NOTICE OF MEETING Vancouver School Board Secretary-Treasurer’s Office Facilities Planning Committee May 10, 2019 Allan Wong Oliver Hanson Carmen Cho Jennifer Reddy

Suzanne Hoffman, Superintendent of Schools J. David Green, Secretary-Treasurer

Notice of Meeting

A Meeting of the Facilities Planning Committee will be held in Room #114 of the Education Centre, 1580 West Broadway, Vancouver, British Columbia, on Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:00 PM.

Trustees: Fraser Ballantyne Estrellita Gonzalez Lois Chan-Pedley Barb Parrott Janet Fraser

Student Trustee: Hazel Pangilinan District Management Staff: Carmen Batista Brian Kuhn Aaron Davis Lisa Landry Pedro da Silva Jody Langlois John Dawson Patricia MacNeil Rosie Finch Jim Meschino Mette Hamaguchi David Nelson Joann Horsley-Holwill Lorelei Russell Magdalena Kassis Rob Schindel Michele Kelly Shehzad Somji Adrian Keough Richard Zerbe

Reps: Terry Stanway, VSTA Alt: Jill Barclay, VESTA Karin Bernauer, VESTA Angela Haveman, VASSA Harjinder Sandhu, VEPVPA Doug Roch/David Murphy, VEPVPA Tim Chester, IUOE Tim De Vivo, IUOE Melissa Werfl, PASA Debbie Mohabir, CUPE 15 Anne Montgomery, DPAC Allison Tredwell/Amanda Hillis, DPAC Stephen Kelly, Trades Raymond Szczecinski, Trades Brent Boyd, CUPE 407 Fiona Chang, VDSC

Others: Secretary-Treasurer’s Office Doug McClary District Parents Ron Macdonald Communications Jim de Hoop Chris Allen Kerry Chuah Lynda Bonvillain Bithia Chung Kathie Currie, CUPE 15 Ed. Centre Engineers Rentals

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

COMMITTEE MEETING

FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:00 pm Room 114, VSB Education Centre

REVISED AGENDA

The meeting is being held on the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil- Waututh Coast Salish peoples. 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 Long Range Facilities Plan Khelsilem, Squamish Nation Councillor and Spokesperson 1.2 Long Range Facilities Plan Liz Baldry, PAC Chair, Ideal Mini 1.3 Long Range Facilities Plan Shaun Kalley, Chair, Vancouver DPAC 1.4 Long Range Facilities Plan Lisa McAllister, Amy Flory, Brent Flory, Taralyn Day, Parents – Olympic Village School 1.5 Long Range Facilities Plan Albert Zhong 1.6 Long Range Facilities Plan Carl Chen

2. Information Items 2.1 Draft 2020/21 Annual Capital Plan Submission L. Landry, Assistant Secretary Treasurer J. Meschino, Director of Facilities J. De Hoop, Manager of Planning

2.2 Long Range Facilities Plan Feedback Overview D. Green, Secretary Treasurer J. Dawson, Director of Educational Planning

VANCOUVER SCHOOL BOARD

COMMITTEE MEETING

2.3 Update on Seismic Projects (Information Sessions) J. Meschino, Director of Facilities 2.3.1 Selkirk Elementary School Seismic Upgrade 2.3.2 Weir Elementary School Seismic Upgrade 2.3.3 Byng Secondary School Seismic Upgrade

2.4 2019/2020 Annual Facilities Grant – Funding J. Meschino, Director of Facilities Allocation D. McClary, Manager of Maintenance and Construction

3. Discussion Items

3.1 Notice of Motion A. Wong, Trustee

3.2 Notice of Motion J. Reddy, Trustee

4. Items for Approval 4.1 Long Range Facilities Plan Recommendations D. Green, Secretary Treasurer L. Landry, Assistant Secretary Treasurer

4.2 David Thompson Secondary Potential Land J. Meschino, Director of Facilities Exchange Option – Public Consultation J. De Hoop, Manager of Planning

5. Information Item Requests

Date and Time of Next Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 5:00 pm

Facilities Planning Committee

2.1 Purpose/Function:

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

2.2 Powers and Duties:

2.2.1 School Closures:

2.2.1.1 Review the materials provided by senior staff to the Board regarding a possible school closure and provide a recommendation to the Board as to whether the committee supports the possible closure advancing to the school closure public consultation process phase.

2.2.2 Naming and Renaming Schools:

2.2.2.1 Within the constraints of Board direction provided at the outset of any potential school naming or renaming process provide recommendations to the Board.

2.2.3 Student Enrolment:

2.2.3.1 Annually review enrolment and enrolment trends and the potential impact on capital planning, student accommodation and catchment changes.

2.2.4 Capital Planning:

2.2.4.1 Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft five year capital plan for submission to the BC Ministry of Education.

2.2.5 Long Range Facilities Plan:

2.2.5.1 Annually review and make recommendations regarding the draft long range facilities plan for submission to the BC Ministry of Education.

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

2.2.6.1 Review matters referred and make recommendations as requested.

Facilities Planning Committee ITEM 1.2 May 15, 2019

DELEGATION

Speaker: Liz Baldry, PAC Chair & Angely Dhawan PAC Vice Chair of Ideal Mini School

Re: Long Range Facilities Plan

- Who are we? - Why are we here? - What is unique about our program? - How Ideal students achieve success - Why Ideal should not close or relocate - Student Presentation

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\PDF\ITEM 1.2 - Long Range Facilities Plan.docx Ideal Mini School Community, Leadership, Responsibility

Facilities Planning Committee Wednesday, May 15, 2019

Ideal PAC Chair Liz Baldry Who are we? Ideal Mini School • Is a district enriched academic program for grades 8 -12 that is under the stewardship of Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School • A safe environment, in a stand-alone facility, for creative, academically motivated students who feel that they would flourish in a smaller learning environment • Fosters social responsibility and awareness, community involvement, leadership, and academic excellence • Its small learning environment provides students with the opportunity to develop leadership Why are we here?

• Ideal Mini has existed in its own stand-alone building for more than 30 years • As outlined in the draft 2019 LRFP document, the possible relocation of Ideal Mini from its current stand-alone facility to a larger school with surplus capacity

We are here tonight to strongly request that Ideal Mini remains at its current stand-alone facility because this stand-alone structure is the foundation to Ideal’s success.

Ideal would lose its essence if it were to exist within a larger school body What is unique about our program?

• Cross-grade interactions and collaborations are the norm (e.g., annual 3-day school camp at Timberline, weekly student-led school meetings, tutoring club) • Barriers to collaboration are very low due to familiarity between students as a result of small learning environment • Senior students mentor the younger students • Group work is integral to the Ideal philosophy

At Ideal, the stand-alone facility creates an environment where teachers and senior students can instill or strengthen the core Ideal values of learning, respect, honesty, and justice in our younger students. How Ideal students achieve success • Ideal is a small, stand-alone facility which allows students and teachers to establish a strong working relationship • Teachers know their students well and thus are able to suggest opportunities and challenges • Students, immersed in this tightly-knit community, feel safe and supported thus empowered to strive for excellence

This school year, shining examples of Ideal student success: • Ideal student presence at the District Student Council • WE Club student honoured with the Sovereign’s Medal for Volunteers • 2 Destination Imagination teams qualifying to the Global Finals • Youngest team to qualify for the National Ethics Bowl Why Ideal should NOT close or relocate

• Ideal is a humble building BUT it is seismically safe • Ideal is operating at near capacity • Teachers and students have built a school community that is safe, welcoming, inclusive, and accepting --- students who are shy or reserved have found strength and security in this community and accordingly have actively engaged in leadership opportunities

This community cannot be truly replicated in a larger school because Ideal would need to integrate its community into the community of the larger school.

Ideal would lose its essence if it were to relocate to a larger school.

Presentation to Plenary Facilities Planning Com m ittee

Vancouver DPAC May 15, 2019 1. Introduction Contents 2. LRFP Recommendations 3. Board Motions 4. Conclusion 5. Questions? Thank you for allowing me to present on behalf of Introduction Vancouver DPAC.

We have a very simple message to deliver to the Board: do what is right to provide safe, quality education to our children.

For too long we’ve been constrained by capacity models that do not reflect the actual use of space in schools. Rooms that are used for educational and community purposes have been considered empty. The real needs of children are not factored in. And we constantly see undertakings like LRFPs as battles because they are focused on closures rather than on providing better education. On April 29, 2019, we sent an open letter to the Board Introduction expressing our belief that the central narrative of the LRFP (the “patchwork of schools” narrative) was pretty much dead because the draft LRFP does not reflect the spirit of the letter from Minister Fleming and the updated LRFP guidelines. As well, the specific clauses in the Capital Plan Instructions supporting that narrative have been removed.

This presentation is an opportunity to draw your attention back to our letter as well as to update our positions on the recommendations made in the LRFP and on the new motions brought forward by the Board. Since the LRFP timeline was first provided to DPAC in Introduction late January, was have highlighted both in direct communication with District staff and through social media the need for explicit direction from the Board, better consultation (we did take a step in the right direction on this), and alternatives to the restrictive constraints imposed by the Ministry of Education.

We believe that now is the time for the Board to adopt a leadership mindset and make the decision to look forward rather than backwards. We want the Board to take the positives in the LRFP (because there are some) and move forward with them, but to leave the overall model behind and to start fresh once more information is on the table. This is a summary of DPAC’s positions on the LRFP LRFP recommendations from our letter to the Board: Recommendations 1. That the District should develop an Administrative LRFP Procedure setting out guiding principles and detailed procedures for governance and Recommendations stakeholder consultation for SMP projects.

DPAC is in favour of this recommendation.

We are already working with the VSB on a broader AP on consultation. 2. That the District establish guidelines on preferred LRFP school size with the goal of determining appropriate ranges of schools’ size to inform Recommendations planning decisions.

DPAC is strongly in favour of this recommendation. 3. That the District should continue the investigation LRFP of consolidating Alternate Programs in a central location and initiate a process to identify, suitable Recommendations options to co -locate District alternate programs and related services.

DPAC is not in favour of this recommendation. 4. That the District should continue to explore options LRFP that enable it to implement the Board approved Recommendations recommendations of the French Program Review.

DPAC has concerns about this recommendation.

We believe that attempts to implement the recommendations of the French Program Review need to be a ligned with all Dis trict priorities a nd pres ented transparently as such to school communities. Proper and effective guidelines for consultations also need to be put in place (see Recommendation 1). 5. That the District undertake an Enrolment Data LRFP Validation process to for all facility and education planning purposes. This process would consist of Recommendations an annual validation study of short, medium, and long-range enrolment projections as well as updating student yield metrics for areas of the District with significant development and redevelopment proposed or underway.

DPAC is in favour of this recommendation. 7. That the District continues to work with the City of LRFP Vancouver to construct Coal Harbour Elementary and develop a catchment and enrolment plan for Recommendations the school.

DPAC is in favour of this recommendation. 8. That the District build on the initial work done on a LRFP Capital Asset Management Plan to develop a comprehensive strategic plan to guide the District Recommendations in effectively managing the asset inventory in the future.

DPAC is not in favour of this recommendation.

We do not believe there is enough information to assent to this recommendation. “Effective” is a normative term and therefore would have to be defined by the guiding principles of the LRFP. We also believe that schools are more than just physical assets and hence that a standard capital asset management plan might be insufficient, hence the need for more information. 9. That the Board of Education approve an annual LRFP budget allocation for the next three years to hire real estate consultants to negotiate financial Recommendations arrangements with developers to generate capital fund revenue to support enhancing capital projects and the workforce housing initiative.

DPAC is not in favour of this recommendation.

The recommendation suggests that full business cases would have to be prepared before bringing in agents to negotiate the financial arrangements. Therefore this recommendation seems premature. 10.That the District updates the addition and LRFP expansion project requests in the 2020-2021 Five Year Capital Plan for Board of Education approval, Recommendations including determining the need for elementary schools at Olympic Village, East Fraser Lands and Wesbrook at UBC, secondary school space at King George Secondary and the need for additional capacity in the North Hamber study area.

DPAC is in favour of this recommendation. 11.That the District continues to explore enrolment LRFP management options to balance enrolment with capacity in the Kitsilano study area, the North Recommendations Hamber study area and the South Hamber study area and report to the Facilities Planning Committee on a quarterly basis

DPAC agrees with this recommendation. 13.That the District should conduct detailed analysis LRFP on the impact of reducing school capacity through the SMP (‘right sizing’) in relation to the goals and Recommendations priorities of the Long Range Facilities Plan.

DPAC is strongly in favour of this recommendation.

We believe that this recommendation should be paired with Recommendation 2 (preferred school size) and us ed to inform this yea r’s Ca pita l Pla n s ubm is s ion. 14.That the District decide if an seismically upgraded LRFP Sir Guy Carleton Elementary should be used as temporary accommodation for the SMP or as an Recommendations enrolling school.

DPAC agrees with this recommendation. 15.That the District consider the implications of the LRFP School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of this report to prioritize Recommendations seismic upgrades for secondary schools.

DPAC strongly rejects this recommendation.

As indicated in other parts of this presentation, DPAC believes that the District needs to seize the opportunity to define a new, local set of capacity guidelines and to reject Section 10 of the LRFP in its entirety. 16.That the District consider the implications of the LRFP School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of this report to prioritize Recommendations seismic upgrades for elementary schools.

DPAC strongly disagrees with this recommendation.

Same as Recommendations 15. 17.That the District consider the implications of the LRFP School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of this report to inform Recommendations revisions to the Temporary Accommodation Plan in the SMP.

DPAC strongly disagrees with this recommendation.

Same as Recommendation 15. 18.That the District investigate the implications of the LRFP new LRFP guidelines, arrange for community information sessions, and report to Committee and Recommendations Board.

DPAC strongly agrees with this recommendation.

We see this as necessary preliminary work before com pleting a n LRFP. This is a summary of DPAC’s positions on the motions Board Motions related to the LRFP brought forward by the Board: A. That the Board seek clarification from the Minister Board Motions of Education as to the implications of updated Ministry LRFP guidelines on funding requests for future capital requests (expansion/new builds) and on requests for seismic upgrades to current VBE schools.

DPAC is in favour of this motion.

We asked the Minister this question and did not receive a direct answer. Instead we were told that the District should take the opportunity to submit as many s eis m ic projects a s pos s ible, a nd, in pa rticula r, projects for east side schools. B. That the Board engage with the Ministry of Board Motions Education in a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding 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.

DPAC is in favour of this motion. C. That the Board request to have a trustee serve as a Board Motions non-voting member of the Vancouver Project Steering Committee.

DPAC does not have a definitive position on this motion.

We believe that the intent of this motion is positive, but the role of the trustee serving on this committee would need to be defined in Board Policy 3 and every effort to mitigate the bias of a single trustee would need to be taken. D. That the District continue to maximize Board Motions opportunities for the provision of child care space within VBE facilities.

DPAC generally supports this motion.

However, we believe that a caveat is needed that prioritizes educa tiona l s pa ce -- including non-enrolling educational space, e.g., art and music rooms -- over child care space in the rare case that they conflict, e.g., Eric Hamber. E. That the District continue to collaborate with the Board Motions City of Vancouver, University Endowment Lands and local First Nations on development and community plans.

DPAC generally supports this motion.

However, there are concerns that collaborations to date have not been effective. Hence a more detailed statement of what such collaborations would/should enta il is needed a long with a des cription of how s uch collaboration would be used to influence and support projects under the purview of each party. F. That the Board direct staff to develop a way to Board Motions assess capacity utilization of VBE school facilities, with the intent to inform the 2020 LFRP.

DPAC is generally in favour of this motion.

But the point of this presentation is that a new model for defining capacity and determining capacity utiliza tion s hould inform this LRFP and not wait until the next one even if means that this LRFP becomes the 2020 LRFP. In other words, plan and take the time to get it right now rather than putting a hybrid plan into effect that might require resources to unravel it in the next iteration. We believe that there is a very real opportunity for Conclusion school districts to challenge the status quo and define their own standards and metrics for how to best use their fa cilities to deliver qua lity educa tion to our children. This opportunity is too important to squander by remaining encumbered by now outdated Minis try policies .

Our advice to the Board is this:

In the short term:

★ Approve any recommendations and/or motions that you feel moves the District in the right direction and/or puts more information on the table without committing to the general framework of the LRFP. Conclusion In the medium term: Recommendation ★ Direct the the work outlined in 18 to be completed. ★ Articula te, a s a Boa rd a nd in cons ulta tion with District staff, stakeholder groups, parents, and the general public, your vision for education in Vancouver. student success model ★ Complete the . catchment review ★ Complete the . start the LRFP process over again ★ Then using thes e a s guiding principles . Questions?

We gladly welcome questions from the Committee Facilities Planning Committee ITEM 1.4 May 15, 2019

DELEGATION

Speaker: Lisa McAllister, Amy Flory, Brent Flory, Taralyn Day, Olympic Village School

Re: Long Range Facilities Plan

- We are a group of passionate parents and community members who want to work with you and build a school in Olympic Village. The community has supported us with 250 signatures and counting.

You are well aware of the current school situation and it is devastating to see what is happening in our community each year with the disbursement of Kindergarten kids across the district.

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 1.4 - Long Range Facilities Plan.docx Community support for a new elementary school in Olympic Village

Presentation for Vancouver School Board, Facilities Planning Committee May 15, 2019

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 1 Why are we here? There is an urgent and growing need for a new elementary school in Vancouver’s Olympic Village neighborhood While a new school has been identified in the VSB Long Range Facilities Plan it is unclear whether this project is moving ahead and what the timeline might be As concerned parents, we would like to know how we can support and expediate this project for a new school in South East False Creek We would also like to explore interim solutions to address significant capacity issues that exist within the Simon Fraser catchment

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 2 The current school situation is not sustainable Simon Fraser Elementary is the existing catchment school for Olympic Village Only 38% of in-catchment kindergarten students can be accommodated ◦ For 2019/20 Simon Fraser received 105 in-catchment kindergarten registrations ◦ space for 40 kindergarten students; 65 waitlisted Waitlisted families have applied for cross-boundary spots, choice programs or private schooling options Others offered spots at Nightingale or General Wolfe Simon Fraser not an ideal catchment school for Olympic Village as it is nearly 2 km away and children need to cross 3 major streets (W 2nd, Broadway, W 12th)

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 3 It’s impacting our community…. Children living in Olympic Village are attending a number of different schools due to the Simon Fraser waitlist Many of these children are neighbors, attend the same daycares/preschools and extra-curricular activities Uncertainty for families not knowing what elementary school they will attend Many families forced to drive their children to school Does not support the walkable and sustainable lifestyle many moved to Olympic Village for (walk score = 96) Some families moving away from Olympic Village to be closer to school

Creekside Preschool Classmates L-R Marcelo, Claire, Keika, Hunter For Kindergarten next year Claire will attend General Wolfe, Keika will attend Simon Fraser and Hunter will attend Trafalgar

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 4 ….so we created a petition Petition launched May 1, 2019 www.olympicvillageschool.com 250+ responses so far in support of a new elementary school in Olympic Village Responses show elementary schools attended by Olympic Village children

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 5 The problem will get worse if we don’t act now Petition responses shows SE False Creek children are attending at least 15 different schools A number of residential buildings are still under construction in Olympic Village Families are moving here for a walkable and sustainable lifestyle We don’t want to discourage families from living in this amazing community

Blue – English; Purple – French; Green – Private; Yellow – Catchment; Red – Future Olympic Village School

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 6 What can we do? As concerned parents we would like to request: VSB provide an update on the planning for a new elementary school in Olympic Village VSB explore interim solutions to address the capacity issues at Simon Fraser Elementary so Olympic Village children can attend school in their community ◦ Consider temporary modular school in Olympic Village ◦ Consider K-3 Annex school capacity as a start VSB identify a facilities contact who can answer questions and act as a liaison with the parent/student community going forward VSB provide guidance on how parents can help support the process and approval for a new school in South East False Creek. We look forward to supporting VSB on this important project!

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 7 Thank you

WWW.OLYMPICVILLAGESCHOOL.COM 8 Facilities Planning Committee ITEM 1.6 May 15, 2019

DELEGATION

Speaker: Carl Chen

Re: Long Range Facilities Plan

- Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement - Least Cost Option - Heritage Retention Requirement o City of Vancouver should consider waiving/relaxing the retention requirement o The City should also provide funding to VBS

- Develop School Sites: Capital Funding Generation - 99-year lease model o Success Story: UBC endowment land o Success Story: SFU endowment land - Co-development o Success Story: North Toronto Collegiate Institute - Possibilities through Mix-Use developments o Market/Non-market Rental Housing o Work Force Housing o Co-housing o Social Housing o Senior Housing o Urban Farms

- Upzone/Increase Density around schools - “School-hood” - CRITICAL: Participate in the City-Wide Plan - Increase / support future enrollment

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 1.6 - Long Range Facilities Plan.docx Revitalization of Our Aging Schools: Where we could look for meaningful, long-range solutions

Presented by: Carl Chen Why I’m here

• My daughter goes to the kindergarten at Queen Alexander • We live in the school catchment • My family had the same concerns as our neighborhood parents • From my perspective as a commercial real estate professional, I believe there are solutions that we could explore to get to (one of) the root of our problem – insufficient funding “Long Range” in the LRFP

• 2032 – the furthest LRFP peeked in to the future (13 years from now) • Average age of our current school is 73 years • 1946 – did our predecessors foresee our current challenges? • 2082 – what challenges will our future hold? “Long Range” in the LRFP

• Future is uncertain, but future is rooted in the past • Metro Vancouver 2050 (April 5, 2019) “Long Range” in the LRFP

• Looking towards 2050, we can be certain about the impact of 1. Climate Change 2. AI & Automation • Automatous Vehicles • Labour jobs gets replaced “Long Range” in the LRFP

• Looking towards 2050, we can be certain about the impact of 1. Climate Change 2. AI & Automation 3. Problem of inequity / wealth gap will not disappear • Strong public education is the key stepping stone for social mobility • “Children are our future” – Let’s built it together Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement (Fix It or Built It) • Least Cost Option • Heritage Retention Requirement Least Cost Option (Elementary Schools)

Fix It

• Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) Cost: average of $22.4 Million • Deferred Maintenance: Mostly under $10 Million • On-going Maintenance Cost • On-going Operating Cost

$20-30 Million Least Cost Option (Elementary Schools)

Built It

New Elementary School Cost Projection Coal Harbour $28.2 Million False Creek $38.1 Million UBC South Campus $25.9 Million East Fraser Land $ 32.1 Million

Completed - Crosstown Elementary: $19.7 Million

Range: $20 – 40 Million depending on the capacity need $20-40 Million Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement

• Least Cost Option (short term view)

$20-30 Million - Seismic Mitigation Program $20-40 Million - Deferred Maintenance - School Replacement

Gap/Premium paid by VSB! Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement • Least Cost Option (long term view):

- School Replacement - Modern teaching environment - Reduced Green House Gas Emission - Reduced Maintenance - Reduced Operating Cost - Seismic Mitigation Program - Deferred Maintenance - Extra On-going Maintenance - Extra On-going Operation Cost

Gap/Premium – Maybe by the Ministry?! Least Cost Option: Short term or Long term?

• We need: • a 3rd party to conduct an in-depth study on whether School Replacement will provide long term positive monetary and social impact (vs. simply SMP)

• if School Replacement is indeed the true Least Cost Option, then we can demonstrate, through numbers, to the Ministry, which in turn will provide bases for additional funding. Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement • Heritage Retention Requirement

Results from a recent survey with 227 respondents from 70+ schools

- conducted by advocacy group “Strong School Strong Communities” Seismic Upgrade vs. School Replacement

• Heritage Retention Requirement • Parents rather have safe schools than heritage school buildings • A facade is more than enough! • Three ideas to explore with the City of Vancouver: 1. City to waive/relax the retention requirements 2. The City to provide funding to VSB if retention is mandated 3. The City could create incentives for VSB’s heritage retention effort by create Density Bonus, which VSB could in turn sell to developers to generate funding Re-shaping School Sites: Capital Funding Generation • Gap/Premium in funding from the Ministry: Where to look for funding? • VSB has a “portfolio of 125 physical building assets…600 acres of land…[valued at approx.] $7.6 billion in 2018 as per BC Assessment” Re-shaping School Sites: Land Lease

• Selling school land is NOT a long term/sustainable solution! • 99-years lease model • Success Story: UBC endowment land • Success Story: SFU endowment land and its downtown campus • Mix-Use developments through a creative combination of public and private partnerships 99-years lease model

• Success Story: UBC endowment land 99-year lease model • Success Story: UBC endowment land • 1,000+ acres • Formed UBC Property Trust • Pre-paid lease, expires in 99 years • UBC still have ownership to its land • UBC gets additional payment upon expiry through lease renewal • a mix of rental, faculty and market housing that would be sold to the public • $1.6 billion was generated for the endowment fund

“Universities plan for 1,000 years, they don’t plan for 50, so there is perpetual benefit through the generations.”

– Michael White Associate Vice-President of Campus and Community Planning (UBC) 99-years lease model Success Story: SFU endowment land and its downtown campus 99-years lease model

• Success Story: SFU endowment land and its downtown campus Mix-Use developments through a creative combination of public and private partnerships

• Adopting various land lease models • Partnering up public and private groups • Work with the City to create/update Neighborhood Community Plans that’s school- centric • Build vibrant communities that contain various housing options: Market Condos Market/Non-market Rental Housing Work Force Housing Co-housing Social Housing CREATE PROPER Senior Housing INCENTIVES  Urban Farms FOR DIFFERENT GROUPS  Neighborhood Retail Nodes IS THE KEY Upzone/Increase Density around schools

Results from 227 respondents from 70+ school in a recent survey - conducted by advocacy group “StrongSchoolStrongCommunities” • “School-hood” • Participate in the City-Wide Plan (and also Upzone/Increase Resilient Vancouver Strategy) Density around schools • Increase / support future enrollment

VSB needs to have liaisons who can effectively work with the City Summary: Where could we look for long range solutions

• Work with the Ministry to explore the Least Cost Option through a long term lens • Work with the City of Vancouver to explore community/urban planning on & around school sites • Work with various stakeholders to unlock land value

Ministry of Education City of Vancouver

VSB as a Changemaker

Community Private & Public Sector “Long Range” in the LRFP

• 2032 – the furthest LRFP peeked in to the future (13 years from now) • Average age of our current school is 73 years • 1946 – did our predecessors foresee our current challenges? • 2082 – what challenges will our future hold? “Long Range” in the LRFP

• Average age of our current school is 73 years • 2082 – How do we build and shape communities on and around schools so we are prepared for the future? VSB acting as a Community Changemaker

• VSB has a “portfolio of 125 physical building assets…600 acres of land” • Learn from the success of UBC and SFU endowment lands • Formulate innovative and creative solutions… • With consultants who has a great understanding of land economics, VSB can not only reshape the community for the better, but also establish its own funding strategy that would perpetually sustain our future generations Aging Schools: Golden Opportunity

• Chance for all key decision makers to be the heroes of our beautiful city by consider the following amendment to the following Recommendation and Motions:

• New Board Motion B: That the Board engage with the Ministry of Education in a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding 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. It should also seek to modify the "least cost option" principle to consider the full lifecycle costs of maintaining schools when deciding whether to re-build or upgrade. Aging Schools: Golden Opportunity

• Chance for all key decision makers to be the heroes of our beautiful city by consider the following amendment to the following Recommendation and Motions:

• LRFP Recommendation 9: That the Board of Education approve an annual budget allocation for the next three years to engage consultants with the intent to generate capital fund revenue to support enhancing capital projects and implement the Capital Asset Management Plan, with a mandate to investigate land-lease options among under-utilized and non-educational VSB properties. Aging Schools: Golden Opportunity

• Chance for all key decision makers to be the heroes of our beautiful city by consider the following amendment to the following Recommendation and Motions:

• New Board Motion E: That the District continue to collaborate with the City of Vancouver, University Endowment Lands and local First Nations on development and community plans, seeking a significant increase in the population of school- aged children near under-capacity schools and to zone excess school lands in ways that allow the Board to maximize its financial and social objectives through land-lease arrangements. Let’s built our future together! Thank you

Carl Chen [email protected]

Date: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.1 To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: James de Hoop, Manager of Planning Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities Lisa Landry, Assistant Secretary Treasurer

Re: Draft 2020/21 Annual Capital Plan Submission

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship.

Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long Range Facilities Plan. • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION

This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND

In April 2019, the Ministry of Education (MoE) issued instructions to school districts in the Province regarding submissions for their 2020/21 Five-Year Capital Plan. The capital plan submission is due no later than June 30, 2019. A Board-approved Capital Plan Resolution is required along with the Capital Plan submission. Capital Plan submission categories that are relevant to the Vancouver School Board (VSB) are:

A. Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) B. Expansions (EXP) or (New schools and School Capacity Additions) C. School Enhancement Program (SEP) D. Building Envelope Program (BEP) E. Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) F. Playground Equipment Program (PEP)

DISCUSSION

A. Proposed Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP)

When prioritizing a school for a SMP project, the Ministry of Education indicates that school districts should consider factors such as the following:

• The risk rating of school blocks is H1 or H2 or H3

1

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.1 - Capital Plan Submission.docx • The LRFP identifies that the school is essential for providing continued educational programming for students in the school district • The LRFP identifies the local circumstances that will corroborate the continued student enrolment in the future • A SPIR has already been submitted in response to a Ministry request • Availability of adequate student space at neighbouring schools to accommodate current and forecasted student enrolment • Consolidation of students in neighbouring school(s) • Seismic strengthening of existing school • Seismic strengthening and partial replacement of existing school • Full replacement on the existing site • Full replacement on a new site • The Facility Condition Index (FCI) for the school • Consideration of Life Cycle Costs (LCC) for each option, as the cost of ongoing maintenance over the remaining physical life of an asset is an important financial factor, beyond just capital costs.

Staff have used the above factors and emphasized the following criteria for inclusion in the five- year Capital Plan:

a. Existing or prior MOE support through a public announcement b. Seismic Risk Factor (the % of gross building area that is H1 or H2 seismic risk multiplied by the current enrolment at the school) c. Availability of temporary accommodation d. Number of surplus safe seats in surrounding schools (i.e. the school cannot be accommodated at safe seats among family of schools) e. The distribution of seismically safe schools within the District f. The Long-Range Facilities Plan (LRFP)

Priority of Schools

The Ministry has requested a five-year Capital Plan, and staff have identified projects for the Ministry’s consideration. Final seismic project delivery dates are subject to the Ministry of Education’s approval to move to the feasibility study phase, the results of the feasibility analysis, timing of availability of temporary accommodations, as well as design and construction budgetary scoping.

Accordingly, staff have made the following draft of the Capital Plan priorities according to their relevant funding programs.

Year 1

John Oliver Secondary Renfrew Elementary Sir Alexander Mackenzie Elementary Prince of Wales Secondary

Year 2

Waverly Elementary Florence Nightingale Elementary King George Secondary Lord Beaconsfield Elementary

2

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.1 - Capital Plan Submission.docx

Year 3

Templeton Secondary Britannia Secondary Gladstone Secondary Windermere Secondary Dr. H.N. MacCorkindale Elementary Sir William Osler Elementary

Year 4

Sir Winston Churchill Secondary Sir John Franklin Elementary Queen Alexandra Elementary Quilchena Elementary

Year 5

Southlands Elementary Graham Bruce Elementary Admiral Seymour Elementary Grandview Elementary χpey̓ Elementary Tillicum Annex Elementary George T. Cunningham Elementary Emily Carr Elementary General Brock Elementary

B. Proposed Expansion (EXP) Submission - New Schools and Additions

As part of the 2020/21 Capital Plan submission the new schools and additions listed below are proposed. New school capacity is subject to Ministry of Education approval to move to the feasibility study phase, the results of the feasibility analysis, as well as design and construction budget scoping.

Year One: False Creek Elementary (Addition) False Creek has been approved to proceed to Project Definition Report (PDR) completion under the seismic mitigation program (SMP). An addition to the school is being requested.

Year One: Cavell Elementary (Addition) Edith Cavell Elementary has a completed PDR and a Project Agreement under the SMP. An addition at this school is being requested.

Year One: South East False Creek -Olympic Village Elementary (Site Acquisition) It is proposed that a new school be constructed on designated Official Development Plan land at Olympic Village. This site is located at Hinge Park at the foot of Columbia Street. This compact, mid-rise community is currently part of the Fraser catchment. Simon Fraser Elementary is operating at 159% capacity and further enrolment pressures exist at Edith Cavell Elementary, Emily Carr Elementary, General Wolfe Elementary, False Creek Elementary, and Elsie Roy Elementary. For submission in year one of the 2020/21 Capital Plan is the site acquisition component of this project.

3

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.1 - Capital Plan Submission.docx

Year Two: King George Secondary (Addition) King George Secondary is a high-risk school in the SMP. An addition is being requested to the school.

Year Three: South East False Creek/ Olympic Village Elementary (New School Construction) The school construction component of Olympic Village could be included in year three of the 2020/21 Capital Plan, following the site acquisition submission in year one.

Year Four: Henry Hudson Elementary (Addition) Henry Hudson has completed a Project Definition Report (PDR) under the seismic mitigation program (SMP). An addition to the school is being requested.

Year Five: UBC/ UEL Elementary (New School Constuction) This five-Year Capital Plan submission also includes notional reference for new school capacity requirements at UBC/UEL. Further residential development in the UBC/UEL area is planned for Block F.

Proposed Expansion (EXP) Submission Summary Table

School Year False Creek Elementary - Addition Year 1 Edith Cavell Elementary - Addition Year 1 SE False Creek/Olympic Village - Site Acquisition Year 1 King George Secondary - Addition Year 2 SE False Creek/Olympic Village – New School Construction Year 3 Henry Hudson Elementary - Addition Year 4 UBC / UEL Elementary – New School Construction Year 5

C. Proposed School Enhancement Program (SEP)

Districts are required to demonstrate an improvement in the safety, condition or functionality of schools, and to extend useful by reducing deferred maintenance in this category of projects.

• Electrical upgrades • Washroom upgrades • Mechanical upgrades • Health and Safety upgrades

The following projects are proposed in the SEP program:

School Scope Lord Selkirk Elementary Elevator and accessibility upgrades Chief Maquinna Elementary Elevator, fire safety and accessibility upgrades Lord Byng Secondary Fire safety, mechanical and accessibility upgrades Edith Cavell Elementary Fire safety, HVAC, and accessibility upgrades Woodworking / Workshop dust 16 secondary schools collector upgrades

4

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.1 - Capital Plan Submission.docx D. Proposed 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 induced degradation 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.

• Churchill Secondary School

E. Proposed Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP)

Project submittals in this category are required to demonstrate a reduction in carbon emissions. The district is conducting audits to identify two sites for heat plant replacements. Additionally, funding for digital control systems upgrades at several sites will be submitted as a third item.

F. Proposed Playground Equipment Program (PEP)

Playground submissions are limited to those requiring replacement or modifications for universal accessibility.

Queen Victoria Annex – Replacement Playset Admiral Seymour Elementary – Rubberized Accessible Surfacing Walter Moberly Elementary – Rubberized Accessible Surfacing

NEXT STEPS:

Staff are completing estimates for each project to be submitted in the capital plan. A final 2020/21 Capital Plan report with recommendation(s) will be brought forward to the June 19, 2019 Facilities Planning Committee meeting.

5

S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.1 - Capital Plan Submission.docx

DATE: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.2 TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: David Green, Secretary Treasurer John Dawson, Director of Educational Planning

RE: Long Range Facilities Plan Feedback Overview

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship.

Objective: • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION

This report is for information.

BACKGROUND

The draft LRFP was published on February 22, 2019. Since that time the Board has received feedback from stakeholders and the public by the following means:

The purpose of this report is the following: • To provide an overview of the mechanisms and processes used to receive feedback on the draft LRFP. • To organize and collate information about how to access feedback gathered on the draft LRFP.

STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

The following stakeholder groups have provided written feedback with specific reference to the seventeen recommendations in the February draft LRFP:

Figure 1 – Summary of Stakeholder Feedback on Recommendations in draft LRFP Date Organization Document

27-Feb-19 VSTA VSTA Response to Draft VSB LRFP FPC Feb 27, 2019

17-Apr-19 VESTA LRFP VESTA Response FPC April 17, 2019 29-Apr-19 DPAC Open Letter to VSB Trustees - Attached

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.2 - FPC - May 15 2019 - LRFP.docx

DELEGATIONS TO FACILITIES PLANNING COMMITTEE

The draft LRFP was discussed at four Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) meetings:

Figure 2 – FPC meeting dates FPC Meeting Date Meeting Type 27-Feb-19 Special Meeting of the FPC for LRFP 06-Mar-19 Regular scheduled meeting 13-Mar-19 Special Meeting of the FPC for LRFP 17-Apr-19 Regular scheduled meeting

In addition, District staff met with DPAC on March 7, 2019.

Twenty-one delegations made presentations in reference to the draft LRFP to the Facilities Planning Committee in March and April of 2019.

Figure 3 – Summary of presentations by delegations Date Name of Presenters Link to Presentation

06-Mar-19 L. Boldt, local business person FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 S. Dahlin, I. Kolsteren, Britannia Board of Management FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 I. Monk, K. Lam, Britannia PAC FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 L. Chow FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 D. Lee, parent of student from Tillicum Annex FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 A. Robertson, parent of student from Tillicum Annex FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 J. Hornbury, parent of student from Franklin Elementary FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 S. North FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 A. Leung FPC March 6, 2019

06-Mar-19 G. Ghoshal, Secretary of Queen Alexandra PAC FPC March 6, 2019

13-Mar-19 S. Noetzel, Point Grey PAC Co-Chair FPC March 13, 2019

13-Mar-19 R. Prest, Schools Before Shopping Malls (parent organization) FPC March 13, 2019

13-Mar-19 C. Chen, commercial broker FPC March 13, 2019

13-Mar-19 E. Jimenez FPC March 13, 2019

17-Apr-19 S. Breshears, Parent - A.R. Lord FPC April 17, 2019 P. Finch, Treasurer of the BC Government and Service

17-Apr-19 Employee’s Union FPC April 17, 2019

17-Apr-19 L. Carswell, Parent - Queen Alexandra Elementary FPC April 17, 2019

17-Apr-19 S. Murthy FPC April 17, 2019

17-Apr-19 V. Dhaliwal, Gladstone PAC FPC April 17, 2019

17-Apr-19 D. Broadhurst, Southlands PAC Chair FPC April 17, 2019

17-Apr-19 R. Prest, “Strong Schools, Strong Communities” FPC April 17, 2019

2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.2 - FPC - May 15 2019 - LRFP.docx PUBLIC FEEDBACK

The public provided feedback to the draft LRFP in three ways: • E-mail sent to [email protected] • Direct response to survey regarding LRFP recommendations • Trustee dialogue sessions As of April 30, 2019, 340 individuals provided feedback by e-mail to [email protected]

Figure 3 – Type of e-mail feedback E-mail Type Number Petition (Same subject and content) 157 Individual Responses 313 Total Received 470

A more detailed summary of feedback received by e-mail will be available in the appendices in the final draft of the LRFP. A weekly compilation of e-mails has been provided to trustees on the trustee memo.

The District hosted two pubic information sessions where members of the community had the opportunity to discuss the LRFP with District staff and participate in trustee dialogue sessions.

Figure 4 – Public Information Sessions Date Location Trustee Dialogues 11-Apr-19 Kitsilano Secondary 12 18-Apr-19 Van Tech Secondary 18

The draft LRFP feedback survey summary report and the numerical analysis of survey results are attached to this report and will also be available at Long Range Facilities Plan.

CONCLUSION

This report is provided for information.

Attachments: 1. Open Letter to VSB Trustees – DPAC 2. LRFP Feedback Survey Summary Report 3. LRFP Feedback Survey Results Analysis

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.2 - FPC - May 15 2019 - LRFP.docx

Draft Long Range Facilities Plan Feedback summary report

Introduction The draft Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) is a framework to guide facilities planning throughout the District. Feedback about the draft plan was encouraged, including written comments via email, stakeholder input and delegations at meetings of the Facilities Planning Committee. Additional opportunities were provided to obtain public feedback about the 17 recommendations in the draft plan in two public information sessions which included trustee dialogue sessions and an online feedback survey.

Promotion of feedback avenues was promoted via the District’s website, at public committee and Board meetings (all of which are livestreamed with live social media reporting by staff and others), mainstream media, the District’s social media channels, District Parent Advisory Committee newsletter and two email messages to more than 75,000 parent/guardian addresses.

Public information sessions were held at Kitsilano Secondary on April 11, 2019 and Vancouver Technical Secondary School on April 16, 2019. In addition to informal conversations with attendees, trustees also held dialogue sessions –focused conversations to seek input and feedback on the draft LRFP. A total of 30 dialogue sessions were held (12 at the April 11 meeting and 18 at the April 16 meeting). Notes from all sessions were taken and are available for trustee review as the Board continues its deliberations on a LRFP.

In addition to this direct input to decision-makers, members of the public (particularly parents/guardians of students enrolled in District schools) were encouraged to complete a feedback survey to share their level of support or opposition to the recommendations within the draft LRFP. The survey, accompanied by public information boards, was open from April 11 to April 26 (a one-week extension from the initial close date to encourage greater participation). A total of slightly more than 1,600 visits were made to the survey tool. Overall the response rate to the questions asked was rather low; some questions had as few as 305 responses and as many as 382 responses.

Feedback Survey Section 1 The first section of the survey sought information about participants including demographic and other details to provide a context to responses and gain insight to the values behind the participants’ responses. The majority of respondents identified as parents of students enrolled in schools in the District, and nearly 95 per cent of respondents indicated English as the language most spoken at home.

Three questions were asked to gain an understanding of participants’ values. Participants were asked to rank their top three priorities for schools in Vancouver, out of a total of nine preidentified priorities (with an option to specify another via an open-ended comment box). Based on respondents’ selections, the following are participants’ top three priorities: 1) Seismically-safe schools for all students, 2) Quality of educational programs for student learning 3) School within walking distance

When asked to rank what they see as the top three challenges for the District to manage its facilities, out of a total of six preidentified challenges, respondents to this question indicated the following: 1) Balancing enrolment to address overcrowding at some schools and low enrolment at other schools with too much unused space 2) Too many schools at risk in the event of an earthquake 3) The cost of maintaining aging schools

When asked to rank what they see as the biggest opportunities for the District to improve the overall safety and quality of schools, respondents to this question indicated the following: 1) Generate additional revenue through development or long-term lease of property to improve existing schools, enhance seismic projects or build new schools 2) Adjust school capacity to match the enrolment need of the school will help address capacity issues 3) Relocate choice and speciality program in schools that are overcrowded to schools with available space to help address capacity issues

Feedback Survey Section 2 The next section of the survey sought feedback on the draft LRFP and its 17 recommendations.

Of those participants who responded to the questions asking if they had read the report (fully or partially) and the executive summary, more than 87 per cent indicated they had fully or partially read the draft plan and 81 per cent indicated they had read the executive summary (which listed each of the 17 recommendations). This detail is important to gauge how informed participants were in their responses in consideration of the technical details of the draft plan and its recommendations.

Respondents where then asked to indicate their level of support along a scale of “Strongly Support, Somewhat Support, Neither Support nor Oppose, Somewhat Oppose, Strongly Oppose” to recommendations within the plan, grouped in categories relating to the topic areas within the draft LRFP.

Educational Planning Of the four recommendations in the draft plan related to educational planning (Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 17), there was general support amongst respondents to these questions. The exception to that support, based on participants’ responses, is recommendation 4, which notes implementation of the Board approved motion that the District should continue to explore options that enable the implementation of the French Immersion Program Review. Although there was not expressed opposition to this recommendation, of the 322 respondents to this question, 44 per cent indicated they neither supported nor opposed this recommendation, while 42 per cent indicated they supported (to some degree) the recommendation. This is likely reflective of the concurrent deliberation about the Henry Hudson French Immersion program, and that as a Choice Program, it is not a topic of which most people are familiar with or with which they have strong community ties.

Asset Management Respondents were then asked to indicate their level of support or opposition to three recommendations of the draft plan related to Asset Management (Recommendations 6, 8 and 9). Of the participants who responded to these questions, there was general support. However, of note are the responses to recommendation 9 regarding a three-year budget allocation for real estate consultants to generate capital funds. Although not greatly opposed, respondents did not significantly support this recommendation – only 48 per cent supported the recommendation (to some degree) while 16 per cent neither supported nor opposed, and 36 per cent indicated some level of opposition to the recommendation.

Five-Year Capital Plan There were three recommendations in the draft plan (Recommendations 10, 15 and 16) intended to help guide the District in its five-year capital planning cycle. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for each of these recommendations. All three recommendations were supported by participants who responded to these questions.

Enrolment Management The draft LRFP contained three recommendations to guide enrolment management throughout the District (Recommendations 5, 7 and 11). Participants who responded to this set of recommendations indicated there was general support for them. Notably, 43 per cent indicated they strongly support the recommendation that an enrolment data validation process be developed. In addition, 63 per cent of respondents indicated they strongly or somewhat supported recommendation 11, dealing with the exploration of enrolment management options to balance enrolment with capacity in the Kitsilano study area as well as the North and South Hamber study areas.

Seismic Mitigation Program There were three recommendations in the draft plan related to the Seismic Mitigation Program (Recommendations 1, 14). There was general support for these recommendations by those participants who responded. However, while 53 per cent of responses regarding recommendation 14 (related to Sir Guy Carleton use as a temporary accommodation or enrolling school) indicated support of this recommendation to some degree, 42 per cent neither supported nor opposed while only 6 per cent indicated opposition. This feedback is likely reflective of the small community potentially impacted by this matter.

School Consolidation Participants were then asked to indicate their level of support or opposition to recommendation 12 of the draft LRFP that the District provide the Board with the name(s) of secondary school, elementary schools and annexes for consideration of closure in the 2020 school year by September 30, 2019.

Respondents to this question indicated opposition to this recommendation with 51 per cent opposed to some degree. However, significantly, 40 per cent of respondents indicated they support this recommendation to some degree, while 9 per cent indicated they neither support nor oppose the recommendation. Together, this represents a divide in opinion on the matter of school consolidations and closures. Considering the Board’s decision at the April 29, 2019 public Board meeting to remove this recommendation from the draft LRFP, it may wish to further consult parents, staff and stakeholders on this matter to expand the public conversation. This would help to gain greater certainty about public opinion moving forward to support its decision-making in managing enrolment, addressing deferred maintenance, educational program offerings and how to ensure students attend seismically safe schools.

Section 3 - Feedback and comments Participants were invited to provide open-ended comments as part of the feedback gathering survey. More than 200 comments were provided within the survey, which provide a variety of perspectives on several matters relevant to the recommendations as well as the process in its development. Of the comments provided, there is an obvious representation of perspectives shared by specific school and learning communities. Overall, together with observations and feedback gained through the trustee dialogue sessions, these comments can serve to provide greater context as the Board further considers adopting a LRFP.

All comments and notes from the trustee dialogue sessions have been made available to trustees for their review.

Conclusion The feedback generated through the two public information sessions, including the trustee dialogue sessions, and the online survey provide contextual details for the Board to further consider adopting a Long Range Facilities Plan. With the introduction of updated guidelines from the Ministry of Education, as well as Board decisions, this consultation process was not linear and had to be adaptable.

The trustee dialogue sessions provided a good validation point as they enabled conversations about potential impacts. Given the changing landscape, the Board may wish to further consult on aspects of a Long Range Facilities Plan, and begin so from a values-based position. The information gathered through the survey can be used as a base line to begin that process. However, it is important to note the low participation rate skews the feedback significantly. The information sessions were not attended by a significantly broad representation of the community and many attendees also presented their views directly to trustees during delegation presentation (some repeated delegations) and via email/email campaigning. The divided feedback regarding recommendation 12 is an example of where more varied and greater participant input would aid in ensuring people’s input is accurately obtained for consideration.

In the future, it is recommended that more adequate time be taken, and varying consultation methods be employed to garner feedback that can confidently be relied upon as representative of learning and school communities.

LRFP

Respondents: 1633 displayed, 1633 total Status: Closed

Launched Date: 10/04/2019 Dat : /0/2019

1. * I am a...

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Parent/guardian of a student enrolled in a 324 85% n/a n/a school of VSB A staff member employed by the 14 4% n/a n/a VSB A student enrolled 28 7% n/a n/a in the VSB A resident of 14 4% n/a n/a Vancouver Other 21%n/an/a Total Respondents 382 100% (skipped this question) 1251

2. * Please provide the FIRST THREE characters of your postal code.

Total Respondents 382 (skipped this question) 1251

3. What language is most spoken in your home?

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent English 335 89% n/a n/a Mandarin 12 3% n/a n/a Tagalog 10%n/an/a Punjabi 21%n/an/a Cantonese 13 3% n/a n/a French 31%n/an/a Spanish 21%n/an/a Vietnamese 00%n/an/a Arabic 00%n/an/a Others 82%n/an/a Total Respondents 376 100% (skipped this question) 1257

4. What are your priorities when it comes to schools in Vancouver? Please rank your top THREE priorities? (1 being most important and 3 being least important) Response Response 1 2 3 Total Average Seismically-safe schools for all 46.19% (97) 27.14% (57) 26.67% (56) 210 1.8 students News schools or expansions to existing schools 13.79% (8) 37.93% (22) 48.28% (28) 58 2.34 in areas of growth Innovative and supportive learning 25.52% (37) 39.31% (57) 35.17% (51) 145 2.1 environments for 21st Century learning Specialties and choice programs spread evenly 15.56% (14) 44.44% (40) 40% (36) 90 2.24 throughout Vancouver Community 17.54% (20) 35.09% (40) 47.37% (54) 114 2.3 services like before and after- school programs, breakfast or lunch programs and/or sports and recreation located at or near the school Schools within 38.13% (53) 28.78% (40) 33.09% (46) 139 1.95 walking distance Environmentally- sustainable 7.69% (3) 20.51% (8) 71.79% (28) 39 2.64 schools Quality of educational 44.32% (117) 38.64% (102) 17.05% (45) 264 1.73 programs for student learning Other – please 50.94% (27) 7.55% (4) 41.51% (22) 53 1.91 specify below Total Respondents 376 (skipped this question) 1257

5. If you ranked "other" in the question 4, please describe (max. 200 characters).

Total Respondents 56 (skipped this question) 1577

6. What do you see as the THREE biggest challenges for the District to manage its facilities in an effective, economic and efficient way in support of educational goals? Please rank from the list below, the biggest challenges. (1 being most challenging and 3 being least challenging) Response Response 1 2 3 Total Average The cost of maintaining 26.42% (56) 40.57% (86) 33.02% (70) 212 2.07 aging schools Balancing enrolment to address overcrowding at some schools 42.66% (93) 31.19% (68) 26.15% (57) 218 1.83 and low enrolment at other schools with too much unused space Too many schools at risk in 41.38% (96) 31.03% (72) 27.59% (64) 232 1.86 the event of an earthquake Not enough schools with designed with 24.59% (30) 43.44% (53) 31.97% (39) 122 2.07 flexible learning spaces Advancing the sustainability of schools to include improved energy efficiency, 24.86% (43) 31.79% (55) 43.35% (75) 173 2.18 outdoor learning opportunities and promote active transportation. Other – Please 53.01% (44) 15.66% (13) 31.33% (26) 83 1.78 specify below Total Respondents 363 (skipped this question) 1270

7. If you ranked "other" in the question 6, please describe (max. 200 characters).

Total Respondents 88 (skipped this question) 1545

8. What do you see as the biggest opportunities for the District to improve the overall safety and quality of schools in Vancouver. Please rank the following the list below (1 being the greatest opportunity and 4 being the least opportunity).

Response Response 1 2 3 4 Total Average Generate 42.38% (128) 28.81% (87) 18.87% (57) 9.93% (30) 302 1.96 additional revenue through development or long-term lease of property to improve existing schools, enhance seismic projects or build new schools Relocate choice and speciality programs in schools that are overcrowded to 25.26% (72) 35.44% (101) 26.32% (75) 12.98% (37) 285 2.27 schools with available space to help address capacity issues Adjust school capacity to match the enrolment needs 28.47% (80) 30.25% (85) 30.96% (87) 10.32% (29) 281 2.23 of the school (right-sizing) will help address capacity issues. Other opportunity in 41.94% (65) 14.19% (22) 19.35% (30) 24.52% (38) 155 2.26 addition to the list above Total Respondents 351 (skipped this question) 1282

9. If you ranked "other" in the question 8, please describe (max. 200 characters).

Total Respondents 137 (skipped this question) 1496

10. Have you read the Draft Long Range Facilities Plan?

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Yes, I have read the 156 43% n/a n/a Draft plan I have partially read the 160 44% n/a n/a Draft plan No, I have not read any 45 12% n/a n/a of the Draft plan Total Respondents 361 100% (skipped this question) 1272

11. If you have not read the Draft plan, please tell us why (max. 200 characters).

Total Respondents 68 (skipped this question) 1565

12. Please indicate if you have read the executive summary of the Draft Long Range Facilities Plan with its 17 recommendations?

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Yes 283 81% n/a n/a No 68 19% n/a n/a Total Respondents 351 (skipped this question) 1282

13. If you have NOT READ the executive summary, please tell us why (max. 200 words).

Total Respondents 65 (skipped this question) 1568

14. Recommendation 2: The District should establish guidelines on preferred school size with the goal of determining appropriate ranges of schools’ size to inform planning decisions.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 99 30% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 124 37% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 65 20% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 28 8% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 16 5% n/a n/a Total Respondents 332 100% (skipped this question) 1301

15. Recommendation 3: The District should continue the investigation of consolidating Alternate Programs to a central location and initiate a process to identify suitable options to co-locate District Alternate Programs and related services.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 47 14% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 76 23% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 47 14% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 68 20% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 98 29% n/a n/a Total Respondents 336 100% (skipped this question) 1297

16. Recommendation 4: The District should continue to explore options that enable it to implement the Board approved recommendations of the French Program Review.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 48 15% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 88 27% n/a n/a Neither support or 143 44% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 21 7% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 22 7% n/a n/a Total Respondents 322 100% (skipped this question) 1311

17. Recommendation 17: The District should consider the implications of the School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of the Draft Plan to inform revisions to the Temporary Accommodation Plan in the Seismic Mitigation Program.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 59 19% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 104 33% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 96 31% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 22 7% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 33 11% n/a n/a Total Respondents 314 100% (skipped this question) 1319

18. Recommendation 6: The Board of Education should reiterate its commitment to use the capital funds generated from the sale of the underground parcel at Lord Roberts Annex to BC Hydro for the construction of Coal Harbour Elementary and a replacement K-7 elementary school at the Lord Roberts Annex site. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 116 36% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 90 28% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 87 27% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 10 3% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 20 6% n/a n/a Total Respondents 323 100% (skipped this question) 1310

19. Recommendation 8: The District should 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.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 120 38% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 109 34% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 56 18% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 19 6% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 14 4% n/a n/a Total Respondents 318 100% (skipped this question) 1315

20. Recommendation 9: The Board of Education should approve an annual budget allocation for the next three years to hire real estate consultants to negotiate financial arrangements with developers to generate capital fund revenue to support enhancing capital projects and the workforce housing initiative. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 62 19% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 93 29% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 52 16% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 45 14% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 71 22% n/a n/a Total Respondents 323 100% (skipped this question) 1310

21. Recommendation 10: The District updates the addition and expansion project requests in the 2020-2021 Five-Year Capital Plan for Board of Education approval, including determining the need for elementary schools at Olympic Village, East Fraser Lands and WestBrook at UBC, secondary school space at King George Secondary and the need for additional capacity in the North Hamber study area. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 109 35% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 130 42% n/a n/a Neither support or 55 18% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 14 4% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 5 2% n/a n/a Total Respondents 313 100% (skipped this question) 1320

22. Recommendation 15: The District considers the implications of the School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of the Draft Plan to prioritize seismic upgrades for secondary schools.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 110 36% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 96 31% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 47 15% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 21 7% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 35 11% n/a n/a Total Respondents 309 100% (skipped this question) 1324

23. Recommendation 16: The District considers the implications of the School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of the Draft Plan to prioritize seismic upgrades for elementary schools.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 117 38% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 97 31% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 48 16% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 19 6% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 27 9% n/a n/a Total Respondents 308 100% (skipped this question) 1325

24. Recommendation 5: The District should undertake an Enrolment Data Validation process for all facility and education planning purposes. This process would consist of an annual validation study of short, medium, and long-range enrolment projections as well as updating student yield metrics for areas of the District with significant development and redevelopment proposed or underway. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 135 43% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 96 30% n/a n/a Neither support or 54 17% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 17 5% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 14 4% n/a n/a Total Respondents 316 100% (skipped this question) 1317

25. Recommendation 7: The District continues to work with the City of Vancouver to construct Coal Harbour Elementary and develop a catchment and enrolment plan for the school.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 110 35% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 108 35% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 81 26% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 7 2% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 4 1% n/a n/a Total Respondents 310 100% (skipped this question) 1323

26. Recommendation 11: The District continues to explore enrolment management options to balance enrolment with capacity in the Kitsilano study area, the North Hamber study area and the South Hamber study area and report to the Facilities Planning Committee on a quarterly basis. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 69 22% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 127 41% n/a n/a Neither support or 86 28% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 12 4% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 14 5% n/a n/a Total Respondents 308 100% (skipped this question) 1325

27. Recommendation 1: The District should develop an Administrative Procedure setting out guiding principles and detailed procedures for governance and stakeholder consultation for Seismic Mitigation Program projects.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 128 42% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 114 37% n/a n/a Neither support or 52 17% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 11 4% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 2 1% n/a n/a Total Respondents 307 100% (skipped this question) 1326

28. Recommendation 13: The District should conduct detailed analysis on the impact of reducing school capacity through the Seismic Mitigation Program (‘right sizing’) in relation to the goals and priorities of the Long Range Facilities Plan.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 109 35% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 90 29% n/a n/a Neither support or oppose 53 17% n/a n/a Somewhat Oppose 40 13% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 20 6% n/a n/a Total Respondents 312 100% (skipped this question) 1321

29. Recommendation 14: The District should decide if a seismically upgraded Sir Guy Carleton Elementary should be used as temporary accommodation for the Seismic Mitigation Program or as an enrolling school.

Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 88 29% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 72 24% n/a n/a Neither support or 127 42% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 9 3% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 9 3% n/a n/a Total Respondents 305 100% (skipped this question) 1328

30. Recommendation 12: In accordance with Policy 14 – School Closure*, the District provide the Board with the name(s) of secondary schools, elementary schools and annexes for consideration for closure for the 2020 school year by September 30, 2019.*Should the Board proceed with considering consolidation or closing of schools, it is committed to doing so in an open, transparent, timely and thoughtful way to ensure that the educational needs of the community are met. Board Policy 14 outlines public and stakeholder engagement should the Board wish to consider school closures. Response Response Points Avg Total Percent Strongly Support 104 31% n/a n/a Somewhat Support 31 9% n/a n/a Neither support or 31 9% n/a n/a oppose Somewhat Oppose 21 6% n/a n/a Strongly Oppose 150 45% n/a n/a Total Respondents 337 100% (skipped this question) 1296

31. Please provide additional comments you would like to share about the Draft Long Range Facilities Plan: (max. 400 characters).

Response Response

Total Percent type here 203 14% Total Respondents 203 (skipped this question) 1430 LRFP

Respondents: 1633 Status: Closed Launched Date: 10/04/2019 Data Till: 30/04/2019

31. Please provide additional comments you would like to share about the Draft Long Range Facilities Plan: (max. 400 characters). School closures are never a good idea, because the area can undergo a growth surge. Look at Lord Roberts - almost empty in the 1990's and now it's overflowing. The VSB should work with 1. the city of Vancouver to ensure new family housing is built close to schools with low enrollment, and not in areas where the schools are already over capacity. This survey fails to make the concepts in the LRFP accessible for parents and students. The point of public engagement is to relate issues to people's lived experience and let them exercise their 2. values. I'm a professional engineer and have spent hours reviewing the LRFP, and even I found it hard to answer many of these questions. We need to keep, and possibly EXPAND the MINI program at PW. PW is already at capacity and should NOT be closed/combined with other schools. PW Mini students contribute over 5000 hours 3. of volunteer work to their communities each year. It draws 300-500 applications each year. PW Mini provides place to excel, free of stigma/bullying. The program allows all students to reach their full potential Disappointed with the outreach efforts to ensure adequete community engagement. You can do 4. better.

5. Before building new schools, you need to make the schools we have safe.

We understand the challenges that the district is facing with respect to seismic upgrades and capital funding. However, we cannot lose sight of what is important in our city/district in terms of 6. poverty reduction, climate change (i.e. walkable schools), building communities, and making Vancouver a better place for families. This is a poorly developed survey which is clearly designed to engineer a specific result, which is unfortunate, as a more meaningful community engagement process would allow you to develop a 7. facilities plan along with the communities your schools serve, so that the process is collaborative and the output meaningful and acceptable to all parties involved.

The district needs strong advocacy to the Ministry to change the way capacity utilization is 8. calculated. closing of schools will not be helping students out that are low income or on ieps closing of 9. schools will only make things worse for these students. students that live in a school boundry should be going to these schools not crossing over to another school cause their friends are going Any question about how we should save money to pay for seismic upgrades is a false choice and 10. is completely insulting. Cost should not be a consideration to make our students safe. I used to feel as if the VSB was on the side of children and parents in advocating for education. This report seems to place money far above education. I am firmly against leasing or selling 11. assets or consolidating schools. In future, the VSB should hire a plain language editor so that reports are comprehensible to parents and students. No regular student will be able to understand this report. The District must remember that students come first; it is importaant for students to have a safe and supported educational environment and this costs money.Where will the money come from, 12. we already gravely lack appropriate and timely services. Why are we talking about programs when the VSB wants to dismantle programs?

Do not make any significant changes regarding school closures of schools with low enrolment 13. without first consulting with families, neighbourhoods and how the impact of school closures/consolidation may be disruptive and devastating to the life of a community.

14. School closures should not be on the table - please explore all other options!

Please pressure the government to change the area standards for seismic schools. Adequate spaces for music, drama, PE, arts must be be in new and upgraded schools. VSB should also do 15. their own capacity study of schools to see what spaces are considered empty but are being used for vital programs in the schools. Mini schools are unique programs that can't be easily moved - visit them.

16. The public and other stakeholders need clearer information about what the Draft plan considerations really mean. School capacity needs to be calculated differently to include child care, space for special needs programs, art, etc. VBE needs to become fiscally strong and should not keep open schools with low enrolment that students can be taught in nearby schools. Schools undergoing seismic upgrade should also have 17. budgets to have items replaced that are not covered in seismic. Ie new windows, flooring, carpets, water fountains.Huge discrepancy between new schools being built ie Maple Grove and schools like Wolfe . There's simply not enough time for the public to digest and understand the whole plan. The LRFP 18. itself needs more detailed analysis and validation. Please do not pass it at this time!. I don't understand why schools previously on the School closure list, like Gladstone, are not on the list now and why Windermere is now on the list. Also wondering why no AP classes offered at 19. Windermere and students have to travel to Churchill to get this opportunity. In Burnaby, honours and AP classes are offered at all secondary schools, so no one is left out. Families are leaving Vancouver due to high housing prices driven by money laundering and 20. foreign investment. As those factors are reigned in housing prices will decline and families will return. We need to keep our schools open to support that return to Vancouver. Workforce housing initiative should not be included in VSB school facilities planning. it is about 21. providing safe and effective learning environments.

22. I have already sent a letter to the Trustees with additional comments

Schools are the heart of our communities and strong consideration should be made before closing 23. them. Many students on the East side struggle to get to school due to lack of parent involvement. Moving these students to schools that are farther away will only add to this absenteeism. The plan does not factor in detailed stakeholder participation for any of the recommendations. E.g, negotiating with the Ministry on the outdated and inaccurate capacity calculation. Also, 24. investigating any special education needs in the various communities. Also, the huge impact multi-streaming the various district choice programs in a single location. This plan needs more due process. It is clear that some schools have either be closed or sized down. I strongly suggest to keep ownership of public space. Work together with other groups and other levels of government to 25. utilize the available space for the public good. Eg. - housing for teachers, continuing education facilities for teachers, spaces for non-profit or for-profit organisations that support continuous learning The district needs to do more to get increased capacity in the South Hamber area. Including 26. Brock in the group hampers the case. It is not a feasible alternative for 90% of the people affected by the overcrowding.

Closing or consolidating under-enroled schools is a smart move, and I support doing that, even if it means my children's school is closed. There are many schools in close proximity to each other, 27. many more than we need, and too many schools are in need of major repairs and seismic upgrades. Close some schools to allow the others to flourish, and allow the district to have funds to build new school

I think there are many issues with the LRFP and it should be reimagined. Surplus capacity badly needs to be recalculated and the viewpoint needs to become much more holistic to not include 28. only financial concerns but the tiny humans whose lives will be very much affected. We can be much more creative and do much better. Thank you. Some of the capacity, current and projected school enrolment numbers within the lrfp are incorrect. It is concerning that the data the Trustees will be using to decide on school closures is 29. inaccurate. I a one sized school fits all does not work for all . My high functioning autistic kids have benefited from a small k-7 school. Doubt they would have been as successful in a 400+.

Given the Minister's letter from April 12, it looks like another draft will be in order that doesn't 30. focus so much on capacity.

successful district programs (such as the Point Grey Mini) have a culture that can’t be built and replicated easily. Point Grey Secondary School is an outstanding neighbourhood school, a city 31. landmark, and a supportive learning environment where 950+ students call it their second home. My family and particularly my son do not want to see it closed.

1. The Jericho Lands are expected to have a population of 10,000 once developed. How will that impact the schools in the Point Grey neighbourhood? 2. How committed is the VSB to acting on 32. the recommendations of the French Immersion Working Group? Capacity utilization figures for Early French Immersion schools would be very different if K enrollment were not so restrictive. I am opposed to any school consolidations based on maximising "capacity utilisation" rather than 33. *optimising* enrolment based on functional criteria. The draft LRFP does not consider optimal enrolment levels at all!!

34. Although I fInd taking importance in seismically safe schools, it shouldn't be the top priority because at the end of the day, education is the main point we should focus on. With a school school like my own, I find it is a out more important to focus on instead of how safe it is against earthquakes. Nit may be very wishful thinking but I believe that earthquakes may not happen until further on. Hello, as a student who attends Ideal Mini School, I do not believe it is ethical to relocate our program. The environment we have at our school is special, like a family. We support each other 35. and our program. To relocate it you would be depriving us of our education and confidence as students. DO NOT RELOCATE OUR SCHOOL! SAVE IDEAL MINI DO NOT RELOCATE US! IT IS UNFAIR TO US STUDENTS WHO WANTED A SMALLER MORE ACCEPTING ENVIROMENT. IT HELPS US FEEL MORE CLOSE AS A COMMUNITY 36. AND BUILDS COMMUNCATION SKILLS . MANY OF US WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED IF NOT FOR THE UNIQUE ENVIROMENT I strongly oppose all initiatives that attempt to capitalize existing assets, particularly real estate Development, in order to pay for the current or future operating costs. I strongly oppose the 37. closure or sale of schools, annexes, or property. Assets like Queen Elizabeth Annex will be needed by future generations (at UBC, Jericho lands and Dunbar) and have taken generations to build. SAVE IDEAL MINI SCHOOL! No relocation, it will oppose what the school's policies and ideals are 38. all about. It is very important to also think about the student's point of view towards their lowering rather 39. than the risked if having an earthquake Closure and "consolidation" into "mega schools" is the wrong way to go in education. More 40. teachers, smaller classes in smaller schools located in more neighborhoods is what is needed.

I support all strategies that will ensure seismic upgrades happen as quickly and efficiently as 41. possible. It is not very clear how or whether the three recommendations under the "Seismic Mitigation Program" heading will result in more schools receiving seismic upgrades more quickly.

Before closing a school, a clear strategy plan should be provided to the community that it will affect. A school is one of the pillars of a non-religious community and its closure impacts hevily 42. on it. In this plan, a clear explanation of the possibilities as well as the future should be described.

Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small scale French Immersion school with a strong community of 43. students, parents and teachers.

Considerations for the student, I would say, are the primary issue to consider when we talk about school closure, such as the French immersion program at QEA. This program is in high demand, 44. every year, with long waiting list. Students I admitted into the program form, with their teachers and parents, a strong community that foster positive learning. School mergers”ll be costly in the long run.

Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small scale French Immersion school with a strong community of students, parents and teachers.Empty classrooms, such as at QEA, are used as indicators of 45. “non-enrolling space”, yet QEA is restricted to K-3 and has not been allowed to expand into the empty classroom. This measure creates a false representation of enrolment at Vancouver schools. QEA has a 130+ child waitli

Empty classrooms, such as at QEA, are used as indicators of “non-enrolling space”, yet QEA is restricted to K-3 and has not been allowed to expand into the empty classroom. This measure 46. creates a false representation of enrolment at Vancouver schools. QEA has a 130+ child waitlist every year and yet it will never appear to be at greater than 80% capacity. Lack of before an after school is a significant factor in determining enrollment at under utilised 47. schools. This should be an urgent priority and will provide immediate results. Closing schools should be a last option given the lead time it takes to build new schools. I strongly oppose all initiatives that attempt to capitalize existing assets, particularly real estate development in order to pay for the current or future operating costs. In particular I strongly 48. oppose the closure or sale of schools, annexes, or property. These assets will be needed by future generations and have taken decades and generations to build. The projected population growth at UBC, Jericho lands and Dunbar means public school lands 49. such as Queen Elizabeth Annex need protection from divestment. Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small scale French Immersion school with a strong community of students, parents and teachers. Queen Elizabeth Annex is in high demand, with large enrolment 50. wait lists every year. Small schools such as Queen Elizabeth Annex are beneficial to many different kinds of learners and allow for a comprehensive learning environment. With a forested field enclosed in the schoolya 51. This constant threat of closing schools is a major source of stress for children and families- revise what it means for a school to be considered at capacity - consider afterschool space in capapcity as it is often just as important for child health to have connected afterschool space - shelve the idea of closing schools until deep colloboration with local communities NOT developers Hi I am a grade 10 at Ideal Mini School. This program has played a large part in my life and help me cultivate my confidence,so much so that recently we took our team to the SFU ethics bowl. I 52. would hate to lose the special enviroment this place provides us. We grow as a community and lets us show who we are with out restrictions such as socials standards at larger schools. We hope to keep our sch As student at Ideal Mini School, it is quite upsetting to see that a thriving standalone school is on a list stating that the school may be relocated. I am about to finished my third year at this 53. amazingly unique school, and it’d be a shame if it were to be relocated. Ideal thrives from it’s separate campus from bigger schools. Our open house is run by students and every student knows each other. I am a grade 10 student who has been studying at Ideal Mini school for 3 years. Ideal Mini has a small environment which I helps us grow in ways that a larger school would not be able to offer. 54. This school has tougher me important lessons about leadership and important life skills and that is thanks to it’s location so moving this school would inhibit our ability to learn these unique lessons. I think Ideal Mini School should stay in its current location because relocation would completely change the program and not for the better. Ideal Mini is a very independent and special learning 55. environment, it has strong family values and helps kids that need a smaller learning environment and less of the overbearing pressure of high school.

I Believe ideal mini should stay in its own building because it has an amazing culture that would be ruined if it is relocated somewhere else. The main difference that sepperates ideal mini from 56. other mini schools is that it has strong family values and traditions that strive in such a small school. Please keep Ideal Mini School as its own stand alone facility. If it were relocated into a wing of a 57. high school the culture, values, and uniqueness would be lost. Do not relocate or close this program.

I'm a Grade 10 student at Ideal Mini School, and it's my third year here. Ideal Mini is one of the schools mentioned on the draft plan to be considered for closure or upgrades. Ideal should be a 58. standalone building because we have our own culture; it is created within this small environment. I initially came to Ideal because of the small environment as well as the warm ambiance and the unique look

I strongly oppose the potential decision of the VSB to close down / relocate Ideal Mini School. This building Ideal Mini students collaborate, study& come together in enables the students to 59. thrive in a socially aware environment. I’ve grown so much the past few years and thru this school, I was able to discover myself and become capable & confident. Making a better society, Ideal embraces al

As a student from Ideal Mini School, I think that we should be given a standalone campus for school. Simply put, the culture of this school is just not able to be reflected if we were put into 60. the wing of another school. For example, we host many events (some of which is for academic purposes) in which we utilize the fact that we only have one hallway or that everyone is so well acquainted with ea

Empty classrooms, such as at QEA, are used as indicators of “non-enrolling space”, yet QEA is restricted to K-3 and has not been allowed to expand into the empty classroom. This measure 61. creates a false representation of enrolment at Vancouver schools. QEA has a 130+ child waitlist every year and yet it will never appear to be at greater than 80% capacity. Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small scale French Immersion school with a strong community of students, parents and teachers. Queen Elizabeth Annex is in high demand, with large enrolment 62. wait lists every year. Small schools such as Queen Elizabeth Annex are beneficial to many different kinds of learners and allow for a comprehensive learning environment. With a forested field enclosed in the schoolya Maximizing capacity so there are no flex spaces is not the answer. Crowding more kids into a 63. school that then has less resources will not have Educational Benefit, it will only be cost saving. While I am strongly in support of school closures where there is legitimately a decline in enrolment causing schools to be empty. I am equally strongly opposed to using tactics to make 64. schools look under-enrolled. For instance empty classrooms used for special needs are not "non- unenrolling space". Queen Elizabeth Annex is a crucial French school in the community.

65. Please see email from: [email protected] Thank you!

66. While I support the recommendations, I do not trust the Boards ability to implement them properly. VSB actions infer a belief that parents and children exist to serve the interests of the VSB as an institution. It is the reverse - the VSB exists to serves families. The VSB has been lost for many years and this culture needs to get fixed NOW. Question 30 is worded in a way that does not allow one to oppose the closure of schools. The 67. question assumes there will be closures and asks about the communication aspects. This does not address the fundamental question of closure itself. Queen Elizabeth Annex elementary school is a community school that fosters the learning of French, a second official Canadian language. Children learn and share ideas and culture in 68. classrooms and outdoors (Chaldecott Park, forest and playing field). To consolidate this program and school to another location is disrupting an established community and strong education system.Education is priority We chose QEA elementary school for its French immersion program and strong community 69. support (families). Having French as a second language has infinite benefits for our children. Annex schools provide a special learning environment for students. Education needs to be a 70. priority of VSB when considering any consolidations/closures. The language of this survey is inaccessible to many - perhaps the majority - of parents and has 71. led to my becoming uninterested in completing it The projected population growth at UBC, Jericho lands and Dunbar means public school lands 72. such as Queen Elizabeth Annex (École Primaire de Jules-Quesnel) need protection from divestment or long term leases. Queen Elizabeth Annex is a small scale French Immersion school with a strong community of 73. students, parents and teachers. Queen Elizabeth Annex is in high demand, with large enrolment wait lists every year

Choice schools sites such as Ideal Mini should not be moved to alternate location as they would 74. cease to be able to provide the amazing development opportunities for students who may be lost in larger schools The projected population growth at UBC, Jericho lands and Dunbar means public school lands 75. such as Queen Elizabeth Annex need protection from divestment. The education and safety of our children should be a top priority of the community as a whole. We need more schools not less. Closing neighbourhood schools is bad for communities and the 76. future. I do not trust the basic number premises of the LRFP. We need to invest generously in education for our children and our future generations in order to maintain the health and vibrancy of Vancouver. no schools should be closed. close cross boundary movement and neighbourhood schools will 77. thrive again. all students should walk to and from school, which would impact health and wellness, community building and enrollment. I think it is short sighted and harmful to close schools that are vital community spaces. I also think it is pertinent that nearly all of the schools considered for closure are on the east side. This 78. seems inequitable, and these are the neighbourhoods that most desperately need community spaces.

79. Don't close schools!

Closing schools is not an option. It's not just about how many kids go there, but also the impact 80. they have as a community space.

There were too many data flaws in the original LRFP. Decisions based on this context may be 81. misguided. It should be recreated with consultation.

School's that are at capacity or over capacity shouldn't be expanded, but students referred to schools who are at low capacity. It's always the east side schools that get hardest, and is an 82. issue of power and privilege. The east side can't always afford to transit to more populated schools in the west. VSB Communications Department: The release of this survey was too late in the game. It was released AFTER the DPAC survey about the LRFP, and the Strong Communities Survey about the 83. LRFP. That is not acceptable to me. VSB Planning Department: I have a big issue with Recommendation #2. Optimal school sizes are NOT in form of MEGA-SCHOOLS yet I feel that the Province & District is moving that way. I am strongly opposed to the school board examining the closure of so many schools on Vancouver's east side. It seems there is a responsibility of the VSB to make sure kids on the east 84. side have access (within walking distance) to good schools, and that money must be invested to upgrade those schools if need be. Many of the students attending east side schools come from vulnerable communities. 85. The cost of real estate and maintenance are so high that once a school closes, the cost of reopening or rebuilding a school once it has closed will be prohibitive. Neighbourhood schools are important. Creative solutions should be explored that would see schools used as community hubs (perhaps coordinated with the City) in areas where there is capacity rather than closing and consolidating schools. I strongly disagree with the proposal that Templeton Secondary be closed. This is a ridiculous 86. idea Being a parent of a child in a Vancouver school has been an unending battle. Please protect 87. students, schools, and programs -- stop cutting and trying to close schools. If the VSB is serious about the public consultation process then it needs to commit to writing the material to be shared with the public in clear, plain language that is accessible to the average 88. interested citizen. The current long range plan, including its executive summary, is written for a more expert audience, and not supporting a genuine consultative process. School closures should be avoided as schools are key components of communities/neighbourhoods etc. Key older schools such as Brittania, Templeton and Van Tech 89. are rich with tradition diversity and heritage value. They also span significantly different neighbourhoods and would be poorer if amalgamated. The Plan has virtually no analysis of the negative outcomes of school closures. No discussion of impact on families, disruption of established routines, school friendships, neighborhood cohesion, 90. environmental impact, ability of children to bike or walk to school, etc. These negative incomes are serious considerations that ought to be given equal weight to the benefits of the Plan. please provide a detailed review of each school to expand on its classification (H1, H2 etc.) so 91. that families understand the potential safety risks in the event of a major earthquake; provide a plan with timeline for all the schools not identified in the SMP I am concerned that enrollment projections are based on current enrollment patterns and not actual neighborhood demographics. East side schools have long been viewed as inferior and 92. many families commute to the west side. Enhancing east side schools and specialty programs within them will help balance enrollment. Also demographics will change as city zoning changes adding increased density. I feel strongly about the need for seismically-safe schools for all students. However, I am dissatisfied with the VSB's handling of the current proposals. There seems to be little recognition 93. of the anxiety and stress experienced by students and parents out of both fear of 'the Big One' and fears about loss of school communities. VSB should have a trained counselor to address these issues. How did the LRFP project the future enrolment trend? Did it consider city of vancouver Zoning change and new rental housing being built or going through zoning application? Current east side 94. low enrolment and over crowd on west side is the result of long time neglects by the city and vsb on lack of investment to east side schools. Get your money somewhere else. Using/selling our childrens community schools to generate money is so backwards! Keep schools in the communities that the kids live in, change the 95. boundaries to make sense to the communities the schools are in. Fix schools for the children NOT for VSB use (garibaldi annex for example! SHAME). East Van needs safe schools kids and families can walk to.

I worry that we are being pressured into selling off assets that have taken generations to assemble, to try to cope with the chronic underfunding of the system for the last couple of 96. decades. We need to think of he future and resist these pressures at all costs. We also need to involve the community’ more in this work. Please work to integrate VSB SMP/LRFP processes with the City of Vancouver’s Resilient Program. Please work to challenge existing Area Standards and metrics for assessing enrolment. Instead 97. conduct assessments of actual use-of-space and adapt assessments accordingly. Please provide better support for students, teachers and families to cope with the anxiety surrounding these planning processes – The fact that nothing has been done in decades to maintain and rebuild our schools is shameful. Families, especially in the east side of Vancouver are paying the price for this negligence. Just fix 98. all the schools, use the extra “space” in a creative and community responsive way. Leave the schools and the students where they are and just fix the buildings. It is frustrating that the VSB continues a negative focus to its actions. There is little in this document that focuses on the easiest ways to improve revenue generating opportunities. 99. Immediately allow for community groups to rent out outdoor fields, gyms, kitchen and etc from 3pm to 9pm everyday and all weekend. All schools and school yards sit empty all weekend. Shame!

100. We need to prioritize school programs over maintaining every existing school.

101. VSB has the opportunity to provide new schools for students in making better use of old schools 102. It’s just a building. Close underutilized schools and improve programming. I am against the proposed closure of Tillicum Annex in particular as I calculations used to determine that enrolment will decline over the next years is inaccurate and flawed. Families are 103. moving to this area and the needs will increase, not decrease. Tillicum Annex uniquely supports the aboriginal, special needs and at risk students in its catchment area. The wording of this survey is not transparent. I would like to oppose school closures, but there is 104. in fact no opportunity to do so except through commenting. All children in Vancouver should have the ability to walk to school. This will not be possible if you close schools. Please ensure there is little impact to the most underserved communities: those impacted by extreme poverty and indigenous. It needs to be as easy as possible for families to access schools 105. and related support services. Additionally, saving money over the long term and planning for energy efficiency and sustainability to mitigate climate change should be behind all plans for upgrades and new build My child attend Queen Elizabeth Annex, which has a large campus with trees and forests that all children play regularly. The school is an awesome community in which all students know one 106. another and most parents are heavily involved in their children's education. It is a great community that truly benefits all children and families, in their education and lives. Please strongly consider the impact that consolidation and class size have on students who, while they do not have a designation, require a more intimate, small-class atmosphere. Small schools 107. such as Queen Elizabeth Annex are beneficial to many different kinds of learners and allow for a comprehensive learning environment. QEA is a haven for highly sensitive kids. The forest is a calming balm. The LRFP is clearly deeply flawed as many parents, community members (including professionals in various relevant fields) and employee groups have suggested. It ought not be used as a basis 108. for much of anything. The neglect of qualitative data - we are talking about children after all - was an inexcusable omission, as the Lord and Queen Alex parents pointed out clearly and with analyses. I think we often don't consider the teachers response to the LRFP, there needs to be a way to 109. consolidate schools so that teachers can still retain positions and they are supported in this plan I've read the report and I still found this survey to be so unclear that despite reading the questions numerous times it still isn't clear how to respond to indicate my profound concerns with 110. an approach that discounts community use of non-enrolling space, ignores that east side schools have more students with an IEP needing more specialized spaces and identifies more east side schools for closure THANK-YOU for consulting with your partners - esp. parents and the public. EDUCATING and INVOLIVNG your partners in a meankingful manner MAKES a BIG DIFFERENCE. PLEASE MAKE 111. THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY PUBLIC and easily accessible to all. When announcing your decisions PLEASE DEMONSTRATE how this survey feedback has influenced the decisions you have made. I am confused about the issue of capacity as some schools show low capacity when in fact I know students are turned away from these schools. SOme schools have portions of their bulidlngs not 112. being used and therefor less staff and enrolment availablity but it's being reflected in the facilities report as being under capacity when in fact these schools are at capacity and turning kids away. To reiterate from above, if only 50% of a school is available for students, and 100% of that 50% 113. is full of students, please do not say the school is only at 50% capacity. It is misleading to everyone, especially the media. This survey is slanted and biased in a way that will not generate a free informed public response. 114. Same of the prioritization questions are so structured as to provide a 'would you rather loose a toe or a finger' style scenario - We cannot simply consolidate students in a facility to operate at maximum capacity without 115. significantly investing in the quality of the physical environment of those spaces, supporting access to nature, risky play and creativity. "right-sizing" means getting rid of space used for music, arts and sports. This has a negative 116. impact on quality of education. Schools are community hubs and many benefit from smaller schools. Use land to diversivy use 117. (eg housing, community centres, childcare) but keep schools open. Poplulation may grow in that area in 20-30 years with YVR densification and we will want that school then. The Draft LRFP is one of the worst-written reports I have ever seen released to the public. The recommendations in the Executive Summary are almost impossible to support or oppose because 118. of how they are written. I hope you won't take "Neither support nor oppose" as de facto support. Consider rewriting the report for clarity and then re-issue this survey. 119. I would like to see more options that involve community partners and incorporate the individual needs of school community members. I would like all students in Vancouver to be in safe schools as quickly as possible. I also like the idea of moving choice programs in full schools to other schools that have room because I think it 120. is important for kids to be in their catchment schools over kids from other parts of the city that are in choice programs. It is illogical to start closing good, human scaled neighbourhood schools to ship kids to giant anonymous central schools. The thinking is all wrong. There are ways to use the spaces and 121. upgrade the spaces you have. I strongly oppose you developing lands. I am specifically upset about the mistreatment of tGrandview. If the city/prov can fix the real estate crisis they created, families willreturn

The VSB should stop threatening to close schools. They have threatened to close two schools my children have attended and successfully closed one of them after years of uncertainty. This 122. constant insecurity is crushing. We are happy at Templeton school, now it is under threat, and I am devastated to have to go through this again. Just stop threatening our schools. Closing schools is too divisive and displacing for students. Find more creative ways to lease or 123. otherwise utilize unused space for other social needs. STEM at Templeton needs to be maintained or expanded not threatened! Ignoring the changes wrought by our skewed housing market is denying reality. The VSB needs 124. to work w/ the city to create affordable housing for families to stop the exodus of students & families. My children's school PAC has informed parents that Templeton High School has been listed as a school on the possible closure list. Please do not close Templeton. It certainly feels like I have 125. had to fight for my children's schools to remain accessible since they started their education. Please understand that in East Van children and parents needs their kids to be able to walk/ride to school. There are big impact on closing of schools in the year of 2020. Should there be a survey for 126. students too? Major flaw: Lord Nelson is not counted as a feeder school for Templeton (seeFIGURE 8.2-22, 127. page 87)..major oversight or convenient/non-transparent redrawing of catchment boundaries for Templeton?

128. do not close schools

This is not real engagement. you are not providing many of my preferred options. this is a farce! 129. I don't know how any non-english speakers would manage this 'survey' DO BETTER for ALL kids I strongly oppose closing schools, particularly in areas where students are at risk of not attending a school that is not within walking distance. Also, demographics are changing so quickly in the 130. city right now that I feel it is unlikely that the VSB and it’s consultants can accurately predict school enrolment, and finally kids need to get to school on foot or bike to help slow climate change Undervalues neighborhood schools. Does not adequately consider whether schools are in safe/health (away form busy roads) locations. Does not consider how location and integration 131. with local community contributes to the learning environment. Strongly opposed to any closure of Templeton Secondary as Templeton is the safest most nurturing school for east van students. I believe that alternate/choice programs such as Ideal Mini School would be negatively impacted 132. by consolidation into larger schools. This program has allowed my children to thrive in a small and supportive setting. Board and Community should advocate for the additional funding from the Province to deal with 133. immediate seismic renewal. We need more investment in public education! Any consolidation plan needs to carefully consider the needs of the customers of the VSB (i.e. the students and parents). This requires careful and proactive consultation with representative 134. groups for each individual school. Consolidation not just about asset management - needs of students and unique attributes of each school need to be factored into decision making. This requires time This survey was poorly done and shows that the VSB needs to put more effort in public/parent 135. engagement.

136. Stop talking about closing schools.

Closing schools at more than 80% capacity is ludicrous. Land is valuable. You need to keep it. 137. You’ll never be able to afford to buy any more. This survey is difficult to understand for the average person. I stopped answering because I have 138. a hard time following the issues. 139. It’s my opinion that closing schools in the VSB is shortsighted for the long term

My comment is about this survey. I am university educated yet I found the language in this 140. survey quite challenging to understand and follow. How does this accommodate our parents for whom English is not their first language?

141. No Closure schools in Vancouver East Side.

Don't close schools!!! Open them up to use by community groups so that the space is used. Once 142. they're gone, they're too expensive to rebuild if we need them later. Empty classrooms, such as at QEA, are used as indicators of “non-enrolling space”, yet QEA is restricted to K-3 and has not been allowed to expand into the empty classroom. This measure 143. creates a false representation of enrolment at Vancouver schools. QEA has a 130+ child waitlist every year and yet it will never appear to be at greater than 80% capacity. coordination between the multiple levels of government should be improved so that population projections and school capacity planning get aligned. also, funds received by the city of 144. vancouver from commercial real estate developers should be assigned to VSB to help support school construction and maintenance.

For question 30 - do not engage in a process that would result in any recommendation to close 145. schools.

I think parents and families need more than one year of notice before closing a school. It is very easy to close a school and almost impossible to build one in Vancouver. Would also like to see 146. more sharing of facilities between parks board and VSB. Great chance to build synergy new playing fields and shared rec and gym space. Also suggest opening up all parking on VSB property for paid after hrs. The city has changed and continues to change. That needs to be thoroughly analyzed before 147. making hard decisions.

148. remember the importance of the auditorium in a school

I would also like to emphasize that many schools were found on the East side and were listed to be closed where they are at full capacity if not beyond capacity. Another note I have noticed is 149. that the new public schools made on the West side are also SIGNIFICANTLY better than the schools on the East side, they are environmentally sustainable and are much more expensive. This survey is faulty in that a simpler format is needed for families who don't understand the 150. terminology. Most parents will not have read the LFRP draft and therefore won't understand what is being asked. In the future, a simpler, information/question formula would be better. Right sizing schools is not happening. The new Tennyson school is smaller than the of and will 151. have even fewer students. French is a right in Canada so we should be make enough spaces. It is not a choice. And seismic upgrading should be a provincial and federal issue. This plan is difficult to find here and on your website. I strongly oppose closing under-enrolling east side schools in favour of keeping annexes open. Enrollment could be managed by limiting 152. outside-catchment choices. If equity is truly a priority for VSB, it needs to take into account the inequity between rich and poor schools in terms ofparental involvement and spending power and advocacy power

The board should be dedicated to responding to parent concerns. The decision to relocate French Immersion students at Henry Hudson to Stratchcona is opposed by its parents and damaging to 153. the French Immersion Program, the decision to close Kindergarten classes in both Ecole Bilingue and Trafalgar is also conter to parent wishes and damages the program and the school community. School closure is so bad! really sad and angry that you want to close point grey secondary that is 154. within walking distance of my family! so bad! so sad! I am a parent for the child enrolled in Point Gray Secondary Grade 8, we heard that the school is in the list of potential closure. It is a school with history, heritage building and well-designed 155. education program. Our kid started to learn violin last year, it helps him with other studies. We totally understand that the facility need improvement, while there should be lots of options.

156. It is very important to our neighbourhood that we not lose our local high school.

The survey should be honest that it is gathering information to try to support school closures. That is clearly an undertone of many questions. Apart from the major social and learning 157. disruption that closing schools has on kids, closing schools in neighbourhoods will lead parents to drive kids to schools outside of walking distance and increase our carbon footprint. Please think more broadly! How about an analysis and explanation regarding why the vast majority of schools being 158. considered for closure or in dire need of updating are on the East side? 159. I will send an email.

It is not acceptable to close all those east side schools. Every other possible option should be 160. explored before that is considered. it does appear that some of the secondary schools offer more than others and are very over 161. populated. Is there any way to extend similar programs to those schools that currently have low capacity in areas that could use the school closer to their homes? The VSB continues to hire different contractors for each seismic project, rather than hiring one 162. that has done decent work, and having them correct past mistakes. The cheaper contractors result in greater remedial work in the long run. My daughter is about to start school at Templeton High School and they have incredible programs that attract Cross-Boundary students. I did not see how the specialized programs / cross 163. boundary demand fit into your analysis and I think it is VERY shortsighted to only look at in- catchment demand when other factors are at play for long range planning. This is very concerning. This work needs to be done in conjunction with the city's new neighbourhood plans, new housing guidelines (more family oriented suites), and existing renewal plans such as Britannia community 164. centre area. If Britannia Secondary will be unavailable for 3-5 years, that might change thoughts about Templeton. What a terribly constructed survey. I have a PhD and it was incredibly difficult to wade through the obtuse language here. Do you expect parents to understand your questions and give 165. meaningful responses? Or is this just another example of token consultation with the community. What I would love to see is a new version of the survey in plain language. No school should be closed. Ever. Every student should first enroll in their catchment school. After that, there should be limited cross-boundary enrollment allowed and only based on strong 166. reasons. Eg;- French immersion entrance exam, sports emphasis, special needs eligibility, music/dance program audition etc. Majority of students should attend their catchment school only.

167. re: Consolidation in the Britannia/Templeton area, Templeton appears to be a better option.

I am firmly opposed to the VSB publishing lists of schools targeted for closure before fully exploring ways of using other assets as opportunities to generate revenue. Schools are such a 168. fundamentally important part of building and maintaining communities that ithey should be considered for closure only as a last resort. Also, the VSB needs to communicate better with the City of Vancouver I strongly oppose school closures, but if you need to “consolidate” schools, I think that the kids need to get something in return and not just be moved to another crumbling school. For 169. example, if Britannia is closed, why not build a new school at Templeton that would accommodate both Brit and Temp kids? As a former VSB teacher (who has worked in both the Britannia and Templeton catchments) I specifically chose to move to my neighbourhood because it is in the Templeton catchment and 170. NOT in the Britannia catchment. If the school consolidation results in my our catchment high school being Britannia, I would seek to register my children cross boundary at Vantech. School closures should not be an option particularly on the the east side where many families 171. need to be able to walk to school. Furthermore, there is increasing densification on the east side. I find many of these recommendations hard to follow. What info believe is closing schools harms children. I believe the over demand on the west side is partly due to these kinds of discussions. 172. We need schools geographically distributed throughout the city. ESPECIALLY on the east side as moving many of these children would negatively impact their educ. They need to go to schools where they live.

Consider the right sizing of school in high growth areas (i.e., Eric Hamber school), but before 173. considering closure of schools (mostly in east Van), invest in more community programs for these schools to increase local enrolment at these schools There is a lot of value in schools having extra space. Extra space enhances student learning and I 174. think is worth the cost of maintaining. Community schools are a pivotal point of contact for entire neighbourhoods, beyond being places of learning. Every school has a unique personality, its own community—an ecosystem that has 175. great value to those who are part of it and the greater world. Redistributing its students and teachers to nearby schools destroys something that is increasingly fragile and rare in the world today. 176. The Board needs to consider the unique programming and response to student, family and community needs in inner city and eastside schools that accommodate students in poverty and provide much needed enrichment and opportunities. Schools like Templeton, Britannia, and Strathcona need to be preserved and enriched, not closed and consolidated. It’s my opinion that closing schools would be more detrimental to the communities affected than 177. the impact of saving money across-the-board. It is unfair to the communities that are affected. Clsoing schools is not a solution. It will increase school commuting times, make schools larger 178. and more impersonal, rightsizing of schools is a better solution (not in the sense of closure) redrawing boundaries will help with overcrowding of schools. once you change boundaries 179. beginning a certain school year, you can still accept siblings & current student that may now fall outside of the catchment. The methodology should focused on actual use of schools vs only classroom teaching. VSB should 180. compare their overall spent on the West vs E.Side, should take advantage of real Estate value and community impacts if consolidation happens. I think that there should be equitable distribution of programs around the district. For example, it is unfair that Jamieson gets a music program while the rest of the district, at least those on the 181. east side, do not have any music programs at all. The VSB needs to create more enhancing and desired programs on the eastside so that students and parents do not migrate to the westside. I was concerned that Tyee Elementaryis considered for relocation since it is at maximum capacity, has low seismic risks and has a community of parents who have raised and spent tens of 182. thousands of dollars on school improvements in the past 1-5 years. School fundraisers take enormous effort but result in new bike racks, landscaping, benches, playground equipment and much more that can’t be moved Please provide a plan for Quilchena Elementary - a high-risk school, but as a parent I've seen little information moving forward. Great to see macro plans city-wide, but my three children are 183. at Quilchena - will we be moving? If so, when? Where? (most people acknowledge that Quilchena will likely be closed down since there are NO plans to seismically upgrade). Just want to know so to plan. With due respect, this survey was poorly designed and scripted. You will attain more and much 184. better feedback with surveys that are better designed. It is possible to make a survey a pleasant experience and still achieve your business need.

IT needs to be updated to reflect the April 12 letter from Minister Fleming and the updated 185. guidelines for LFRP. No decision should be made until the VSB updates accordingly

If you're allowing feedback of 400 characters, please allow a text box big enough to see all of the text at once for the sake of editing! Additionally, if you are trying to maximize operating funds, 186. then why does School Cash Online accept credit cards? The VSB will be spending thousands in credit card fees. Parents have paid by cash/cheque until now, so restricting to debit is reasonable. VSB needs a long range plan: one that focuses on student safety and education. there is no need to have students at schools with high seismic risk when mitigation measures (e.g. seismic desks) 187. are available. i am not opposed to school consolidation but with advance notice (min 2 years). We chose our community in part so that we can walk/bike to school. Absolutely no school closures are necessary, they result in a major disturbance to staff parents and students.. capacities of 30 students per class are not feasible in every school due to 188. Vancouverites being out priced in the real estate market in many areas of Vancouver, why should our children suffer relocation because we can’t afford to stay in our neighbourhoods.Please leave schools open I support optimizing school capacity through closures. I strongly oppose the sale of school real 189. estate for short or medium term benefit. Land is a long term asset that should be kept. The LRFP is based on data quality that can not be trusted and needs to be further explored. The data does not reflect what is actually happening in schools. In light of Minister Flemmings new 190. LRFP guidelines, the current vsb LRFP should be rewritten to include the new guidline requirements Pt. Grey school has outstanding transit access (including adjacency to a future 41 B-line route), enabling many, many students to easily take transit to this school. It has among the best transit 191. access of VSB secondary schools. Transit accessibility should be a critical factor in determining secondary school catchments and in considering school closures.

192. New and larger schools should be built to accommodate a growing population in Vancouver

This survey was crafted to ensure the VSB received the answers it needed to close schools and sell school property. The LRFP presents false dichotomies and oversimplifies the choices. Why is 193. BC funding private and ind. schools at the expense of the public school system. We will not allow selling of school property based on 8 yr enrol proj. 194. It is imperative that schools be made seismically safe as soon as possible. It will take several years to address the deficiencies in all facilities. I call on the Board to install in all seismically High risk schools 'seismic desks' and early warning systems by September 2019. Recommendation of extending the decision process until sufficient feedback and consultation are 195. being put into consideration/ I recognize the challenges with maintenance and aging schools. However, I strongly feel that (1) no school property should be sold, though leases should be considered and (2) maintaining 196. presence of neighbourhood schools within walking distance is essential for families and communities. I support exploration of mixed use within schools eg. community or child care use without full closure.e If you sell the land, you will never be able to buy it back when needed. Government have to plan 197. for very long term The VSB needs to strongly advocate for replacing aging schools that need seismic upgrades as 198. the most fiscally and socially responsible choice over the long-term. Your capacities are so skewed and the cross-boundary students further scew schools actual in catcment capacity. Schools that you have listed as 60% are full (closed to cross-boundary). You 199. are prioritising the safety of wealthy families and discriminating against those who are low-mid income and cannot afford to cross-boundary. My children's school are seismically unsafe and not a priority. Your plans leave the East Van area with no elementary schools/highschools. Van Tech is already at capacity!!!! The homes in East Van are $1.7 million and you are leaving parents to commute 200. with their kids to a school that will be 45-60 minutes away. Not acceptable but the Vancouver West residents are all being taken care of. This survey is HORRENDOUS. I'm surpised you got anyone to complete it. I feel like your are just throwing the dreadful financial situation back at us to clean up the mess this province is in. 201. Schools are old, unsafe, under enrolled, closing them is NOT the acceptable answer. More funding it the only reasonable solution. Don't dump this lack of solutions on us and call it 'engagement'.

On site before and after school care is vital for many parents. Programs should be expanded if 202. demand is not met

I'm concerned about how the capactiy is calculated. I would like there to be more documentation 203. on how this was carried out, and what the assumptions are.

DATE: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.3.1

TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities James de Hoop, Manager of Planning

RE: Selkirk Elementary School Seismic Upgrade – Public Information Session

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long-Range Facility Plan. • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report is for information only. No action of the Board is required at this time.

BACKGROUND:

The scope of seismic upgrade of Lord Selkirk Elementary School is limited to one high risk building (Building B), a three-story wood frame structure. This building has a total floor area of 1,490 square metres. Selkirk Building B was constructed in two phases in 1898 and 1922. Currently, this building does not meet seismic standards and requires upgrades. On April 2, 2019, District Staff hosted an Information Session at Lord Selkirk Elementary School. Information on the seismic upgrade, schedule, and a temporary accommodation plan were shown to the school community and surrounding neighbours. The purpose of this report is to summarize comments received from the Information Session and to define the next steps.

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.1 - Selkirk Public Information Session.docx

Figure 1: Selkirk Elementary school catchment outlined with dashed line.

DISCUSSION:

Key features of the seismic upgrade at Lord Selkirk Elementary include: • Seismically upgrading the remaining high-risk building • Maintaining Heritage characteristics of building • Building area remains unchanged at approximately 1,490 sqm • Building components where impacted by seismic work will be replaced • Accessibility, fire and life safety deficiencies will be improved • Intermediate students (grades 6 and 7) will be temporarily accommodated at Gladstone Secondary during construction

CONSULTATION

Consultation timeline: • Parent information meeting February 2019. • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group, February 2019. A Seismic Advisory Group consists of members of each of the major stakeholder groups. • Meeting with school staff, March 2019. • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group April 2019.

2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.1 - Selkirk Public Information Session.docx • Public Information Session, April 2019

On April 2, 2019, a public information session was held at the Lord Selkirk Gymnasium between 3:30pm and 6:30pm. Information boards were displayed, which gave information about the seismic upgrade option. VSB staff were in attendance to answer questions and gather feedback. A survey was made available online and iPads were provided at the event for participants to fill out the survey.

• There were 20 completed feedback forms • 21 people signed in at the public information session

A full summary of the survey is included in the appendix.

NEXT STEP:

This project will be continue moving forward to design & procurement phases.

Attachments:

1. Selkirk comment sheet tabulation April 2, 2019 2. Selkirk Public Information Session Fact Sheet

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.1 - Selkirk Public Information Session.docx Selkirk Public Information Session April 2, 2019 3:30pm ‐ 6:30pm Selkirk Gymnasium attendees encouraged to fill out feedback form via iPad Feedback collected from April 2 until April 17, 2019. Please indicate any of the following applies to you: Paper Online Total Parent of child attending the school 0 16 16 Parent of a child interested in attending the school 0 0 0 student currently attending the school 0 2 2 student interested in attending the school 0 0 0 local resident ( do not have children attending) 0 1 1 VSB staff member 0 2 2 local business owner 0 0 0 other, please specify 0 0 0 Total 02121

Please check one of the following: The information provided at this public Paper Online Total information session was helpful Agree 01111 Somewhat Agree 066 Somewhat Disagree 000 Disagree 000 Total 01717

Comment Paper Online Total Desire to stay connected to Selkrik community through mentoring, sport, 044 assemblies etc.) Pleased the seismic work is progressing 033 Consider doing additional upgrades at the same time as the seismic work 022 Consider replacing the water pipes in the building 022 Looking forward to the idea of having child enter middle school type 022 environment Happy with Gladstone as a TA location 022 Please keep plans for French trip to Quebec 011 Concern about drinking water 011 Consider replacing some badminton equipment 011 Consider access to Elementary library resources for TA students 011 Would prefer if all students could do to one school during construction 011 please keep two playgrounds at Selkirk 011 Consider safety at Knight and 29th (slow light change) and Dumfries and 011 Kingsway (intersection clarity Consider where French classes will be and where French educational resources 011 will be for FI students Walking to Gladstone will add some time to commute 011 Happy that the building is being kept due to style / heritage qualities 011 Concern with accessibility for wheelchair, need more than main floor access, 011 can this be included in scope? Consider the start times for Selkirk and Gladstone for parents with students at 011 both for pickup and drop off 17‐Apr‐19 LORD SELKIRK ELEMENTARY SEISMIC UPGRADE PROJECT

FACT SHEET April 2019

BACKGROUND INFORMATION • A top priority of the Vancouver School District is to ensure all students attend seismically safe schools as quickly as possible. • Lord Selkirk Elementary (Selkirk) Building B was constructed in two phases in 1898 and 1922. The school has served Vancouver students and the neighbouring community well throughout the years, however, the facility does not meet current seismic standards. • As part of the province’s Seismic Mitigation Program, $5.7 million has been approved to upgrade Building B of Selkirk. The remaining school has either been previously seismically upgraded or does not need seismic upgrades. • During construction, intermediate students (grades 6 and 7) will be temporarily accommodated at Gladstone Secondary in order to complete the necessary seismic work. • The District determined Gladstone is the least disruptive option to student learning due to its proximity (less than 1 km) from Selkirk. Intermediate students will be able to continue at Gladstone and transition directly into grade eight. • The District will regularly meet with the School Advisory Group to gather input during design and construction of the project. Find out more information here: govsb.ca/selkirk-seismic-info

Key features of the seismic upgrade include:  Seismically upgrading the remaining high-risk building  Heritage characteristics of building will remain  Building area remains unchanged at approx. 1500 m2  Building components will be replaced (where impacted by seismic work)  Accessibility, fire and life safety deficiencies will be improved

SCHOOL SITE ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE

DESIGN winter 2019 - Fall 2019

Gym

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION Main Building Building B 2020

Classroom COMPLETE Addition CONSTRUCTION AND MOVE IN fall 2020

DATE: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.3.2 TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities James de Hoop, Manager of Planning

RE: Weir Elementary School Seismic Upgrade – Public Information Session

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship

Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long-Range Facility Plan. • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report is for information only. No action of the Board is required at this time.

BACKGROUND:

Dr. George M. Weir Elementary School (Weir Elementary) was originally constructed in 1960-63, utilizes a variety of structural, architectural and engineering systems and was extended to the east with an eighth classroom addition in 2000. It consists of 4 structural blocks. The school is in Killarney district of southeast Vancouver.

Weir Elementary is included in the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) as a H1, High risk school. Option 2A: Partial Replacement was recommended as the best value option after exploring four different options. Option 2A was approved and funded by the Ministry of Education.

On April 3, 2019, District staff hosted an Information Session at Weir Elementary School. Options considered, construction details, and estimated project timeline were presented on boards to the school community and surrounding neighbors. The purpose of this report is to summarize comments received from the Information Session and to define the next steps.

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.2 - Weir Public Information Session.docx

Figure 1: Weir Elementary school catchment outlined with dashed line.

DISCUSSION

Key features of the partial replacement school include:

• A feasibility study determined that 75% replacement of the school was best value option, in which the only remaining block will be the 2000 addition, all other blocks will be demolished, and a new, two-level seismically safe school will be constructed. • After the replacement of 3 blocks, school will be approximately 3,767 square meters and have the same operating capacity of 434 students. • During the seismic work the school will operate at swing sites. • An environmentally friendly facility built to Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) Gold standards. • A library as a focal point for interaction and 375 sqm of space will be dedicated to NLC (neighborhood Learning Centre) that will be used for 60 out of school care spaces.

CONSULTATION

Consultation timeline: • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group, January 2019. A Seismic Advisory Group consists of members of each of the major stakeholder groups. 2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.2 - Weir Public Information Session.docx

• PAC meeting, February 2019. • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group, February 2019. • Meeting with school staff, February 2019. • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group, April 2019. • Public Information Session, April 2019 On April 3, 2019, a public information session was held at the Weir Gymnasium between 3:30pm and 6:30pm. Information boards were displayed, which gave information about the seismic partial replacement. VSB staff were in attendance to answer questions and gather feedback. A survey was made available online and iPads were provided at the event for participants to fill out the survey.

• There were 12 completed feedback forms • 63 people signed in at the public information session

A full summary of the survey is included in the appendix.

NEXT STEP:

This project will be continue moving forward to design & procurement phases.

Attachments:

1. Weir comment sheet tabulation April 3, 2019 2. Weir Public Information Session Fact Sheet

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.2 - Weir Public Information Session.docx

Weir Public Information Session April 3, 2019 3:30pm ‐ 6:30pm Weir Gymnasium attendees encouraged to fill out feedback form via iPad Feedback collected from April 3 until April 18, 2019. Please indicate any of the following applies to you: Paper Online Total Parent of child attending the school 0 7 7 Parent of a child interested in attending the school 0 1 1 student currently attending the school 0 0 0 student interested in attending the school 0 0 0 local resident ( do not have children attending) 0 0 0 VSB staff member 0 0 0 local business owner 0 0 0 other, please specify 0 0 0 Total 088

Please check one of the following: The information provided at this public Paper Online Total information session was helpful Agree 066 Somewhat Agree 022 Somewhat Disagree 000 Disagree 000 Total 088

Comment Paper Online Total Busing plan from/to the swing site will be helpful 011 011 Safety during pick up/drop off (i.e. regular, late/early pick up/drop off, injuries) Artificial turf/rubber pellets for Kindergarten/primary student usage 011 Ways to accommodate people with after school events 011 How to ensure siblings to go to the same school 011 Details about the future fundraising (i.e. Grade 7's graduation) 011 Location where the current Weir staffs would work 011 Safety of Grade 6&7 in the Killarney community centre requires extra 011 staff/volunteers Outdoor acitivity space and safety for grade 6&7 011 Safery during moving preparation period 011 Parents active involvement opporunities during the process 011 Seismic safety of the 3 swing sites 011 23‐Apr‐19 WEIR ELEMENTARY PARTIAL REPLACEMENT SEISMIC PROJECT

FACT SHEET April 2019

BACKGROUND INFORMATION • A top priority of the Vancouver School District is to ensure all students attend seismically safe schools as quickly as possible. • Dr. George M. Weir (Weir) Elementary school was constructed in the 1960s and has served Vancouver students and the neighbouring community well throughout the years. However the facilitiy does not meet current seismic standards. • As part of the province’s Seismic Mitigation Program, $19.7 million was allotted to partially replace Weir Elementary. • A feasibility study determined replacing 75 per cent of the school was the best option for all students to attend a seismically safe school (25 per cent of the school was built in 2000). • During construction, students will be temporarily accommodated at nearby schools in order to complete the work. In consultation with the school advisory group, we determined the following accomodations are the least disruptive options to student learning due to their proximity to Weir. o Students from grades kindergarten to five will be temporarily relocated to MacCorkindale and Champlain Heights Elementary schools. Both these schools border the Weir catchment. o Students in grades six and seven will be temporarily relocated to Killarney Secondary School. These grade six and seven students will be able to continue at Killarney and transition directly into grade eight. • The District will regularly meet with the school community to gather input throughout the design and construction phase. • Find out more information here: govsb.ca/weir‐seismic‐info

Key features of the partial replacement school include:  A new, two‐level seismically safe school.  An environmentally friendly facility built to Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) Gold standards.  A library as a focal point for interaction.  375 M2 of space dedicated to a Neighborhood Learning Centre providing 60 out of school care spaces.

FUTURE SCHOOL SITE ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE

DESIGN winter 2019 ‐ spring 2020

BEGIN CONSTRUCTION spring 2020

COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION AND MOVE IN January 2022

DATE: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.3.3

TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities James de Hoop, Manager of Planning

RE: Byng Secondary School Seismic Upgrade – Public Information Session

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship

Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long-Range Facility Plan. • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report is for information only. No action of the Board is required at this time.

BACKGROUND:

Lord Byng Secondary School is a grade 8 to 12 facility located at 3939 West 16th Avenue in Vancouver, BC.

The school is comprised of 9 blocks. 5 of the 9 blocks were rated as Low Risk (L). Three of those blocks (1,2 & 3) were seismically upgraded in 2002. Two of those blocks (8 & 9) were added in 2003.

In July 2018, an SRG3 SPIR for the remaining Blocks 4-7 was completed. Results of the SRG3 SPIR elevated the ‘M” and “H3” blocks to “H1”. The PDR scope is therefore the entirety of Blocks 4-7: shop wing, cafeteria, gymnasium and auditorium.

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.3 - Byng Public Information Session.docx

Figure 1: Byng Secondary catchment outlined in black.

DISCUSSION

Key features of the seismic upgrade at Byng Secondary include: • Structural upgrade for seismic resistance based on the SPIR recommendations • Maintains the existing capacity of the school • Phased construction • Building components where impacted by seismic work will be replaced

CONSULTATION

Consultation timeline: • Meeting with school staff, February 2019. • Meeting with the Seismic Advisory Group, March 2019. A Seismic Advisory Group consists of members of each of the major stakeholder groups. • Public Information Session, April 2019

On April 4, 2019, a public information session was held at Byng Secondary between 3:30pm and 6:30pm. Information boards were displayed, which gave information about the seismic 2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.3 - Byng Public Information Session.docx upgrade. VSB staff were in attendance to answer questions and gather feedback. A survey was made available online and iPads were provided at the event for participants to fill out the survey. • There were 5 completed feedback forms • 9 people signed in at the public information session

A full summary of the survey is included in the appendix.

NEXT STEP:

This project will be continue moving forward to design & procurement phases.

Attachments:

1. Byng comment sheet tabulation from April 4, 2019 2. Byng Public Information Session Fact Sheet

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.3.3 - Byng Public Information Session.docx

Byng Public Information Session April 4, 2019 3:30pm ‐ 6:30pm Byng Foyer / Cafeteria attendees encouraged to fill out feedback form via iPad Feedback collected from April 2 until April 19, 2019. Please indicate any of the following applies to you: Paper Online Total Parent of child attending the school 0 4 4 Parent of a child interested in attending the school 0 0 0 student currently attending the school 0 0 0 student interested in attending the school 0 0 0 local resident ( do not have children attending) 0 0 0 VSB staff member 0 0 0 local business owner 0 0 0 other, please specify 0 0 0 Total 044

Please check one of the following: The information provided at this public Paper Online Total information session was helpful Agree 044 Somewhat Agree 000 Somewhat Disagree 000 Disagree 000 Total 044

Comment Paper Online Total Compromised safety due to the slow project progress 011 Request for a short overview presentation at the info session 011 Access to the architect was helpful 011 23‐Apr‐19 LORD BYNG SECONDARY SEISMIC UPGRADE PROJECT

FACT SHEET April 2019

BACKGROUND INFORMATION • A top priority of the Vancouver School District is to ensure all students attend seismically safe schools as quickly as possible. • The Main Building (red area in diagram below) at Lord Byng Secondary was built in phases, starting from 1924. The school has served Vancouver students and the neighbouring community well throughout the years, however the facility does not meet current seismic standards. • As part of the province’s Seismic Mitigation Program, $18.2 million was allotted to upgrade the workshop, gymnasium, cafeteria, and auditorium at Byng Secondary. Other areas of the school are seismically safe and do not require seismic improvements. • The seismic upgrade will be completed in three phases to allow students to remain onsite during construction. • District staff will regularly meet with the School Advisory Group to gather input regarding the design of the upgrade option so that meets the educational needs of the students. • Find out more information here: govsb.ca/byng-seismic-info

Key features of the upgrade option include:  Seismically upgrading the remaining high-risk buildings so students can attend a safe school.  Heritage characteristics of the building will remain.  Building area remains unchanged at approx. 4,600 m2  Building components will be replaced (where impacted by seismic work).  Accessibility, fire and life safety deficiencies will be improved

SCHOOL SITE ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE

DESIGN winter 2019 - fall 2019

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1 summer 2019

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2 summer 2020

CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3 fall 2020

COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION & MOVE IN summer 2021

Date: May 15, 2019 ITEM 2.4 To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: Doug McClary, Manager of Maintenance and Construction

Re: 2019/2020 Annual Facilities Grant – Funding Allocation

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship

Objectives: • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report is for information only.

BACKGROUND:

In April 2019 the Ministry of Education posted the 2019/20 the Annual Facilities Grant (AFG) allocations (Attachment A). The total province wide AFG Allocations of $115.5 million remain unchanged from 2018, as did the $11,001,097 allocated to VBE. $2.0 million of the provincial AFG allocation continues to be deducted from the AFG allocation to districts to fund the Capital Asset Management System (CAMS - VFA).

VBE’s contribution to CAMS was $190,502. The Vancouver Board of Education’s (VBE) total allocation of $11,001,097 remains unchanged from 2018/19.

The comparison of 2018/19 funding vs.2019/20 funding is as follows:

2018/19 AFG 2019/20 AFG Difference CAMS $190,502 $190,502 same Capital $8,763,112 $8,763,112 same Operating $2,047,483 $2,047,483 same Total $11,001,097 $11,001,097 $0

Operating funds are allocated for repair-oriented projects (e.g. leaking pipes) and capital funds

1 File: S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.4 - 2019_2020 Annual Facilities Grant - Funding Allocation.docx are allocated for replacement/renewal oriented projects (e.g. replacing entire water systems).

The Ministry requires school districts to list their projects using the Ministry’s AFG expenditure plan template, identifying which projects will address VFA requirements.

The deadline for submissions is June 30, 2019.

DISCUSSION:

The VBE has the oldest schools in the province with more than 110 sites containing approximately $1.6 billion worth of physical plant. The district relies heavily on AFG funding to maintain its building infrastructure.

VBE’s deferred maintenance capital requirements identified by the VFA facility audit indicate that the district has a backlog of over $740 million of deferred maintenance which continues to grow as building age and at present rates of funding.

In fact, current rates of the Ministry’s AFG building renewal funding are only enough to keep approximately 10% of VBE schools fully maintained over the next 5 years, hence the district is only able to address its highest priority building renewal/safety requirements amongst 110 schools. Building systems (eg. lighting, heating, plumbing, roofing, etc) are being put on an average renewal cycle of some 167 years. Hence, even new schools built under the seismic mitigation program will have their useful lives impacted with the current levels of AFG funding, as spending will be directed to older buildings.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will complete the AFG expenditure template, at which time a Capital

Bylaw will be presented at the Facilities Planning Committee meeting on June 19, 2019.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

This report is for information only.

Attachment:

1. 2019/2020 Annual Facilities Grant Allocations

2 File: S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 2.4 - 2019_2020 Annual Facilities Grant - Funding Allocation.docx Ministry of Education - 2019/20 Annual Facility Grant Allocation

Operating Portion Total Total Capital Withheld Allocation School District AFG Portion Gross (CAMS) Net to Districts 5 Southeast Kootenay 1,410,772 1,123,775 286,997 24,430 262,567 1,386,342 6 Rocky Mountain 962,511 766,705 195,806 16,667 179,139 945,844 8 Kootenay Lake 1,374,350 1,094,762 279,588 23,799 255,789 1,350,551 10 Arrow Lakes 307,001 244,547 62,454 5,316 57,138 301,685 19 Revelstoke 321,325 255,957 65,368 5,564 59,804 315,761 20 Kootenay-Columbia 952,982 759,114 193,868 16,502 177,366 936,480 22 Vernon 1,752,473 1,395,963 356,510 30,347 326,163 1,722,126 23 Central Okanagan 3,860,494 3,075,143 785,351 66,851 718,500 3,793,643 27 Cariboo-Chilcotin 1,532,440 1,220,691 311,749 26,537 285,212 1,505,903 28 Quesnel 880,371 701,275 179,096 15,245 163,851 865,126 33 Chilliwack 2,244,139 1,787,608 456,531 38,861 417,670 2,205,278 34 Abbotsford 3,401,484 2,709,511 691,973 58,902 633,071 3,342,582 35 Langley 3,343,503 2,663,325 680,178 57,898 622,280 3,285,605 36 Surrey 11,610,859 9,248,830 2,362,029 201,064 2,160,965 11,409,795 37 Delta 3,022,838 2,407,894 614,944 52,346 562,598 2,970,492 38 Richmond 4,075,710 3,246,577 829,133 70,578 758,555 4,005,132 39 Vancouver 11,001,097 8,763,112 2,237,985 190,502 2,047,483 10,810,595 40 New Westminster 1,159,460 923,588 235,872 20,078 215,794 1,139,382 41 Burnaby 4,576,114 3,645,182 930,932 79,243 851,689 4,496,871 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows 2,543,836 2,026,336 517,500 44,051 473,449 2,499,785 43 Coquitlam 5,601,964 4,462,341 1,139,623 97,007 1,042,616 5,504,957 44 North Vancouver 3,078,527 2,452,254 626,273 53,310 572,963 3,025,217 45 West Vancouver 1,314,355 1,046,972 267,383 22,760 244,623 1,291,595 46 Sunshine Coast 966,354 769,766 196,588 16,734 179,854 949,620 47 Powell River 604,278 481,348 122,930 10,464 112,466 593,814 48 Sea to Sky 939,564 748,426 191,138 16,270 174,868 923,294 49 Central Coast 296,372 236,080 60,292 5,132 55,160 291,240 50 Haida Gwaii 542,638 432,248 110,390 9,397 100,993 533,241 51 Boundary 557,184 443,835 113,349 9,649 103,700 547,535 52 Prince Rupert 666,723 531,090 135,633 11,545 124,088 655,178 53 Okanagan Similkameen 618,616 492,769 125,847 10,712 115,135 607,904 54 Bulkley Valley 696,344 554,685 141,659 12,058 129,601 684,286 57 Prince George 3,279,793 2,612,576 667,217 56,795 610,422 3,222,998 58 Nicola-Similkameen 618,533 492,703 125,830 10,711 115,119 607,822 59 Peace River South 1,404,568 1,118,833 285,735 24,322 261,413 1,380,246 60 Peace River North 1,469,596 1,170,632 298,964 25,449 273,515 1,444,147 61 Greater Victoria 3,983,030 3,172,751 810,279 68,973 741,306 3,914,057 62 Sooke 1,655,653 1,318,839 336,814 28,670 308,144 1,626,983 63 Saanich 1,503,270 1,197,456 305,814 26,032 279,782 1,477,238 64 Gulf Islands 509,403 405,774 103,629 8,821 94,808 500,582 67 Okanagan Skaha 1,319,685 1,051,218 268,467 22,853 245,614 1,296,832 68 Nanaimo-Ladysmith 2,731,329 2,175,687 555,642 47,298 508,344 2,684,031 69 Qualicum 979,910 780,564 199,346 16,969 182,377 962,941 70 Alberni 1,040,992 829,220 211,772 18,027 193,745 1,022,965 71 Comox Valley 1,722,574 1,372,146 350,428 29,829 320,599 1,692,745 72 Campbell River 1,293,438 1,030,310 263,128 22,398 240,730 1,271,040 73 Kamloops/Thompson 3,450,044 2,748,192 701,852 59,743 642,109 3,390,301 74 Gold Trail 686,502 546,845 139,657 11,888 127,769 674,614 75 Mission 1,226,511 976,998 249,513 21,239 228,274 1,205,272 78 Fraser-Cascade 527,288 420,020 107,268 9,131 98,137 518,157 79 Cowichan Valley 1,887,945 1,503,875 384,070 32,693 351,377 1,855,252 81 Fort Nelson 317,606 252,995 64,611 5,500 59,111 312,106 82 Coast Mountains 1,515,315 1,207,050 308,265 26,240 282,025 1,489,075 83 North Okanagan-Shuswap 1,683,261 1,340,831 342,430 29,148 313,282 1,654,113 84 Vancouver Island West 389,367 310,157 79,210 6,743 72,467 382,624 85 Vancouver Island North 729,369 580,991 148,378 12,630 135,748 716,739 87 Stikine 298,627 237,876 60,751 5,171 55,580 293,456 91 Nechako Lakes 1,422,725 1,133,296 289,429 24,637 264,792 1,398,088 92 Nisga'a 266,943 212,638 54,305 4,623 49,682 262,320 93 Conseil scolaire francophone 1,365,632 1,087,818 277,814 23,648 254,166 1,341,984 Provincial Total 115,495,587 92,000,000 23,495,587 2,000,000 21,495,587 113,495,587

Date: May 15, 2019 ITEM 3.1 To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: Allan Wong, Trustee

Re: Notice of Motion

Trustee Wong presented the following Notice of Motion for consideration at a future Facilities Planning Committee meeting.

It is recommended that a future expansion of Henry Hudson Elementary School, independent of the seismic project, be included in the 2020-2021 Five Year Capital Plan submission.

The motion was referred to the Facilities Planning Committee for consideration with the Five Year Capital Plan submission.

1

File: S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 3.1 - Notice of Motion.docx

Date: May 15, 2019 ITEM 3.2 To: Facilities Planning Committee

From: Jennifer Reddy, Trustee

Re: Notice of Motion

Moved by J. Reddy, seconded by B. Parrott, that the Vancouver Board of Education work with the Vancouver Project Office to revise the Henry Hudson Elementary Seismic Project Definition Report to include:

1. Information on school site, existing and future programming, community context, consultation, equity, and reconciliation in the case of Henry Hudson Elementary including: - Kindergarten pressures - Existing school programs including French Immersion, Out of School Care, Daycare, Portable, Lunch Programs, and other non-enrolling and community uses - Information about the upcoming City of Vancouver Broadway Plan - Information about Molson lands development

2. Recent announcement from Squamish Nation about 3000-unit, two-tower development 200 meters from Hudson on Sen̓ áḵw [Sen̓ • aḵw’] traditional Squamish territory due for phased completion over 8 years.

3. Uphold the rights of Squamish Nation to discuss their educational needs before decisions are made on the size and programming of the school.

In presenting the motion, trustees considered a letter received on April 29, 2019 from the elected council of Squamish Nation regarding consultation. Trustees discussed the motion and staff provided clarification on various points.

Moved by F. Ballantyne, seconded by L. Chan-Pedley, the motion be referred to the Facilities Planning Committee.

CARRIED

For: F. Ballantyne, L. Chan-Pedley, C. Cho, J. Fraser, E. Gonzalez, O. Hanson, B. Parrott, A. Wong Against: J. Reddy

1

File: S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 3.2 - Notice of Motion.docx

DATE: May 15, 2019 REVISED ITEM 4.1

TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: J. David Green, Secretary Treasurer Lisa Landry, Assistant Secretary Treasurer

RE: Long Range Facilities Plan Recommendations

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship.

Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long Range Facilities Plan – Maintain and update the LRFP framework, as necessary, to support the Capital Plan; and • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

BACKGROUND:

The Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) and its draft recommendations have been reviewed by the Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) and Board as follows:

Feb 22, 2019 LRFP draft document dated Feb 25, 2019 released Feb 27, 2019 Special Facilities Planning Committee meeting March 6, 2019 Facilities Planning Committee meeting March 13, 2019 Special Facilities Planning Committee meeting April 17, 2019 Facilities Planning Committee meeting April 29, 2019 Public Board meeting May 3, 2019 Updated draft LRFP document dated May 1 2019 released May 15, 2019 Facilities Planning Committee meeting

In addition to the Committee input listed above, there has been extensive public engagement on the LRFP, including two public information sessions and trustee dialogue sessions, stakeholder input and delegations at meetings, written comments by email and a public survey.

Public engagement is summarized in the staff report under Item 2.2 and a summary of the LRFP survey undertaken from April 11 to 26, 2019 is posted on the VSB website: https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Long_Range_Facilities_Plan/Documents/sbfile/ 190510/20190508_Feedback%20Survey%20Summary%20Report_FINAL.pdf

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx DECISIONS AND ACTIONS TO DATE

At the Facilities Planning Committee on April 17, 2019, a number of revisions and new recommendations were proposed by trustees to be added to the LRFP. During that FPC meeting, a working group was formed to review the information discussed during the April 17, 2019 FPC, and the working group was assigned the task to draft revised recommendations for the next FPC.

At the Board meeting on April 29, 2019, trustees adopted five of the recommendations and removed two recommendations.

On May 8, 2019, the working group met, and reviewed the information from the FPC and Board meetings. The working group incorporated changes in some of the remaining original recommendations.

The following section contains a chart of the original recommendations, noting actions taken, and a final column setting out proposed status to be included in the draft LRFP. A second chart lists new recommendations proposed by trustees to be added to the draft plan.

DRAFT REVISIONS TO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION

The working group of trustees met on May 8, 2019 to propose changes for discussion at the May 15, 2019 Facilities Planning Committee. These revised recommendations are provided for Facilities Planning Committee stakeholder’s review and input, and for possible approval by the Committee for the trustees’ consideration at the May 27, 2019 Board meeting.

Feb 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP Actions May 15, 2019 DRAFT 2019 LRFP Taken 1 That the District should develop [unchanged] That the District should develop an Administrative Procedure an Administrative Procedure setting out guiding principles and setting out guiding principles and detailed procedures for detailed procedures for governance and stakeholder governance and stakeholder consultation for SMP projects. consultation for SMP projects.

2 That the District establish Working guidelines on preferred school group May 8 size with the goal of determining referred to appropriate ranges of schools’ 2020 LRFP size to inform planning decisions.

3 That the District should continue [unchanged] That the District should continue the investigation of consolidating the investigation of consolidating Alternate Programs in a central Alternate Programs in a central location and initiate a process to location and initiate a process to identify, suitable options to co- identify, suitable options to co- locate District alternate programs locate District alternate programs and related services. and related services.

2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx 4 That the District should continue Additional to explore options that enable it to wording implement the Board approved adopted recommendations of the French April 29 Program Review. Board meeting That in exploring options to enable the Board to implement the approved recommendations of the French Program Review, consideration be given to including a geographical equity lens in how the District delivers French Immersion, identifying a minimum number of Kindergarten spaces to be maintained and possible ways to expand the program.

5 That the District undertake an Working That the District undertake an Enrolment Data Validation group Enrolment Data Validation process for all facility and revision process for all facility and education planning purposes. May 8 education planning purposes. This process would consist of an This process would consist of an annual validation study of short, annual validation study of short, medium, and long-range medium, and long-range enrolment projections as well as enrolment projections as well as updating student yield metrics for updating student yield metrics for areas of the District with areas of the District with significant development and significant development and redevelopment proposed or redevelopment proposed or underway. underway.

6 That the Board of Education Deemed not reiterate their commitment to use necessary, the capital funds generated from as motion the sale of the underground was airspace at Lord Roberts Annex to previously BC Hydro for the construction of adopted. Coal Harbour Elementary and a Removed replacement K-7 elementary April 29 school at Lord Roberts Annex. Board meeting 7 That the District continues to work Adopted with the City of Vancouver to April 29 construct Coal Harbour Board Elementary and develop a meeting catchment and enrolment plan for the school.

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx 8 That the District build on the initial Adopted work done on a Capital Asset April 29 Management Plan to develop a Board comprehensive strategic plan to meeting guide the District in effectively managing the asset inventory in the future.

9 That the Board of Education Working That the Board of Education approve an annual budget group approve an annual budget allocation for the next three years revision allocation for the next three years to hire real estate consultants to May 8 to engage consultants with the negotiate financial arrangements intent to generate capital fund with developers to generate revenue to support enhancing capital fund revenue to support capital projects and implement the enhancing capital projects and the Capital Asset Management Plan. workforce housing initiative.

10 That the District updates the Adopted addition and expansion project April 29 requests in the 2020-2021 Five- Board Year Capital Plan for Board of meeting Education approval, including determining the need for elementary schools at Olympic Village, East Fraser Lands and WestBrook at UBC, secondary school space at King George Secondary and the need for additional capacity in the North Hamber study area.

11 That the District continues to Reflects explore enrolment management operational options to balance enrolment with work by staff. capacity in the Kitsilano study area, the North Hamber study Deleted area and the South Hamber study May 8 area and report to the Facilities working Planning Committee on a group. quarterly basis.

12 That, in accordance with Policy 14 Deleted – School Closure, the District April 29 provide the Board with the Board name(s) of secondary schools, meeting elementary schools and annexes for consideration for closure for the 2020 school year by September 30, 2019.

4 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx 13 That the District should conduct a Referred to detailed analysis on the impact of 2020 LRFP reducing school capacity through Working the SMP (‘right sizing’) in relation group May 8 to the goals and priorities of the Long Range Facilities Plan.

14 That the District decide if a Working That the District decide, in seismically upgraded Sir Guy group conjunction with the advancement Carleton Elementary should be revision and development of the Carleton used as temporary May 8 SMP, if a seismically upgraded Sir accommodation for the SMP or as Guy Carleton Elementary should an enrolling school. be used as temporary accommodation for the SMP or as an enrolling school.

15 That the District consider the Working That the District will undertake implications of the School group conversations with school Consolidation Feasibility Analyses revision communities to envision and contained in Section 10 of this May 8 identify opportunities for enhanced report to prioritize seismic and renewed teaching and upgrades for secondary schools. learning environments as part of any plan to consolidate school communities.

16 That the District consider the Combined implications of the School with rec #15 Consolidation Feasibility Analyses Working contained in Section 10 of this group May 8 report to prioritize seismic upgrades for elementary schools.

17 That the District consider the Working implications of the School group May 8 Consolidation Feasibility Analyses referred to contained in Section 10 of this 2020 LRFP report to inform revisions to the Temporary Accommodation Plan in the SMP.

18 That the District investigate the Adopted implications of the new LRFP April 29 guidelines, arrange for community Board information sessions, and report meeting to Committee and Board.

5 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx In addition to the above updated motions, trustees also provided a number of new motions for consideration. These are as follows:

A That the Board seek clarification from the Minister of Education as to the implications of updated Ministry LRFP guidelines on funding requests for future capital requests (expansion/new builds) and on requests for seismic upgrades to current VBE schools.

B That the Board engage with the Ministry of Education in a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding 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.

C That the Board request to have a trustee serve as a non-voting member of the Vancouver Project Steering Committee.

D That the District continue to maximize opportunities for the provision of child care space within VBE facilities.

E That the District continue to collaborate with the City of Vancouver, University Endowment Lands and local First Nations on development and community plans.

F That the Board direct staff to develop a way to assess capacity utilization of VBE school facilities, with the intent to inform the 2020 LFRP.

G That the Board of Education requests a report outlining the financial costs of operating the District with current surplus capacity.

H That an action plan be developed by a working group comprised of stakeholders, community education partners, and the VSB, to ensure that Ministry guidelines regarding capital funding of projects reflect: • community and neighbourhood needs • safety for students • current positive uses of schools, i.e. auditorium/gym spaces • innovative programmes/learning spaces • predictions of school population growth

That the VSB develop and implement a year-long envisioning/consultation process with communities and neighbourhoods, and that as an early part of this process, a ‘town hall’ meeting with the Education Minister be planned (the date to be determined at his convenience).

CONCLUSION

This report is for information and possible approval for Board consideration.

6 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.1 - LRFP Recommendations trustee revisions REVISED.docx Long Range Facilities Plan Item 4.1: Long Range Facilities Plan Recommendations

May 15, 2019 General Overview • LRFP is a high-level guiding document • LRFP iterative process • Updated every year with new information • Memorandum of Understanding with Ministry of Education - Requirement

[Enter Date] Actions to Date • Facilities Planning Committee meeting – April 17, 2019 • Number of revisions and recommendations made • Working group formed to draft revisions • Board meeting – April 29, 2019 • Trustees adopted 5 recommendations, and removed 2 recommendations • Working Group meeting – May 8, 2019 • Incorporated revisions to existing recommendations • Incorporated new recommendations April 29, 2019 Board Meeting Resolutions

REC # The Board ADOPTED the following recommendations 4 That the District should continue to explore options that enable it to implement the Board approved recommendations of the French Program Review. That in exploring options to enable the Board to implement the approved recommendations of the French Program Review, consideration be given to including a geographical equity lens in how the District delivers French Immersion, identifying a minimum number of Kindergarten spaces to be maintained and possible ways to expand the program. 7 That the District continues to work with the City of Vancouver to construct Coal Harbour Elementary and develop a catchment and enrolment plan for the school. April 29, 2019 Board Meeting Resolutions

REC # The Board ADOPTED the following recommendations 8 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. 10 That the District updates the addition and expansion project requests in the 2020- 2021 Five-Year Capital Plan for Board of Education approval, including determining the need for elementary schools at Olympic Village, East Fraser Lands and WestBrook at UBC, secondary school space at King George Secondary and the need for additional capacity in the North Hamber study area. 18 That the District investigate the implications of the new LRFP guidelines, arrange for community information sessions, and report to Committee and Board. April 29, 2019 Board Meeting Resolutions

REC # The Board REMOVED the following recommendations 6 That the Board of Education reiterate their commitment to use the capital funds generated from the sale of the underground airspace at Lord Roberts Annex to BC Hydro for the construction of Coal Harbour Elementary and a replacement K-7 elementary school at Lord Roberts Annex. 12 That, in accordance with Policy 14 – School Closure, the District provide the Board with the name(s) of secondary schools, elementary schools and annexes for consideration for closure for the 2020 school year by September 30, 2019. LRFP Recommendation Revisions Working Group May 8, 2019 LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 1 That the District should develop an That the District should develop an Administrative Procedure setting out Administrative Procedure setting out guiding principles and detailed guiding principles and detailed procedures for governance and procedures for governance and

stakeholder consultation for SMP Unchanged stakeholder consultation for SMP projects. projects. May 8, 2019 Working Group

REC # The Board removed the following recommendations 2 That the District establish guidelines on preferred school size with the goal of determining appropriate ranges of schools’ size to inform planning decisions  Referred to 2020 LRFP LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 3 That the District should continue the That the District should continue the investigation of consolidating investigation of consolidating Alternate Programs in a central Alternate Programs in a central location and initiate a process to location and initiate a process to identify, suitable options to co-locate identify, suitable options to co-locate District alternate programs and Unchanged District alternate programs and related services. related services. LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 5 That the District undertake an That the District undertake an Enrolment Data Validation process Enrolment Data Validation process for all facility and education planning for all facility and education planning purposes. This process would purposes. This process would consist of an annual validation study consist of an annual validation study of short, medium, and long-range of short, medium, and long-range enrolment projections as well as enrolment projections as well as updating student yield metrics for updating student yield metrics for areas of the District with significant areas of the District with significant development and redevelopment Group Revision Working development and redevelopment proposed or underway. proposed or underway. LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 9 That the Board of Education approve That the Board of Education approve an annual budget allocation for the an annual budget allocation for the next three years to hire real estate next three years to engage consultants to negotiate financial consultants with the intent to arrangements with developers to generate capital fund revenue to generate capital fund revenue to support enhancing capital projects support enhancing capital projects and implement the Capital Asset

and the workforce housing initiative. Group Revision Working Management Plan. May 8, 2019 Working Group

REC # The Board removed the following recommendations 11 That the District continues to explore enrolment management options to balance enrolment with capacity in the Kitsilano study area, the North Hamber study area and the South Hamber study area and report to the Facilities Planning Committee on a quarterly basis.  DELETED – reflects operational work by staff May 8, 2019 Working Group

REC # The Board removed the following recommendations 13 That the District should conduct a detailed analysis on the impact of reducing school capacity through the SMP (‘right sizing’) in relation to the goals and priorities of the Long Range Facilities Plan.  Referred to 2020 LRFP LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 14 That the District decide if a That the District decide, in seismically upgraded Sir Guy conjunction with the advancement Carleton Elementary should be and development of the Carleton used as temporary SMP, if a seismically upgraded Sir accommodation for the SMP or as Guy Carleton Elementary should an enrolling school. be used as temporary accommodation for the SMP or as

Working Group Group Revision Working an enrolling school. LRFP Recommendation Revisions

# February 25, 2019 DRAFT LRFP May 15, 2019 DRAFT LRFP 15 That the District consider the That the District will undertake implications of the School conversations with school Consolidation Feasibility Analyses communities to envision and contained in Section 10 of this identify opportunities for report to prioritize seismic enhanced and renewed teaching upgrades for secondary schools. and learning environments as part of any plan to consolidate school

Working Group Group Revision Working communities. May 8, 2019 Working Group

REC # The Board removed the following recommendations 16 That the District consider the implications of the School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of this report to prioritize seismic upgrades for elementary schools.  Combined with # 15 May 8, 2019 Working Group

REC # The Board removed the following recommendations 17 That the District consider the implications of the School Consolidation Feasibility Analyses contained in Section 10 of this report to inform revisions to the Temporary Accommodation Plan in the SMP.  Referred to 2020 LRFP LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW A That the Board seek clarification from the Minister of Education as to the implications of updated Ministry LRFP guidelines on funding requests for future capital requests (expansion/new builds) and on requests for seismic upgrades to current VBE schools. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW B That the Board engage with the Ministry of Education in a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding 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. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW C That the Board request to have a trustee serve as a non-voting member of the Vancouver Project Steering Committee. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW D That the District continue to maximize opportunities for the provision of child care space within VBE facilities. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW E That the District continue to collaborate with the City of Vancouver, University Endowment Lands and local First Nations on development and community plans. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW F That the Board direct staff to develop a way to assess capacity utilization of VBE school facilities, with the intent to inform the 2020 LFRP. LRFP Recommendation Additions

REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text

NEW G That the Board of Education requests a report outlining the financial costs of operating the District with current surplus capacity. LRFP Recommendation Additions REC # DRAFT Recommendation Text NEW That an action plan be developed by a working group comprised of H stakeholders, community education partners, and the VSB, to ensure that Ministry guidelines regarding capital funding of projects reflect: • community and neighbourhood needs • safety for students • current positive uses of schools, i.e. auditorium/gym spaces • innovative programmes/learning spaces • predictions of school population growth

That the VSB develop and implement a year-long envisioning/consultation process with communities and neighbourhoods, and that as an early part of this process, a ‘town hall’ meeting with the Education Minister be planned (the date to be determined at his convenience). Feedback from Committee

DATE: May 15, 2019 ITEM 4.2

TO: Facilities Planning Committee

FROM: Jim Meschino, Director of Facilities James de Hoop, Manager of Planning

RE: David Thompson Secondary Potential Land Exchange Option – Public Consultation

Reference to Strategic Plan:

Goal 4: Provide effective leadership, governance and stewardship

Objectives: • Implement the recommendations of the Long-Range Facility Plan. • Effectively utilize school district resources and facilities.

INTRODUCTION:

This report contains a recommendation.

BACKGROUND:

David Thompson Secondary is included in the Seismic Mitigation Program (SMP) as a H1, High risk school. Work has been done on the Project Definition Report (PDR) to determine which seismic mitigation strategy will be used to increase the structural safety of the school. One option could involve the exchange of land between the current school and the north portion of Gordon Park which has frontage along 49th Avenue east, Argyle Street, and Commercial Street.

1 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.2 - David Thompson Public Information Session Potential Land Exchange Option.docx

This report summarizes the methods and results of a public information session and consultation which gathered community input on the possibility of a land exchange between the Vancouver School Board (VSB) and the Vancouver Park Board (VPB) if a replacement school was found to be the best value option in the PDR process.

DISCUSSION:

David Thompson Secondary school has served the school community well since 1957. However, the facility has a very high amount of deferred maintenance in addition to its high- seismic risk. As per the Ministry of Education's approval processes, the VSB started a feasibility study and identified that an option of exchanging land between David Thompson and Gordon Park has several educational and financial benefits.

2 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.2 - David Thompson Public Information Session Potential Land Exchange Option.docx

Options considered as part of the feasibility study are: 1. Upgrade the existing school within the same building structure 2. Replace portions of the school on existing site 3. Replace the school on the existing site 4. Exchange of equal parcels of land between David Thompson and Gordon Park to build a replacement school on the existing Gordon Park site.

Options 1 to 3 will require students and staff to relocate to temporary accommodations until the project is completed. Option 4 has the least amount of disruption for students and teachers. The middle section of Gordon Park will be accessible for the surrounding neighborhoods and general park users during construction. To continue the feasibility study on the land exchange option, District staff hosted a public information session on February 28, 2019 and undertook a survey which was open until April 15, 2019. The objective was to determine If there is school community and public support to consider the land exchange option. A potential final state is shown below, as a concept only. Both the Vancouver Park Board (VPB) and District would have to agree on the details of the land exchange and the VPB would lead the design and engagement process for the new park if the exchange is approved.

CONSULTATION

On February 28, 2019, a public information session was held at the David Thompson Gymnasium between 4:00pm and 7:00pm. Information boards were displayed, which gave information about the potential land exchange option. District and VPB staff were in attendance to answer questions and gather feedback. A survey was made available online, as well as in paper form at the event. The results of that survey as discussed below. • There were 609 completed feedback forms; 67 completed on paper, and 542 completed online as of April 15, 2019. • 58 people signed in at the public information session.

3 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.2 - David Thompson Public Information Session Potential Land Exchange Option.docx

86% of the survey respondents supported the option of the potential land exchange and 49% of them found that the information session was helpful.

The five comments received most often through the feedback were: 1. A new school on the current Gordon Park site is the optimal choice: 64% 2. A new school is the safest option: 45% 3. Renovating / upgrading parts of the existing school is better: 13% 4. Locate the school closer to transit: 12% 5. The new school site is too close to busy streets (i.e. become busier during rush hour, unsafe drop off/pick up): 12%

During the information session, some home owners near Gordon Park expressed disagreement with the potential land exchange due to the anticipated view-line and scenery changes from their properties, as well as traffic impacts resulting from the location of school parking on-site.

A full summary of the survey is included in the appendix.

CONCLUSION:

➢ According to the public consultation, the public showed strong support for the potential land exchange between David Thompson Secondary school and Gordon Park. A new school is the safest option for the school community and building a new school while retaining the current students at the existing buildings is the least disruptive option for their education.

➢ During construction, the “Middle field” in Gordon Park would remain open and be accessible.

➢ Gordon Park Field users could be accommodated on District fields during the construction period. The District and VPB will work with alternate field sites in the vicinity of Gordon Park, such as John Oliver Secondary School and Tupper Secondary School, to accommodate Gordon Park’s user groups during construction. The alternate field sites would be upgraded to the same standards that are currently provided at Gordon Park.

Benefits of choosing the new school vs. a seismic upgrade option include: New School Seismic Upgrade The existing school remains in operation Current school size remains More accessible to transit stops Entire Gordon park remains in operation No more ongoing deferred maintenance No land exchange required New school facilities Potential for new and improved park facilities 21st century learning design

RECOMMENDATION(S):

It is recommended that:

The Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) approve a land exchange with the Vancouver Park Board (VPB) at Gordon Park/Thompson Secondary school subject to

4 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.2 - David Thompson Public Information Session Potential Land Exchange Option.docx

a replacement school being the best value funded option, and subject to the execution of a land exchange agreement between the VBE and VPB

Attachments:

1. Survey summary 2. Fact Sheet – David Thompson Land Exchange

5 S:\Facilities\FAC PLAN COMMITTEE\Reports\2019 Reports\2019-05-15 -May 15\ITEM 4.2 - David Thompson Public Information Session Potential Land Exchange Option.docx

David Thompson Public Information Session February 28, 2019 4:00pm ‐ 7:00pm David Thompson Gymnasium attendees encouraged to fill out feedback form via iPad Feedback collected from February 28, 2019 until April 19, 2019. Please indicate any of the following applies to you: Paper Online Total Parent of child attending the school 6 101 107 Parent of a child interested in attending the school 06161 student currently attending the school 17 97 114 student interested in attending the school 01111 local resident ( do not have children attending) 22 73 95 VSB staff member 11 27 38 local business owner 011 Park User 18 other, please specify 61723 Total 80 388 468

One option to achieve a seismically safe school is constructing a replacement school through a land exchange of David Thompson Secondary School and Gordon Park. The Park Board has requested that the School District seek public input on the land exchange Paper Online Total % option. Please check one option in response to the following statement: I support the idea of a potential land exchange between the Vancouver School District and the Vancouver Park Board. Agree 46 471 517 86% Disagree 20 65 85 14% Total 66 536 602 100%

Please check one of the following: The information provided at this public information session was helpful Paper Online Total % Agree 30 163 193 49% Somewhat Agree 20 67 87 22% Somewhat Disagree 212144% Disagree 910195% Not Applicable 0 81 81 21% Total 61 333 394 100%

Comment Paper Online Total A new school on the current Gordon park site is the optimal choice 06464 A new school is the safest option 04545 Renovating / upgrading parts of the existing school is better 01313 Locate the school closer to transit 01212 The new school site is too close to busy streets (i.e. become busier during rush hour, unsafe drop off/pick up) 01212 Unclear schedule for project completion 088 Replacement school on the same site 066 More thorough traffic study is necessary (i.e. impact on 49th Ave.) 066 Request to notify larger neighbouhood earlier 055 Keep the cafeteria program & provide adequate cafeteria space in the new school 055 Provide more transparent cost calculations for all options 044 Maintain/add more facilities for diverse age groups in the new Gordon Park 044 Locate the park away from busy roads 044 Avoid moving students into portables at swing sites 044 Preserve the Pin Oak trees surrounding the park 044 Add a community centre to the new school 044 Add a pool in the new school 044 Add daycare facilities either run by VSB or rented to other organizations 033 Move sports fields users to other sites to keep students in the existing school building 033 Include safe and designated pick up/drop off area (i.e. through road between the school and park) 033 Limit the disruption of the construction process (i.e. no construction during school hours, safety, noise control) 033 Add a track at the new school 033 Move students to swing site during construction 022 Include playing fields in the new school site 022 Keep all existing skill training labs in the new school 022 Replace the old playground on Gordon Park 022 Keep an auditorium and two gyms in the new school 022 Add better lockers and larger washrooms 022 Add turf fields to the new school 022 Keep community garden program 022 Build large enough school to include all students 022 The entire seismic upgrade program is a waste of money 011 Build playgrounds for younger students at the new school 011 Add elevators to the new school 011 Improve lighting at the school site for safety 011 Build larger classrooms at the school 011 Preserve student artwork on the wall 011 Younger students' opinions should be heard 011 Move community garden to keep sports field on the site 011 Add French programs 011 Affordable electric car charging stations 011 Anticipate more students from the densification of the neighborhoods 011 Don't change catchment area 011 Make the hallways wider in the new school 011 Provide more windows on the new school 011 Add staff parking in the new school 011 Provide a solution to asbestos in the current building 011 Total 0 253 253 David Thompson Secondary School Potential Land Exchange with Gordon Park

Fact Sheet

The District would like to know if you support the idea of a potential land exchange between David Thompson Secondary School and Gordon Park. At the community’s request, the District decided to extend the feedback period to April 19. Please submit your completed feedback form at govsb.ca/thompsonseismic

BACKGROUND INFORMATION • It is a top priority of both the Vancouver School District and the Ministry of Education to ensure all students attend seismically safe schools as quickly as possible. • The school opened in 1957 and has served Vancouver students and the neighbouring community well through the years. However, the facility is outdated and presents a high- seismic risk in the event of an earthquake. • As part of the province’s seismic mitigation program, the Ministry has asked the Vancouver School District to begin a feasibility study for David Thompson Secondary. • The following options are being considered as part of the feasibility study: 1. Upgrade the existing school within the same building structure. 2. Replace portions of the school on existing site 3. Replace the school on the existing site 4. Exchange of equal parcels of land between David Thompson and Gordon Park to build a replacement school on the existing Gordon Park site. • Options 1 to 3 will require students and staff to relocate to temporary accommodations until the project is completed. Option 4 does not require relocation. A preferred option has not been selected. • To continue the feasibility study on Option 4, we are seeking further input from the school community to learn if a land exchange option should be explored. If a land exchange occurs, the new park will be delivered through a Park Board- led design and engagement process. • Project information can be found here: govsb.ca/thompsonseismic_info. NEXT STEPS:  The District will review feedback from the school community and park users to help inform the decision regarding the potential land exchange.  A summary of the feedback will be shared with the District’s Board of Education and Park Board.  Once the feasibility study is complete, the Ministry and the District will jointly decide which seismic mitigation option would best serve the needs of David Thompson students and staff. Potential Future Site David Thompson中學與Gordon公園土地互調計劃 簡報

溫哥華校區希望了解你們對「David Thompson 中學與Gordon公園土地互調」的支持程度

應社區的訴求，校區決定將意見收集的期限延長到4月19日。請往以下網址govsb.ca/thompsonseismic 填寫意見表。

背景 • 溫哥華教育局和省教育廳一致地把確保所有學生能夠儘快在有安全抗地震功能的學校就讀看為最優先考慮 的工作。 • David Thompson學校創建於1957年，並一直為這個社區的學生提供教育。然而，它現有的設施已經過時，並 且其抗地震功能存在高度風險。 • 作為省級提升抗地震功能的可行性硏究計劃的一部份，省教育廳要求溫哥華教育局開始考慮將學校與公園土地 互調的可行性。 • 以下是可行性硏究計劃其中的一些選項： 1. 在現存校舍的結構下，提升其防地震功能 2. 在現有校址上，替換部分校舍 3. 在現有校址上，將整座校舍替換 4. 以相同的面積將校址和Gordon公園位址互調. • 在選項1-3的情況下，學生和教職員需要暫時被遷移到另一地點上課，直至升級工程完成。選項4則不需要這樣 安排。在現階段，當局並沒有一個較喜好的選擇。 • 為了繼續研究選項4，我們希望聽取這社區內公眾的意見，以了解是否可以探索這個選項的可能性。若果土地互調 方案被推行，一個新的公園將會興建，而公園局會領導設計和參與的過程。 • 有關此計劃的資料，可瀏覽網址: govsb.ca/thompsonseismic_info.

下一步  校區會參考從學校社區和公園使用者收集的意見，決定是否實行土地互調方案。.  収集的意見，會以撮要方式與校董局和公園局分享。.  當可行性研究工作完成後，省教育廳和校區會共同決定, 採納那一個提升抗地震工程方案能最佳提供 David Thompson中學學生和教職員的需要。

工程完成後的可能面貌 （公園整體面積不變） David Thompson Secondary Seismic Project Option of Land Exchange at Gordon Park

• Results of Public Consultation • Recommendation to Support Option of Land Exchange with Vancouver Park Board consent as one of the options being explored under the seismic mitigation program.

[Enter Date] Options considered for feasibility study 1. Upgrade the existing school within the same building structure 2. Replace portions of the school on existing site and seismically upgrade other portions. 3. Replace the school on the existing site 4. Exchange equal parcels of land between David Thompson and Gordon Park to build a replacement school on the existing Gordon Park site. Current State Potential Future Site Overview Public Consultation Summary

• February 28, 2019, a public information session was held at the David Thompson Gymnasium • 58 people signed in at the public information session • There were 609 completed feedback forms; 67 completed on paper, and 542 completed online as of April 15, 2019

• 86% of the survey respondents supported the option of the potential land exchange and 49% found that the information session was helpful Most frequent comments:

The five comments received most often through the feedback were:

1. A new school on Gordon Park site is the optimal choice: 64% 2. A new school is the safest option: 45% 3. Renovating / upgrading parts of the existing school is better: 13% 4. Locate the school closer to transit: 12.5% 5. The new school site is too close to busy streets (i.e. becomes busier during rush hour, unsafe drop off/pick up): 12% Other Considerations

• During construction, the “Middle field” in Gordon Park would remain open and be accessible.

• Gordon Park Field users could be accommodated on District fields during the construction period. The District and VPB will work with alternate field sites in the vicinity of Gordon Park, such as John Oliver Secondary School and Tupper Secondary School, to accommodate Gordon Park’s user groups during construction.

• The alternate field sites would be upgraded to the same standards that are currently provided at Gordon Park Recommendation

That the Vancouver Board of Education (VBE) approve a land exchange with the Vancouver Park Board (VPB) at Gordon Park/Thompson Secondary school, subject to a replacement school being the best value funded option, and subject to the execution of a land exchange agreement between the VBE and VPB Feedback from Committee and Next Steps