming to the committee.

VIII.   Schedule For Program Management Activities
        Pertaining to the overall Program, Craig asked Tom to explain what the schedule needs are of
        the committee? What are the specific timelines for the committee to provide direction? Tom
        reviewed the current schedule for Architect selection, which indicates that the Architect would begin
        gathering data for programming and schematic design work in December. Scopes of the projects
        need to be defined so the Architects know what to base their fee proposals on. Tom explained
        that if the scopes are not clear, there will be a ripple down of that uncertainty to the Architects
        work.

        Kathy Wisnicki asked if a more comprehensive EIR would be detrimental to the scope of projects
        that may actually be built. Craig stated that he was supportive of including the Olympic and
        Edison sites in the Program EIR. Elaine asked if the current budget could fit an overall program
        that would be reduced in its scope.

        Larry Gray asked Tom what the current needs of the Architect RFP process are. Tom stated that
        the current project descriptions of the program are sufficient for the purposes of the initial
        proposals, but that by October, given the current schedule, the District will need to provide a more
        detailed description of what will be accomplished at each site. Kathy indicated that this is the
        type of specific detail needed, including the impact to the Program if the milestones are not met.
        She asked that Tom provide a user friendly format schedule for that purpose. Tom indicated that
        the 8/13/07 meeting will include a discussion of the schedule and critical milestones. Larry Gray
        stated that the milestones need to be realistic and achievable, given the need for community input.

        William Jepson asked what would occur if the scopes of the projects are not consistent with the
        desires of the school site administration and community? Tom indicated that the Architects will see
        those discrepancies immediately as they begin meeting with the facilities committees at each site.
        Tom stated that the Advisory Committee should be the body that facilitates resolving such
        inconsistencies.

        Ralph Mechur stated that the schools will discuss the scope of the projects at the Back To School
        night, with an indication to the community that further details will follow. He stated that a decision
        on Olympic High School needs to happen soon.

        Dianne Talarico stated that HED looked at the overall program, and all priorities were identified.
        The site governance committees and others had discussions with HED staff, and input was gathered
        during that process. Board Member Vasquez asked about how the HED priorities may match up
        with the current school site desires. Dianne stated that caution be taken that needs and wants are
        not intermingled. She stated that the needs, coupled with equity, must take priority. Larry Crane
        stated that the FMP was done to keep individual sites from designing their own projects
        irrespective of overall District goals and standards. Kathy stated that some of the priorities
        include early projects that will create swing space for follow-on projects, which some site
        governance teams may not fully understand.

        Craig Hamilton stated that the current list of projects represents roughly one fourth of the overall
        needs from the FMP. The list has had thought and effort put into it but he believes that there
        needs to be further feedback and refinement.

        Barbara Stinchfield stated that this topic of refining the scope of the projects has been discussed
        at prior meetings, and a subcommittee was established by Gleam Davis to define a process that
        the committee could recommend for further community input.

        Craig Hamilton reiterated that at the next meeting, a schedule of milestones for further action by
        the committee and board will be discussed. Dianne stated that she will be meeting with the
        Principals of the schools and will inform them that further information will be forth coming to each
        Campus community about the scope of the Measure BB projects and process going forward.

IX.     Request for Proposal, Architect Screening and Selection Process and Schedule To Proceed With



                                                                                                              4
        Measure BB
        Tom addressed the groupings of the projects. It is anticipated that there will be four or five firms
        selected for the entire Measure BB program. David Kaplan asked if there was point
        consideration in the selection process for local firms? Tom indicated that there was not at this time.
        Elaine asked if the members of the Advisory Committee would be able to assess the qualifications
        of the architects. Tom stated that he believed that the members of the committee sitting on the
        Selection Panel are qualified to evaluate the architectural firms.

        Tom emphasized the critical need that the Selection panel be available for four full days of
        interviews. Some evening work could be done to read the proposals. He suggested that the
        proposals be posted on an FTP site with a secure log-in to allow the Advisory Committee members
        to participate in the screening process. Patrick Kennedy will serve in an advisory role to the
        Selection Panel. Elaine asked to be included on the Selection Panel and that request was
        acknowledged by the Chair of the Selection Panel, Craig Hamilton.

        The RFP is available online at www.ourschoolplan.com .

        Ralph Mechur asked how architectural firms know that the District is seeking architectural services.
        Tom and Virginia explained that advertisements in local newspapers are supplemented with a
        posting of the RFP on the web site and notification to selected architects from various sources. The
        committee asked that they see the list of the firms that have been notified. Tom indicated that he
        would forward that information to the Advisory committee.


X.      Action Items:

Recommendation on Extension of Preliminary Contract to Parsons 3D/I

DISCUSSION:
           Larry Gray asked if Parsons provided a staffing plan to support the contract extension.
           Virginia confirmed that she had received one. Tom indicated that four full-time equivalent
           staff would be in place by the end of September.
ACTION:    Moved and seconded, ten of eleven members approved, Larry Gray abstained.

Amendment to contract for Smart Board Installation to Oliver Worldclass Labs, Inc.

ACTION:      Moved and seconded, unanimously approved the amendment to the contract.


XI.     Public Comment – Concerning Item #3, Discussion Of Draft Facilities Master Plan and
        Recommended Measure BB Projects:

        Lisa Proft, mother of a child in the 3rd Grade at Edison, and Chair of the School Site Council -
        Lisa expressed that she is not aware where Edison fits in the overall plan for Measure BB projects.
        She wanted to emphasize that parents are very involved in wanting information concerning their
        schools, and they want their voices to be heard. She stated that her presence at the meeting
        represented a group of ten others that could not be in attendance but want this issue raised for
        the Advisory Committee to understand. She suggested that there are partnering opportunities for
        the Advisory Committee and site parent groups. Lisa expressed that she is unclear what the list of
        projects is and she wants to be involved in the discussion. She stated that after listening to the
        discussion of the Measure BB projects and schedule she believes that the parents at the school sites
        need to understand that the current student population may not be at the schools when the projects
        are completed. For Edison, this would imply immediate maintenance needs.

Adjourned at approximately 7:00 pm.

NEXT MEETING:         August 13, 2007- 4-6pm

                                             Attendance:



                                                                                                            5
    Measure BB Advisory Committee Members:

        Craig Hamilton, Co-Chair
        Gleam Davis, Co-Chair (unable to attend)
        Dennis Crane
        Ralph Mechur
        David Resnick (unable to attend)
        Barbara Stinchfield, City of SM
        Bob Stallings, City of Malibu
        Don Girard, SMC
        Chris Harding (unable to attend)
        Laura Rosenthal (unable to attend)
        Laura Rosenbaum (unable to attend)
        Ted Bardacke (unable to attend)
        Elaine Rene-Weissman
        Larry Gray
        Judith Meister
        William Jepson
        David Kaplan

Board Liaison:
        Kathy Wisnicki, Board Liaison (non voting member)
Other Board Members present:
        Maria Leon-Vasquez
SMMCCTA Liaison:
        Harry Keiley

SMMUSD Staff:
      Dianne Talarico, Superintendent
      Sally Chou, Chief Academic Officer
      Steve Hodgson, Interim CFO and Asst. Superintendent (not present)
      Virginia Hyatt, Purchasing Director
      Wally Berriman, Director of Facilities/ Director on Special Assignment (not present)
      Sarah Wahrenbrock, Assistant to Superintendent (not present)

District Consultants:
          Tom Tomeoni, Program Manager, Parsons 3d/i
          Alison Kendall, FMP Project Manager, Kendall Planning + Design (not present)
          Julia Hawkinson, Deputy Program Manager, Parsons 3d/I (not present)
          Larry Fugal, Deputy Program Manager, Parsons 3d/i-CCM




                                                                                             6

								
To top