Get documents about "Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board Committee Measure BB
Document Sample
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
Related docs
