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

Transcription

1 Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board Committee Measure BB Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday October 15, 2007 Time: 4-6:00 pm Location: Board Room, District Office th Street, Santa Monica, CA I. Call to Order- Co Chair Gleam Davis [Began Meeting Without A Quorum Present] II. Action Item b. Recommendation for Sustainability Resolution by BOE: Julia Hawkinson and John Zinner presented the recommendation for a Sustainability Resolution to the Board of Education at the 10/18/07 Meeting. Julia and John reviewed the Power Point presentation included in the agenda packet, with some minor modifications indicated in red. After the presentation there were no questions or comments. Because there was not a quorum present, Gleam suggested that the Committee Members in attendance offer a vote of consensus to indicate that they are in agreement that the BOE adopt the Sustainability Resolution. A consensus was voted by the members in attendance. [Gleam asked that the next agenda item be the Information Item b] III. Information Item b. Report by Architect Selection Committee: Julia and Elaine Rene-Weissman discussed the process that was followed to narrow the list of 37 architects responding to the District s RFP to the current list of six. They indicated that representatives from the committee were currently visiting project sites representative of each architect s completed work and capabilities. They reported that by Friday (10/19/07) the committee would have recommendations prepared to bring to the full BB Advisory Committee for action to go forward to the BOE. Chris Harding asked that information on six finalists be forwarded to entire Measure BB committee. Chris asked what role the full BBAC had in the process. Tom indicated that the Architect Selection committee had the primary responsibility to review and recommend architect selection and project assignments and that the full committee responsibility is to review those recommendations and, as appropriate, forward to the Board for their possible action. William Jepson asked if the recommendation from Architect selection committee could be reviewed, changed or altered. Gleam stated that it was not expected that the BBAC rubber stamp the recommendations, but there would be sufficient information from the Architect selection committee to assist in arriving at an appropriate recommendation. She asked that the process and procedures that the Architect Selection committee used be explained at the next meeting Measure BB Committee meeting. Tom agreed to provide information about the six firms and the recommended project assignments ahead of the next Measure BB committee meeting. [At this point there was a quorum present, so the next agenda item was to approve the minutes of the 9/17/07 Meeting.] IV. Approval Of Minutes: One edit was requested and accepted. Motion to approve by Elaine Rene-Weissman, seconded by Dave Reznick; all members present approved the minutes of the September 17, 2007 Meeting. V. Action Item a. Develop Recommendations and Guidance for Selection of Measure BB projects: Gleam indicated that the way she wanted to proceed was that Tom give some background on the 1

2 scenarios that were in consideration, then senior staff have an opportunity to respond, then the public have an opportunity to address the committee, and finally each committee member have an opportunity to address the issues and ask any questions and make their recommendations. Dianne Talarico stated that the recommendation that has been discussed previously is that the committee will recommend to the BOE at the 10/18/07 meeting that the Measure BB list of projects focus on the secondary schools. She stated that it is a blessing that the residents of Santa Monica and Malibu are interested and vocal in their concerns. Steve Hodgson explained that there had been significant effort and thoughtfulness in development of the scenarios. He stated that the site meetings conducted by Wally Berriman and Michael Hill included an update of the current list of projects and explained the criteria and rationale in formulating the list of projects. Public Comment: Diane O Brien, a member of the Will Rogers ES Site Governance Committee and a parent of a Rogers child, addressed the committee first and stated that the current list of projects is not accurate. She stated that site meetings held in March of 2007 did not address an outdoor amphitheater 1. She explained that the current proposed projects at Rogers were not representative of those which the site governance committee would recommend. She stated that there was a letter sent to the school site to the architect (Harley Ellis Devereaux) which indicated what the site governance committee wanted for its list of Measure BB projects. She stated that a multi-purpose facility what the school site wants first, on a separate area of the site from that shown in the current draft preliminary Facilities Master Plan. John Petz thanked the Measure BB Committee for its hard work and indicated that he was concerned about SAMOHI. He stated that he is on the campus every day and notes the deteriorated condition of the facilities. He stated that he knows that the current list of projects is the result of hours of work to cull through all of the possibilities but he indicated that he believes that there should be a defined process, and that there is no need to rush to finalize the list. Laurie Lieberman stated that she echoed John Petz s comments and that she also supports an emphasis on the secondary schools. She noted that there were years of accumulated deferred maintenance at the site. She believes that the entire Measure BB amount could be allocated to SAMOHI alone. She stated that the allocated $38 million is critical to begin with for the site. She stated that Malibu HS is a beautiful site and that SAMOHI is not. She discussed the need for repairs and improvements to the athletic facilities and noted that the tennis courts have not received repairs. One tennis court has been closed since 1994 due to the Northridge Earthquake. Abby Adams, co-chair of the Franklin ES Site Governance Committee, recommended to the committee a document from the Coalition For An Excellent SAMOHI Campus. She asked what the basis of funding for projects from Measure BB was; safety, per capita enrollment? She stated that the community at large should have input into decisions, and questioned where the District intended to find the other funds noted in the scenarios. Debbie Mulvaney, stated that she was an advisory committee member for both the Measure ES and Measure X. She stated that she represented no personal agenda for her remarks. She stated that she believed that SAMOHI was not given enough funding in previous bond measure allocations. She discussed her concern that the SAMOHI campus was not in adequate repair. Elizabeth Stearns said that she had addressed the BOE/Measure BB Workshop on October 2, 2007 to raise concerns over the state of repairs at the SAMOHI campus. She visited the campus herself and concluded that it was in need of repairs. She stated that 80% of the District students will attend SAMOHI over time and that it should be the flagship campus of the District. She stated that she believes the campus was not given adequate funding from Measure X. 1 At the Oct. 29 committee meeting, William Jepson suggested that the minutes were not accurate. After a review of the meeting notes, the record stands. The meaning is clear in the context of following: [T]he current proposed projects at Rogers were not representative of those which the governance committee would recommend. 2

3 Mark Kelley, Principal of Malibu HS, stated that the Principals of the District agreed that each may advocate for their own school, but that advocacy would not come at the expense of other schools. He stated that the committee should honor the work of developing the current list of projects. Chris Harding asked Mark how he would grade the facilities at Malibu HS and SAMOHI. Mark stated that he was not comfortable answering the question. Kelly Siegel stated that Malibu HS is a beautiful school and SAMOHI is not. She said many family members had attended the SAMOHI and stated that she is appalled at the condition of the campus. Measure BB Advisory Committee Comment: Gleam discussed her views of the scenarios and introduced another scenario which she titled Scenario G and distributed to the committee members. [copy attached]. She stated that her concern was how to divide the funding not knowing how much funding there would ultimately be given the possibility of some matching funds from the State and other sources. She stated that she believed there should be funding for the High Schools and Edison and that the funding for SAMOHI be increased to $57 million and that Malibu HS be reduced by $ 14 million. She presented this scenario as an alternative to Scenario C2. The total for the high schools, Edison, Olympic and related work at Washington West would be about $ 111 million. The balance of the available construction dollars ($ 38 million) would remain in reserve pending further development of the funding sources. This Scenario would also support moving ahead with the programming/schematic design for all other sites consistent with the Program EIR process. Gleam asked each committee member to speak to the issue. William Jepson indicated a concern with Scenario C-2 and building a new school at the current Edison site given its proximity to the I-10 Freeway. He stated that Will Rogers is the lowest academic performing school and that the scenario does not address the funding needed to improve achievement. Chris Harding stated that he believed that the voters approving Measure BB had indicated that there needed to be parity in the facilities at each school. He stated that Scenario C-2 allocated some funding to each school but SAMOHI needs are greater and more urgent than other sites with the exception of Edison, the neediest of all sites. He stated that condition of SAMOHI facilities is not comparable to Malibu HS. He discussed the athletic programs at SAMOHI and that the athletic and sports facilities are in disrepair. He said that the scenarios did not address a per capita allocation and that it is not equitable. He stated that the Edison facility could not be patched up and that the whole facility needed to be re-constructed. On the subject of SAMOHI, he advocated that the committee follow the recommendations of the Coalition For An Excellent SAMOHI Campus. He stated that there needed to be a field house constructed. He discussed the need for additional maintenance funds for the site as well. He indicated that the current process has organized the public around SAMOHI for its needs, characterizing the issue as kicking a sleeping beast. He discussed the disparity between the geographic and economic areas of Malibu HS and SAMOHI. Barbara Stinchfield stated that she believed that the current list of projects gives too little funding to SAMOHI. She stated that the City had not approved the parking lot joint use facility and that funding allocated based on that assumption would not be prudent at this time. She said that the Malibu HS site is beautiful. 2 She indicated that the proposal for synthetic turf at Malibu HS would not be cost effective unless permanent lighting is added to extend the overall availability and increase utilization. She stated that the timing for a joint use for the Civic Center may be right. She stated that there needs to be a synergy between the athletic and cultural facilities Samohi and Civic Center campuses 3. She said that Gleam s scenario is courageous in its allocation of the 2 Deleted per discussion at Oct. 29 meeting. 3 Corrected per discussion at Oct. 29 meeting. 3

4 funding. She stated that her daughter had discussed with her the time taken at SAMOHI to get between classes due to the layout of the campus. Judith Meister stated that she approaches the discussion first as a member of the Measure BB Committee. She said that she believes that SAMOHI should step out in front based on needs. She stated that the stakes are high and that to not increase the budget would be an injustice. Putting more funding at SAMOHI is not meant to be a slight to Malibu. She believes that this level of funding indicates that SAMOHI is aspiring to the same level facility condition as Malibu. She also expressed concern with the Edison facilities and stated that all is not equal between the schools with respect to facilities. She went on to express that these are not easy decisions. She stated that having good facilities to attend boosts the student s morale and achievement goes up. She concurred with Barbara that the scenario G is courageous and it recognizes that the needs at the schools are different. Don Girard stated that a transformation of the campus at SMC took 15 years. He noted that the timeframe of the buildings at SAMOHI are of the 1930 s while the buildings at SMC are originally from 1950 s. He discussed that the transformation at SMC was difficult. He talked about the District s joint use possibilities with SMC and discussed the facilities at SMC that were built and have subsequent high amount of use. He stated that to walk the campus at SAMOHI is to be converted to the needs evident there. He stated that all of the site s issues will not be resolved with Measure BB given the need for landscaping and the updating of the campus exterior. He stated that there are small windows in the buildings and there are no views of the ocean. He discussed the campuses accessibility infrastructure. He also believes that if there isn t joint use with the Civic Center then something will be lost. He also discussed athletic sites at the campus. Dave Reznick discussed equity as pertains to the Measure X and BB regarding the voters in Malibu. He stated that while SAMOHI looks older and has needs Malibu HS has needs also. Malibu HS was originally built as a Middle School and the library facility is inadequate. He reminded the committee that Measure BB is a part of an overall Master Plan which will take multiple years to complete. He advocated for the athletic facilities at Malibu stating that the City of Malibu relies on Malibu HS for its recreation facilities requirements. [Dave left the meeting at this time] David Kaplan stated that SAMOHI needs help and that there needs to be equity in the program. He said that the FMP is a concept including programmatic elements but that there is not yet a total final outcome for the site. He believes that the projects have been diluted and that utilities (University Plaza) and handicap ramps are not relevant for Measure BB projects. He believes that the planning for SAMOHI needs vision. Elaine Rene-Weissman said that she was disappointed at the tenor of some remarks at the meeting.. She said that the facilities needs for the District are a life-long endeavor. She questioned that if the beast (Chris Harding s reference) can be satisfied, how much will it take and for how long? She stated that this concept was not the best approach. Bob Stallings stated that he is new to the committee having spent 25 years in Ventura County. He stated that there is a process of visiting the sites and receiving parents input and prioritizing health and safety issues. He believes that the concept for the High Schools should be SAMOHI / Malibu HS, not SAMOHI vs. Malibu HS. He stated that sites with greater needs may take longer to remedy and other sites can take less time. He discussed the need for good athletic facilities at Malibu HS and the potential use by residents of the City of Malibu. He noted that the City of Malibu has invested funding at the site, and that deficiencies from the Measure BB funding may be seen not as a dollar-for-dollar loss but may motivate the City to look at other possibilities to reinvest in the schools, thereby realizing a greater loss of funding than just Measure BB dollars now. Sarah Braff SMMCCTA Representative, although not a voting member was invited to comment by Gleam. Sarah stated that during the Measure ES program in the 1990 s the site administrators and teachers were not listened to. She discussed the needs of the schools as a triage and that you must stop the bleeding before you try to stop the sniffles; pick the facilities in the worst 4

5 condition with the greatest immediate needs and remedy them first, and then move on. She discussed that the maintenance funding at the sites is not equitable. She stated that SAMOHI needs assistance as well as other facilities that are in greatest need. Discussion: David Kaplan asked Gleam to elaborate on her scenario. Gleam stated that she was open to suggestions; that she felt no commitment to it. She explained her rationale behind the proposal. Barbara asked about the concept of the Small High school and if the allocation is the same including the small school concept. Elaine questioned the work of the last two years in preparing the Draft FMP as it relates to Scenario G. Gleam stated that the FMP includes work with a cost of over $1 billion and this is just the beginning of that. Elaine asked about the input process and the summer of input and discussion since March when the sites were engaged in the discussion of the list of projects. Gleam discussed the current list of projects and the greatest priorities. Chris stated that the proposal was courageous and questioned the allocation of deferred maintenance funds. He asked about the timing of the projects listed on the second page of the proposal. He indicated that the work completed needed to close the achievement gap and that the direction moving forward should be policy driven. Sarah stated that without equity the needs are not responsive. Judith spoke in support of Scenario G. William discussed the construction of a new campus for a higher performing school while doing less for low achieving school. He stated that the higher needs are at SAMOHI. Chris noted that the physical condition of the facilities at Edison is not acceptable. Barbara stated a position that there be support for small schools, at Olympic for example. Ralph answered, saying that the concept is that it should be a continuation school. Gleam stated that the Olympic site is okay for the foreseeable future. There was a discussion concerning making a motion to support Scenario G and recommend it to the BOE for approval. There was a recommendation that the emphasis be on Olympic site not on Washington West. Gleam noted that the line item be amended to read Olympic/Continuation HS. Chris asked that District Staff return with a recommendation for an allocation of $38 million on the second page of the proposal. Barbara asked that there be a friendly amendment to the motion to state a goal of determining all available joint use opportunities. The amendment will read; Recommend that the District pursue all realistic joint use opportunities so that joint use will be realized fully. Elaine stated that she was uncomfortable with this last minute shift. She stated that this is the first meeting that this proposal has been discussed and now there will be a motion to recommend it? Barbara stated that the only exception to previous discussion is the adjustment of the SAMOHI budget. Elaine stated that the presentation by Staff (Wally) to the site committees were very effective in stating the rationale behind the current list of projects/budgets. Gleam stated that SAMOHI would receive more funding but that the Middle Schools may need to wait for more allocation from the BOE. Chris stated that the Staff recommendations for the unallocated funds should come back early and that this proposal may not be accepted by the BOE. Judith suggested language in the motion to approve Scenario G that staff come back early with a recommendation for the allocation of the $38 million funding. Motion: "That the Measure BB Advisory Committee recommends Scenario G to the Board Of Education for Measure BB Projects." *** *With Clarification that a line item read Olympic/Continuation High School, rather than Olympic/Washington West; **With a request that Staff bring back to the Measure BB Advisory Committee recommendations for the expenditure of $38 million of unallocated funds; ***With an amendment that; "And that the District pursue all creative Joint Use, so that Joint Use opportunities are fully realized." Vote of the Committee Members present: Yes Gleam Davis 5

6 Don Girard Chris Harding David Kaplan Judith Meister Barbara Stinchfield No William Jepson Elaine Rene-Weissman Bob Stallings The motion was approved. [See Attachment for written version of the recommendation. This was later presented to the Board by Gleam at the Oct. 18 BOE meeting.] Adjourned at 6:20 pm. NEXT MEETING: 10/29/07, 4-6pm Attendance: Measure BB Advisory Committee Members: Craig Hamilton, Co-Chair (unable to attend) Gleam Davis, Co-Chair Dennis Crane (unable to attend) David Reznick Barbara Stinchfield, City of SM Bob Stallings, City of Malibu Don Girard, SMC Chris Harding Laura Rosenthal (unable to attend) Laura Rosenbaum (unable to attend) Ted Bardacke (unable to attend) Elaine Rene-Weissman Larry Gray (unable to attend) Judith Meister William Jepson David Kaplan Board Liaisons: Kathy Wisnicki, Board Liaison (non voting member) (unable to attend) Ralph Mechur, Board Liaison (non voting member) Other Board Members: Jose Escarse Maria Leon-Vasquez Other Staff Members: Tim Walker Mike Matthews SMMCCTA Liaison: Harry Keiley (not present) Sarah Braff SMMUSD Staff: Dianne Talarico, Superintendent 6

7 Tim Walker, Asst. Superintendent Mike Matthews, Asst. Superintendent Janece Maez, CFO and Asst. Superintendent Steve Hodgson, Interim CFO and Asst. Superintendent Virginia Hyatt, Purchasing Director Wally Berriman, Director of Facilities/ Director on Special Assignment (not present) Sarah Wahrenbrock, Assistant to Superintendent (not present) District Consultants: Parsons / CCM: Tom Tomeoni, Program Manager Julia Hawkinson, Deputy Program Manager Larry Fugal, Deputy Program Manager Michael Hill, Joint/Shared Use Consultant (end of meeting) Public: Diane O Brien, Rogers Site Governance / Parent John Petz Laurie Lieberman Abby Adams, Franklin Co-Chair Site Governance Debbie Mulvaney Elizabeth Stearns Mark Kelly, Principal, Malibu HS Kelly Siegel ATTACHMENTS: Scenario G [Distributed at meeting to members by Co Chair Gleam Davis] BB Advisory Committee Recommendation [Distributed to Board members by Co Chair Gleam Davis at the BOE meeting on Oct. 18] 7

8

9

10

11 BB ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION At its October 15, 2007, meeting the BB Advisory Committee by a vote of 6 to 3 voted to make the following recommendation to the SMMUSD Board of Education: The BB Committee recommends to the Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education that it allocate $111,000,000 of the available $149,000,000 in BB proceeds and developer fees in the following manner: Technology-Fire/Life/Safety $10,000,000 Santa Monica High School $57,000,000 Malibu High School $13,500,000 Olympic High School/Washington West* $6,000,000** Edison Language Academy $24,500,000 TOTAL $111,000,000 *As part of this proposal, the BB Advisory Committee recommends that the Board adopt a policy that Child Development Services gets first opportunity to use appropriate classroom space that becomes available (which allows movement of Pine Street classrooms off Olympic site through attrition. ) **$6,000,000 would be distributed between Olympic and Washington West/East depending on scope of work necessary to remove Pine Street classrooms from the Olympic site. The BB Advisory Committee recommends postponing earmarking of the unallocated $38,000,000 to provide the BB Advisory Committee additional time to develop a recommendation for these funds and until the District has more information about the total resources available for BB projects which may include savings from an accelerated bond program, state matching funds, and funds freed up through joint use opportunities. The BB Advisory Committee also recommends that the Board direct staff to begin as quickly as possible to explore all potential joint use and additional funding opportunities and, in cooperation with the BB Advisory Committee, to plan allocation of the remaining $38,000,000 along with any additional monies that are realized.