THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 68 REGULAR BOARD MEETING TO BE HELD WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015 – 6:00 PM BOARD ROOM A G E N D A Page 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chair will call the meeting to order and recognizes that tonight’s meeting is being held on the traditional territory of the Snuneymuxw people.
2. TRANSFER OF ITEMS TO OPEN MEETING AGENDA
3. ADDITIONS
4. DELETIONS
5. CHANGE IN ORDER
6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
7. SECTION 72(3) REPORT
7.1 Section 72(3) Report for May 27, 2015. 7 23 - May 27 15 S73.pdf
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMINDERS Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Special Board Meeting 4:00 pm Wednesday, September 9, 2015 Education Committee Meeting 6:00 pm Wednesday, September 16, 2015 Business Committee Meeting 6:00 pm Wednesday, September 30, 2015 Closed Board Meeting 4:00 pm Regular Board Meeting 6:00 pm
8.1 2015-16 Board & Committee Meeting Schedule 8 Board Meeting Dates 2015-16.pdf
9. CORRESPONDENCE
9.1 R. Fleming 9 - 10 MLA Victoria-Swan Lake RE: Standing up for Students
The Agenda Setting Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) that correspondence items 9.1 to 9.6 be received and filed.
Page 1 of 58 Procedure No. 1001 E(P) - Closed Meetings Policy No. 1070 - News Media Subject matter is restricted to salary negotiations; Communications personnel matters- acquisition, sale, lease, The Chairperson, or designate, shall be the official exchange, legal matters, confidential spokesperson to the news media for the Board. communication Page R. Fleming.pdf
9.2 C. Martin 11 RE: RDOS moratorium on smart meters C. Martin.pdf
9.3 I. Rongve 12 - 13 ADM, Knowledge Management & Accountability Division RE: International Education I. Rongve.pdf
9.4 D. Byng & T. Rezansoff 14 - 15 DM, Ministry of Education & President, BCSTA RE: Information and Discussion Forums D. Byng & T. Rezansoff.pdf
9.5 L. Warwick 16 - 17 Parent L. Warwick.pdf
9.6 R. Fleming 18 MLA, Victoria-Swan Lake RE: BC Liberals target 10 Vancouver Schools for Closure R. Fleming2.pdf
9.7 R. Pakosz 19 Parent RE: Facilities Plan
The Agenda Setting Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) to refer correspondence items 9.7 to 9.18 to the Updated Facilities Plan Review and Consultation Process. R. Pakosz.pdf
9.8 M. Robinson 20 - 21 Parent RE: School Closures M. Robinson.pdf
9.9 C. Waters 22 RE: Revised Facilities Plan 2015 C. Waters.pdf
9.10 T. Silver 23 - 24 Page 2 of 58 Procedure No. 1001 E(P) - Closed Meetings Policy No. 1070 - News Media Subject matter is restricted to salary negotiations; Communications personnel matters- acquisition, sale, lease, The Chairperson, or designate, shall be the official exchange, legal matters, confidential spokesperson to the news media for the Board. communication Page Parent RE: Proposed Closure of Departure Bay School T. Silver.pdf
9.11 C. Slobodan 25 - 27 Parent RE: Closure of Departure Bay Eco School C. Slobodan.pdf
9.12 J. Kurucz 28 - 29 Parent RE: Proposed Closure of Departure Bay Eco School J., D., A. Kurucz.pdf
9.13 T. Bray 30 - 31 Parent RE: Rutherford Opening and Thriving T. Bray.pdf
9.14 A. Mahony 32 - 37 RE: Closure of schools in SD68 A. Mahony.pdf
9.15 A. Manning 38 - 39 Parent RE: Proposed Closure of Rutherford Elementary A. Manning.pdf
9.16 H. Pedersen 40 - 41 RE: Rutherford H. Pedersen.pdf
9.17 J. Sage 42 Parent RE: Most recent facilities plan J. Sage.pdf
9.18 H. Boxrud 43 RE: Departure Bay Eco School H. Boxrud.pdf
9.19 K. Martinson 44 RE: Demolition of Harewood School
Page 3 of 58 Procedure No. 1001 E(P) - Closed Meetings Policy No. 1070 - News Media Subject matter is restricted to salary negotiations; Communications personnel matters- acquisition, sale, lease, The Chairperson, or designate, shall be the official exchange, legal matters, confidential spokesperson to the news media for the Board. communication Page The Agenda Setting Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) that correspondence items 9.19 to 9.21 be referred to staff for a response. K. Martinson.pdf
9.20 N. Hewitt 45 Parent RE: Sex Ed N. Hewitt.pdf
9.21 J. Lam 46 Director, Nanaimo Velodrome Association RE: Velodrome & Gym for Hammond Bay Elementary J. Lam.pdf
10. TRUSTEE ZONE REPORT
11. COMMITTEE REPORTS
From the Education Committee
From the Business Committee
11.2.1 Facilities Plan
The Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) that it receive the Updated Facilities Plan 2015-2021, and that they make a recommendation at the end of August in a Special Board Meeting.
11.2.2 Green Initiatives
The Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) that they explore the possibility of a district wide separation policy for all schools to include: plastics, metal, paper towel and compost and $1700 to support three (3) Green Network meetings per year: transportation plus one (1) annual project.
11.2.3 Trustee Composition
The Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) to direct staff to report on the process to reduce the number of Trustees from nine (9) to seven (7). This report is to be developed as a cost saving measure and to explore the possibility of converting to a ward system. Page 4 of 58 Procedure No. 1001 E(P) - Closed Meetings Policy No. 1070 - News Media Subject matter is restricted to salary negotiations; Communications personnel matters- acquisition, sale, lease, The Chairperson, or designate, shall be the official exchange, legal matters, confidential spokesperson to the news media for the Board. communication Page
11.2.4 BCTSA
The Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) they refer the discussion regarding potential cost savings/benefits in relinquishing membership with the BCTSA to the Meetings Format Committee.
11.2.5 Budget Surplus
The Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) direct staff to bring forward spending options following receipt of the 2014/15 Audit should there be a surplus.
11.2.6 Budget Process
That the Business Committee recommends to the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) that the financial projection for the present fiscal year is presented to the Board prior to approval of next year’s budget.
12. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
12.1 Presentation:
Dover Bay Learners Grade 8 & 9, Principal and Staff
12.2 Policy Review Update 47 - 48 Memo - June 22 2015.pdf
12.3 International Education Review
12.4 Administrative Review
13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
14. NEW BUSINESS
14.1 Mr. Roberts - Bylaw - AFG 49 - 54 AS for Capital Project Bylaw No 126868.pdf capital_bylaw 126868.pdf 2015_16 AFG.pdf Page 5 of 58 Procedure No. 1001 E(P) - Closed Meetings Policy No. 1070 - News Media Subject matter is restricted to salary negotiations; Communications personnel matters- acquisition, sale, lease, The Chairperson, or designate, shall be the official exchange, legal matters, confidential spokesperson to the news media for the Board. communication Page
14.2 Trustee Family of School Assignments
15. FOR INFORMATION
15.1 Board Motions Report as at May 27, 2015. 55 - 58 OS Reg Board Motions May 27 15.pdf
16. QUESTION PERIOD Questions from the audience must be submitted in writing and given to the Board’s Executive Assistant (Kelsey Toye) for submission to the Chair. The question period is intended to enable the public to obtain clarifying information regarding a current agenda item.
Forms are available in the information rack near the entrance of the Board Room
17. ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 of 58 7.1
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 68 (NANAIMO-LADYSMITH) Report of Closed Board Meeting held May 27, 2015
Minutes – Section 72(3) Report
(3) A board must prepare a record containing a general statement as to the nature of the matters discussed and the general nature of the decisions reached at a meeting from which persons other than trustees or officers of the board, or both, were excluded and the record must be open for inspection at all reasonable times by any person, who may make copies and extracts on payment of a fee set by the board.
Trustees S. Rae, in the Chair N. Bob J. Brennan T. Brzovic S. Higginson S. Kimler B. Robinson N. Routley J. Solomon
General Decisions Made by the Board
Personnel Matters
General Matters Discussed by the Board
HR Related Matters Asset Management
Page 7 of 58 8.1
The Board of Education Nanaimo Ladysmith Public Schools
PROPOSED SCHEDULED BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 2015-2016
2015 September 9, 2015 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting September 16, 2015 Wednesday Business Committee September 30, 2015 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
October 7, 2015 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting October 14, 2015 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting October 28, 2015 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
November 4, 2015 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting November 12, 2015 Thursday Business Committee Meeting November 25, 2015 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
December 2, 2015 Wednesday Inaugural Board Meeting December 2, 2015 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting December 9, 2015 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting December 16, 2015 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
2016 January 6, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting January 13, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting January 27, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
February 4, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting February 10, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting February 24, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
March 2, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting March 9, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting March 30, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
April 6, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting April 13, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting April 27, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
May 4, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting May 11, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting May 25, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
June 1, 2016 Wednesday Education Committee Meeting June 8, 2016 Wednesday Business Committee Meeting June 22, 2016 Wednesday Regular Board Meeting
May 2015
Page 8 of 58 9.1
KelseyToxe
Subject: FW:Standing up for students — update from Rob Fleming,New Democrat spokesperson for education
From: Rob Fleming [mailto:rob.f|eming.MLA@|eg.bc.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 5:07 PM To: KelseyToye
Subject: Standing up for students — update from Rob Fleming, New Democrat spokesperson for education
Dear friends,
As the spring legislative session draws to a close, education issues remain front and center in debates before the House. Controversial legislation in the form of Bill11 and school district budget cuts brought K-12 education issues into sharp focus.
Most B.C. education stakeholders had modest expectations of the 2015-16 budget, yet were shocked when the government betrayed its commitment to "fully fund the cost of the teacher's settlement.” The B.C.
Liberals instead forced $54 million in cuts to administrative school districts funding — described as ''low hanging fruit” by Premier Clark.
Sadly, the 2015 budget adds to the already estimated unfunded cost pressures of $192 millionsince 2014 (source: BCASBO).As a result, school districts have had to make tough decisions. A number of districts are looking at new transportation fees that could see families paying up to $700 annually for public school bus services while other districts contemplate the elimination of the service altogether.
During a 2013 election campaign announcement about school seismic upgrading, Premier Clark said, ”Absolute|y nothing is more important than keeping our kids safe” and re—committedto make every high—risk school seismically safe by 2020. Earlier this year, the government suddenly announced that the completion
date for all high risk schools awaiting seismic upgrades willbe postponed from 2020 to 2025 — or 2030 in some districts.
The 13 yearlong ongoing conflict between the B.C.Liberalsand B.C.’spublic school teachers led to the longest education strike in B.C.history. As the dispute dragged on, Premier Clark insisted her government's "number one priority” was to improve class composition. But 2015 Ministry data released last month shows that no improvements have been made.
Since last month's B.C.court of appeal decision, the government said it now wanted to forge better relationships with professional teachers and school districts —yet shortly after the ruling, the government passed Bill11 which the B.C.School Trustees Association and B.C.Teacher's Federation publicly opposed. This billthreatens to upset the balance of power and responsibilities for co-governance of our school system between the Ministry of Education and locally elected school boards.
Iwant to thank school boards, teachers, and parents for sharing their views on this legislation with me. You can watch my committee stage response to Bill11 by clicking here, or clickhere to watch the entire second reading.
Finally,just yesterday, I brought a motion to the house asking the government to stop attacking public feducationtpartnersiandtworktcollaborative|y'with'th'emrThisrcollaborationrwouldrsupportrqualityeducatiorr " * " "i
1
Page 9 of 58 9.1
and give all children the opportunity to meet their full potential.
While my caucus colleagues and I remain strongly committed to advocate on behalf of B.C.students and their educational needs, I am extremely disappointed that the government appears to no longer even consult with and consider the views of its stakeholders. As always, please feel free to contact me with your questions or concerns. Thank you for the work you do in advocating for students and public education.
Kindest Regards,
Rob Fleming MLAVictoria-Swan Lake New Democrat spokesperson for education
Ifyou would no longer like to receive emails fromme regarding education, please clickhere
Page 10 of 58 9.2
KelseyToye
From: Christel Martin
’ “m” ” Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 12:23 AM ' ' " W To: Diane Brennan; Alec McPherson;Colin Haime; Ian Thorpe; BillMcKay;Marc Lefebvre; Howard Houle;Jim Kipp;Bob Rogers; Julian Fell;George Holme;Jerry Hong; Teunis Westbroek; BillYoachlm; Maureen Young; BillWL Bestwick;Wendy Pratt; Joe Stanhope; BillVeenhof; Leonard Krog; Douglas Routley;Thomas Mulcair; ElizabethMay, MP; Paul Manly;Jean Crowder; Justin Trudeau; Jamie Brennan; Jeff Solomon; Scott Kimler;Steve Rae; Natasha Bob; Stephanie Higginson; KelseyToye; Tania Brzovic;Noah Routley;Bill Robinson; Jacob Gair; R.ElaineYoung; Julie Austin; Barry Kurland;Eve Flynn;Dr, Perry Kenda? Cc: PhilipWolf; MelissaFryer, Editor
Subject: LETTERS:RDOS moratorium on smart meters — Penticton Western News
Esteemed Leaders:
Several times now I have warned you that insurance companies are excluding exposure to EMR from their policies. Here's one from AVIVA:
"Risk is so fundamental to who we are that there are some risks that we simply willnot insure against. These include activities such as nuclear risks (Nuclear Act 1965); manufacture of tobacco; manufacture/sale or supply of arms; animal testing; war and toxic waste. Our exclusions also apply to liabilitycover for electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation; asbestos products; and genetically modified organisms — among other examples." llttp://www.avivacom/reports/2012cr/strategy—governance/risk
Lloyd's of London led the way in 2001, excluding liabilityfor third party injuryfrom EMR exposure by Big Telecom; now they exclude illness from EMR exposure, period.
Will you pay attention now that the insurance industry has vowed to sue every politician and bureaucrat who voted in favour of cell antennas, wifi routers, etc. despite knowing better?
Or willwe see you at Wreck Beach next, since you won't have anything left for shelter or clothing?
Christel Martin Nanaimo, B.C.
8 minutes on dangers of wireless radiation: lg?ttpsz//wvvwyoutube.com/watch?v=YOSbSurf6DU
Proud member: wvvw.citizensforsafetechnologyorg and Canadians for Safe Technology( C4ST.orgl
"Every man is guilty of all the good he failed to do.” Voltaire
Page 11 of 58 9.3
BI?.1TISH COLUMBIA June 12,2015
Ref: 182298
Boards of Education School District Superintendents School District InternationalEducation Programs British Columbia School Trustees Association InternationalPublic Schools Education Association
Dear International EducationPartners:
I am pleased to share an update with you regarding Minister Fassbender’s very successful trade mission to the People’s Republic of China and to Japan. From May 29 to June 4, 2015, MinisterFassbender,accompanied by Ben Stewart, British Columbia’s Special Representative in Asia, Deputy Minister Dave Byng and I, travelledto Beijing and Tokyo. The goal was to promote British Columbia’s educationprograms and services, reinforce the Province’s commitmentto internationaleducation, and strengthen relationships with governments and educationpartners in both countries.
While there were multiple, signi?cant outcomes from our meetings with Chinese and Japanese government and internationaleducation sector representatives, I am very pleased to draw your attention to the announcement of a new scholarship program for internationalstudents from China, Japan and South Korea n1adeby MinisterFassbenderduring a press conference in Beijing.
The Ministry is allocating a total of $150,000 of which $50,000 will be dedicatedto each of the three countries. In total, 120 internationalstudents from China, Japan and South Korea will receive $1,250 to study in British Columbia. Twenty students per country will be awarded scholarships to attend British Columbia K-12 schools, and another 20 studentsper country already enrolled in and graduating from British Columbia secondary schoolswill be awarded scholarships to attend British Columbia post-secondaryinstitutions.
Funding for these scholarships will come from cost~recovery revenue generated by British Columbia’s Global Education Offshore School Program. Details, criteria and procedures for the administrationof the scholarships will be developed in Fall 2015 in consultationwith sector representatives. The first awardswill be issuedin Spring 2016 for eligible students.
.../2
Ministry of Knowledge Management and Mailing Addvess: Tel: 250-356~6760 Educa?on Accountability Division PO Box 9146 Stn Prov Govt Fax: 250-953-3225 VlctoriaBC V8W9H1 www.gov.bc.bg/,1;_c_cLd
Page 12 of 58 9.3
The Minister’s scholarship announcement is one of a seriesof actions in the area of International Education that the Ministry of Education will undertakeover the coming year. The Ministrywill work with the sector to considerways to increaseopportunities for British Columbia students and teachersto experience study and life experiences abroad,and to bring more international students to study and live in BritishColumbia.
I look forward to being able to provide you a progress update on the scholarshipsand other related internationaleducation initiativesin the weeks ahead.
Sincerely,
),-r{/‘far" ‘W I Ian Rongve, Ph.D. Assistant Deputy Minister
Page 13 of 58 9.4
Bl{I'1“I51~I Ccanumism
June 15, 2015
Ref: 182476
All Board Chairs:
As the current school year comes to a close, we would like to highlight for you the efforts that are being made to both broaden and focus communicationbetweenthe Ministry of Education, BCSTA and Boards of Education.Open, effective two-way communicationhas been identi?ed as a priority and will remain so as we begin to plan for the 2015-2016 school year.
A number of speci?c actions have alreadybeen identi?ed and are being put into action. All Board of Education chairs, superintendents, senior schooldistrict staff as well as representatives of BCSTA will be invited to attend a full day information and discussion forum with Ministryof Education staff in Richmond/Vancouveron Thursday, October 22, 2105. Details for the event will be distributedby late summer, but the reinstatementof regular face-to-facemeetings is intended to provide both boardchairsand senior districtstaff the opportunity to both hear from, and have dialogue with, Ministry staff on any number of significant issues of interestto school districts.Please hold October 22 in your calendarsfor this important event.
In additionto the implementation of theseregular meetings, BCSTA and the Ministry will be working closely to ensure boards receive more regular updates as well as opportunities for input on emergent initiatives and issues.In the spirit of the co-governance MOU, it is our intent to provide more regular opportunities for both trustees and seniordistrict staff to review and respond to proposed initiatives and direction.The recent opportunity for review and input on the Frameworkfor Enhancing Student Learning would be an example of such processes.
The Ministry of Education will, however, still be reaching out to individualboards (including both BCSTA member—and non-memberboards) to discussissues where appropriate. Additionally,localboards of educationand their seniordistrictstaff should not hesitateto contact Ministry of Education representatives directly at any time as issues or concerns arise. Likewise, BCSTA will maintain the direct contact with individualmember boards on a wide variety of topics including further advocacy initiatives.
../2
Page 14 of 58 9.4
.2.
Thank you for your continuedcommitment to improving communicationand for sharing ideasat all levels. Whetherwe agree or disagree on speci?c issues, the sharing of information and perspectives is of value to all of us.
Sincerely, Sincerely
V , N‘/v ll..2’’ Dave Byng Teresa Rezansoff
Deputy Minister President — BC STA pc: All Superintendents All Secretary-Treasurers
Page 15 of 58 9.5
KelseyToye
Subject: FW:Responding as a Parent in SD68
Begin forwarded message:
From: LoriWarwick
First, Iwould like to say that I am sending this email as a parent, not as part of the Coalition. Attached is a copy of a post that I saw on Twitter this morning. I prefer to keep my response off of social media, as I don't believe that is always the best forum for these discussions. I am sorry that the Board feels this way. I really admire what the Cedar community accomplished withtheir Coalition. They fought hard to achieve something they strongly believed in. Neither I, nor the parents that I have talked to want to take this away, and I don't want to perpetuate the divisiveness that has plagued this district for so many years. However, as a parent in the district, I have a right and an obligation to advocate for my child’s education. Iwant to ensure that going forward, the decisions made by the Board willnot negatively impact my child. That is why I supported the Coalition, and encouraged our PAC members to support it as well.
So when I read this, Iwas disappointed. As a parent, I reflect back on the campaign platforms and the promises around openness and transparency. Iwent into this process with an open mind. Last night was a big step in the right direction. I am hoping the Board willsoon be in a position to share more informationwith parents, so we know how the facilities review will impact our children.
LoriWarwick Parent SD68
Coalition of Secondary School PACS Ratings: (0)[Views: 60|Likes: 0
Published by Scott Kimler
Page 16 of 58 9.5
After the SD68 school board conducted an (unrequired) public survey & voted to re—open Cedar School, as an 8-12 secondary school, trustees received a letter from an organisation that called themselves “The Coalition of Secondary School PACs“.
The following is the back-and~forth between the (unknown members) of the coalition & the SD68 board chair (who offered to meet with them). The coalition didn't want to meet and instead, they wrote a letter to the B.C. Minister of Education, Peter Fassbender, requesting a special advisor to review the work & decisions of the board.
(The coalition claims this isn't "about Cedar" or “a new NDSS", but we suspect it is. Give it a read and draw your own conclusions. Nanaimo has been obsessing over a new high school ever since 2008, when a newly-elected board reversed a plan to site a new school at Woodlands, putting it at NDSS instead & subsequently losing Ministry funding to the tune of $78MM.)
The current board is committed to improving education and meeting the unique needs of ALLour district learners (which includes Cedar, Ladysmith & other communities that are outside of Nanaimo proper).
More info: Categories:Types, School Work Published by: Scott Kimler on Jun 04, 2015 Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved Availability: Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android. download as PDF, TXTor read online from Scribd
Page 17 of 58 9.6
KelseyToye
From: Rob Fleming
Dear friends,
I'm writing you today with great concern about the Minister of Education's provocative and arrogant push to close 19 public schools in Vancouver and cut 115 teaching positions. Where did such a disruptive and ludicrous idea come from? These controversial recommendations released earlier last week come from a B.C.Liberal appointed ”Specia| Advisor” in a report commissioned by the Ministry of Education.
Imagine, just mere months after the longest school disruption in B.C.history finally ended — a dispute that at its core was about class size and composition —that the B.C. Liberalsnow resume an agenda to lessen the individual learning time kids have with their teachers while potentially imposing directives to sell off neighbourhood schools.
And why now? The province's own statistics agency shows B.C.'s public school enrolment growing by an additional 40,000 students by 2020. The Liberals interest in closing dozens more schools in Vancouver (and potentially elsewhere) is totally illogical and it won't benefit the education needs of students and families. Perhaps this cold accounting view seeks to distract the pub|ic’s attention from this government's incompetence that has led to record levels of deferred school maintenance and failure to keep its repeated promise to make our schools seismically safe.
Please clickthe linksbelow to see a media release and a video I published last week expressing my concerns regarding the potential closures and feel free to share with your networks far and wide. htt: bit.| 1KTbmho htt: bit.l 1MGvwdi
I worry that the B.C. Liberalsagenda is not about "putting families first" as they once promised, but instead about tapping into lucrative real estate sell offs of public assets —whilecontinuing its perpetual confrontation with teachers and elected school trustees. Education decisions should be based on what is in the best interest of our children and families to do well and get ahead in life. That is what should guide government's decisions to make investments that are in the best interest of the future of our province. Please feel free to contact me about this or any B.C.education concerns that you may have. Andthank you for your continued support and advocacy for public education.
Very best regards,
Rob Fleming Opposition Education Spokesperson MLAVictoria Swan Lake
Ifyou would no longer like to receive emails fromme regarding education, please clickhere
Page 18 of 58 9.7
KelseyToxe
Subject: FW:please forward to staff and trustees
--—--OriginalMessage—---- From: Pakosz [mai|to:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:42 AM To: Kelsey Toye Subject: please forward to staff and trustees
Hello Kelsey,
Ifyou could kindlyforward this for me I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Ronni
Good morning Trustees and Staff,
Upon reading the facilities plan that was released yesterday I have a couple questions. I'm sure you willhear from me again, or actually maybe you won’t...., but Ijust need to ask this so I am fully prepared to answer correctly when asked.
1. There willbe no consultation after all about which school will house the Cedar k-7,yes or no? Allthe way along we have been told their would be, and although I know there is information that may have come to light as to why that would change, people still believe they are going to be allowed a period of input.
2. Iwas under the understanding that the gr.7’s were removed from LSSbecause those younger kids "never should have been there", and now a 6-12, dependant on the grade 12 enrolment. So let me get this straight.....If my grade 12 doesn't return to CCSSalong with enough of his classmates, the grade 6's would come to CCSS? Would Wouldn't it have been prudent to have some parental input of what they would do with their high schoolers before the fact? I happen to know for sure this was suggested.
Consultation on what school we would put the k-7in would be one thing in September, but now this.....sigh....
Sincerely, Ronni Pakosz
Page 19 of 58 9.8
KelseyToye
From: Mark Robinson
Dear Nanaimo-Ladysmith School Board members:
Tonight I attended a packed room full of parents in Rutherford Community Elementary School's mu|ti—purposeroom.
There were a lot of concerns raised about the threat of closing this school. Many of the concerns were similarto those raised when Cedar Highwas threatened with closure» raised by several parents, three of whom sit among you now as trustees.
I have always been against school closures, and I have always insisted that alternative choices be made to ensure that all neighbourhoods have a school in close proximity for schooling.
The sad reality that I have recently accepted is that with declining enrolment, difficult steps need to be made in order to keep the district operational. That said, Ican assure you of several things:
The fact that Cedar was "saved" and is now struggling with having to add Grade 6 and 7 students to bump up the numbers was not lost on the parents; the fact that three trustees live in Cedar and had kids directly affected with the decision to convert Cedar High to a primary school was not lost on the parents.
Parents of McGirr and Randerson Ridge and FrankJ. Ney and Pleasant Valley are taking notice.
Rutherford is the choice school for my children aged 2 and 3. I went there from K-7.Ifyou think that the thousands of children and their parents willsit around and allow this board to close schools all around the district in order to help in saving one... you are mistaken.
What you experienced with the threat to shut schools in Cedar is what many more are experiencing now in the rest of the district.
And the fact that some of you called the previous board out for "not properly consulting" parents when you have not allowed the Rutherford parents to make a presentation on a topic that is indeed part of the agenda is undemocratic and quite frankly hypocritical.
Not allowing them to speak and suppressing their voice only adds to the growing chorus that will be singing the same tune come consultation time.
Remember: what you face now is what the previous board faced. However the previous board did not have a perceived conflict of interest insofar as having their children's school facing closure. This is a real perceived conflict of interest that you cannot shake.
And one that we parents cannot ignore.
Page 20 of 58 9.8
As a parent, Iam asking you to consider now what we are going through. You have gone through it; now you are putting us all through what you decried foul over and rose to overturn a facilitiesplan made by the previous board without even a proper consultation of the public.
No words can soothe the pain we parents are going through right now. You felt it, so why throw it back at the rest of us?
Put the "Trust" back in Trustees?
Still waiting....
For those of you who voted against the "new" facilitiesplan: thank you.
In the coming months you will hear from many, many parents. The only comfort is that you willappreciate what the previous board had to deal with.
Mark Robinson 5561 Turner Road Nanaimo BC 250-816-0798
Sent from my iPhone
Page 21 of 58 9.9
KelseyToze
From: charwaters
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed ‘
HiKelsey, ‘
I would like some clarification on a few things concerning Departure Bay Elementary I would first like to know ifthe graphs used in the Updated facilities plan httgzg[www.sd68.bc.ca[wQ~ content/uploads/Updated-Facilities-P|an«Presentation—June-10-Business—Committeepdf reflect the enrolment of the Learn@home K-7 at 3004 Departure Bay Rd, within the Departure Bay Elementary facilities Would this not be a factor in Capacity Utilization? If not included, why would these numbers not be included in the graphs? It would appear this lack of information in the graph makes DBSseem under utilized. Is the facility more well utilized than it appears in the graph? Could these numbers be adjusted to reflect the utilization of Departure Bay Elementary Schools Capacity there by increasing our enrolment considerably? I would appreciate any clarification on this matter.
Sincerely,
Char Waters
Page 22 of 58 9.10
KelseyToye
Subject: FW:Proposed closure of Departure BaySchool
From: Taryn Silver [mai|to:tarynmsilver@gmai|.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 8:13 PM To: Kelsey Toye; DPAC; Natasha Bob Cc: Taryn Silver;Lisa D Frey Subject: Proposed closure of Departure Bay School
Dear Ms. Toye and Ms. Bob,
I am writing as a concerned community member and parent of a 2 year old boy and a 3 year old girl living for the past 12 years in the Departure Bay neighbourhood. I myself grew up in Sherwood Forest and attended Departure Bay School myself in grades 6 & 7. When I decidedto move back to Nanaimo as an adult, the Departure Bay neighbourhood drew me in right away and it was a selling feature on my home that it was a close walk to Departure Bay School.
When I attended neighbourhood association presentations that the principal Lisa Frey put on a few years back about the Eco School Program I was very excited to enroll my children when they enter kindergarten in 2017 and 2018. The Eco program was just recently approved and is slated to officially begin i11September of this year however, now the school district's latest facilities plan includes closing Departure Bay in June of 20 16 and relocating those students to Rock City, Frank Ney, and Cilaire, The Eco school would then be housed at Cilaire. Which is said to be close to the beach. If you look at a ?at map of Nanaimo Cilarie is in fact very close to the waterfront, however it is perched on the top of a sandy cliff with limited steep access trails to the water. From Cilaire there would be access to the beach in two ways neither of which is ideal. At the bottom of the steep staircases of Beach Estates Park there is a mud?at near the ferry terminal and a rough rocky shorelineat the base of the cliff. To access beachfront at Departure Bay Beach that is really useable by a class full of children it is a 1.7 km walk each way down the high traffic and steep winding section of Departure Bay Rd. I wouldn't want to be the teacher responsible for walking a group of 20 ?ve year olds on either of these routes, nor the school board responsible for the liability. Departure Bay School is much better situated in close proximityto and has good level pedestrian access to Woodstream Park, Departure Creek, Wardroper Park, and Departure Bay Beach. This location makes far better sense for the Eco-school.
According to the numbers in the graphs in the FacilitiesPlan Cilaire Rock City and Frank Ney are already operating near full capacity and would require renovations or the addition of portables. It seems ridiculousto be building on when another school sits unused for district programming. I am involved in a working group with a Mid Island Youth and Community Development Co-op to help plan the grounds at Departure Bay and there are draft plans to be reviewed at the next meeting Tuesday June 16th. It comes as quite a shock that the schoolis now slated for closure in just one year's time.
The other concern I have is with how the enrollment data is presented in the Facilities Plan. It is statedthat enrollment for Departure Bay school is declining when in fact, the numbers in the graphs includedsay that it isnt actually declining. Departure Bay is also housing the Learn at Home Program and I don't believe these numbers are includedwhen they look at what percentage of the capacity a school is using. I have no idea where they you get the projected enrollment data from considering the federal census data is no longer available.As a parent of two preschool children I have never been surveyed about which schooling option I am planning for my children. I have talked to a number of parents of preschoolers both within the catchment and in other parts .1
Page 23 of 58 9.10
of Nanaimo who are seriously considering the Departure Bay Eco-school option for their children.It's kind of all the buzz in the Strong Start classroomsand the hot topic of discussionon a few Facebook forumsrecently. A number of people are waiting to see how the first year of the program goes before making a ?nal decision. Some may reconsider if the program is moved to Cilaire.Startingthe Eco-school program for one year at Departure Bay and the uprooting it doesn't give it a fair chance to get off the ground. The Eco-schoolis also one source of additional revenue for the school district in tight budgetary times, but the community and parents are not going to want to invest in something they don't envision being stable.
I hope you will consider this input in the decisions in front of you at the next meeting.
Sincerely, Taryn Silver
2920 Haliday Cres. Nanaimo BC V9T lBl (250) 758~l644 ta1‘ynrnsilvcr(EDgmail.c0m
Page 24 of 58 9.11
KelseyToye
Subject: FW:Closure of Departure BayEco School
From: chelsea dawn [mailto:oliole@|ive.ca] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:05 PM To: Kelsey Toye; Natasha Bob Cc: ec|[email protected]; DPAC; Chelsea Reisinger Subject: Re: Closureof Departure Bay Eco School
June 15, 201 5 Kelsey Toye and Natasha Bob
CC: Peter Fassbender, DPAC
Dear Ms. Toye and Ms. Bob,
I am writing as a concerned community member and parent of four children who attend. Departure Bay Eco School (ages 10, 9, 7, 7). We have also resided in the Departure Bay neighborhood for the past 8 years.
The Eco program was just recently approved and is slated to officially begin in September of this year however, now the school district‘slatest facilities plan includes closing Departure Bay in June of 2016 and relocating those students to Rock City, Frank Ney, and Cilaire. The Eco School would then be housed at Cilaire. Which is said to be close to the beach? If you look at a flat map of Nanaimo Cilarie is in fact very close to the waterfront, however it is perched on the top of a sandy cliff with limited steep access trails to the water. From Cilaire there would be access to the beach in two ways neither of which is ideal. At the bottom of the steep staircases of Beach Estates Park there is a mud?at near the ferry terminal and a rough rocky shorelineat the base of the cliff. To access beachfront at Departure Bay Beach that is really useable by a class full of children it is a 1.7km walk each way down the high traffic and steep winding section of Departure Bay Rd. I wouldn'twant to be the teacher responsible for walking a group of20 ?ve year olds on either of these routes, nor the school board responsible for the liability. Departure Bay School is much better situated in close proximity to and has good level pedestrian access to Woodstream Park, Departure Creek, Wardroper Park, and Departure Bay Beach.This location makes far better sense for the Eco—school.
According to the numbers in the graphs in the Facilities Plan Cilaire Rock City and Frank Ney are already operating near full capacity and would require renovations or the addition of portables. It seems ridiculous to be building on when another school sits unused for district programming. As well, coming as quite a shock that the school is now slated for closure in just one year's time,
Page 25 of 58 9.11
The other concern I have is with how the enrollment data is presented in the Facilities Plan. It is stated that enrollment for Departure Bay School is declining when in fact; the numbers in the graphs included say that it isn't actually declining. Departure Bay is also housing the Learn at Home Program and I don't believe these numbers are included when they look at what percentage of the capacity a school is using. I have no idea where they you get the projected enrollment data from considering the federal census data is no longer available... A number of people are waiting to see how the ?rst year of the program goes before making a ?nal decision. Some may reconsider if the program is moved to Cilaire. Starting the Eco—schoolprogram for one year at Departure Bay and the uprooting it doesn't give it a fair chance to get off the ground. The Eco—schoolis also one source of additional revenue for the school district in tight budgetary times, but the community and parents are not going to want to invest in something they don't envision being stable.
I have the following questions that I would like the board to answer with respect to your decision to close my child:ren’s school;
1. Is Cilaire Elementary School on Crown Land? 2. Didthe stats include the Learn@home K-7 program that shares our building? Presently L@H uses 3 classrooms at Departure Bay Eco—Schoo| and has over 100 students enrolled in that program. 3. The school's population over the last two years has grown, not just with the eco—schoo|. Despite being named as a school possible to close in the past. People are choosing to move into our neighbourhood because of the school and location. We have attracted people from out of district and those who live in our district but previously chose private schools. We have not been given the opportunity show that we can reach capacity. 4. In the Proposed 10-year facilities for learning plan a defined timeline was laid out to allow for building upgrades and transition. Can the closure of Departure Bay Eco—school be delayed until the receiving Schools have the upgrades to successfully accept our children? 5. What about before and after/schoolday care programs? Willthe receiving schools be able to accommodate our children into their before and after school programs? 6. How will they decide to split up our children into these 3 schools? 7. How would the current out—of~catchment students attending DBESbe handled? Is there space to send them to their catchment schools? 8. What would be the functional capacity of FrankJ. Ney and Cilaire become with the renovations/additions? 9. Have safe walking routes and public bus schedules been looked at? Are there plans to address safe walking routes? Besides distances, has the ease to access the school for children been considered i.e. large hillsthat willtake time to walk? Will bussing or coordinating with city transportation be addressed? 10. How willreceiving Schools absorb Departure Bay Eco—Schoo|? Parents questions and concerns.
Page 26 of 58 9.11
11. In the June 10, 2015 report it does not provide a comprehensive plan or timeline to ensure successful transition of our children into the 3 separate schools. 12. Concerns with earthquake safety and moving to sites that are less safe structurally. 13. What is the plan to address parking/pick-up/drop-off and increase traffic congestion into those neighbourhoods? (with increased students and staff) 14.|s there a plan to address RockCity being over capacity for the next ten years? The report did not address this. 15. Who willfund the rebuild (Ci|aire) and new wing (FrankJ. Ney) the District or Ministry?
Has any of this funding been guaranteed or secured? « 16. Are the receiving school gyms big enough to safely house whole school activities? Will it meet fire code? Will it disrupt school activities i.e. assemblies and family events i.e. concerts? 17.Wi|| gym classes, music, computer and library time have to be cut down or willclasses have to double up? 18. Will we have to house children in portables? Will portables be accessible to all children? Are portables acceptable learning environments? 19. Willwe have to house children in portables? Willportables be accessibleto all? 20.Playground access— What would be the plan to ensure safe access with so many students and few playground structures and space? Would the schools be forced to have separate recesses for primary and intermediate students to accommodate this? Would there be funding to add more playground structures?
I appreciate you taking the time to read andrespond to this and hope you will consider my input into the decisions regarding Departure Bay Eco School at your next meeting. Chelsea Slobodan olio1c(cDlivc.ca250-618-2087
Page 27 of 58 9.12
KelseyToze From: Jennifer Portice
Hello all,
My name is Jennifer Kurucz. Iam a mother to a beautiful nine month old daughter. I am writing to you today to express my concerns over the proposed closure of Departure Bay Eco School.
Igrew up in the Departure Bay area and attended Departure Bay Elementary School. Two years ago my husband and I bought a house walking distance to the school. We had hopes that our children would attend Departure Bay. We heard shortly after moving to the area that it was slated to close and were very disappointed. One can guess the delight we experienced to hear that not only was it staying open, but it had been chosen to be an Eco School! Now more than ever this school lines up with our ideals. We have taken every chance to support the school by attending their community functions. We are very sad to hear that Departure Bay Eco School is once again on the chopping block.
Departure Bay is the perfect location for the Eco School. Classes can safely walk to the beach, to Woodstream Park, see salmon habitats and help bring attention to this diverse eco system. This school has already in its first year, before its official Academy title: seen increases in student testing scores, become a sought out school for other catchment areas, seen increased student engagement, and had a positive impact on our community. I could talk for hours on the benefits of the location of the Eco School program.
In regards to Cilaire Elementary becoming the new purposed location for the Eco School Academy, I have many concerns. Students that will be moved to Cilaire Elementary will have to use public transit or drive to school. Though it appears on a topographical map that Cilaire Elementary is close to the ocean, it is not. The closest access to the beach is a steep hike down a path that needs some repairs, via Beach Estates Park. The path runs next to a waterfall and the majority of the path has no division of path and water. The stairs along the path are rotting and missing stairs. The ground is uneven and riddled with tree roots. It is a beautiful walk, but I believe a big risk for a teacher supervising many students. As a matter of fact last time I walked the path, Itripped on a tree root that was exposed due to natural erosion.
In regards to making room for new students to other schools. The road in front of Cilaire Elementary is very busy. The school zone is awkward and is regularly overlooked by drivers who cruise through at 50km/h.The school grounds do not have the option of expanding. I do not believe that portables are an option for this school, nor do I believe many would fit in the land. RockCity Elementary is at full capacity. Frank Ney Elementary is quite the commute for families livingin the Departure Bay area. Frank Ney Elementary is also In need of seismic upgrades. Closing a school that has stood for decades in favor of portables, which are a less than ideal learning environment is not fair to our children. Portables will also take up valuable space for our children to play and get necessary physical activity.
As far as enrollment at Departure Bay Eco School is concerned, I believe the statistics are missing information. This school houses the Learn At Home program and these numbers have not been included in enrollment. The school has a wait list already! Ialso think that it speaks volumes to hear from a parent four years before the intended enrollment period. I know that many parents are rallying around the same cause. I hope we get your attention and you can see how truly beneficial this school is to our community.
Page 28 of 58 9.12
I want to thank you so much for you time and consideration. I look forward to hearing back from each of you. "Go Dolphins!"
Truly Jennifer, Darren and Acacia Kurucz
Page 29 of 58 9.13
KelseyToze Subject: FW:Rutherford Open 8LThriving
June 18, 2015
Trustee Rae
I would like to draw your attention to the attached letter. I wrote this to be in support of a Rutherford presentation that was requested for next Wednesdays board meeting. However, our PAC president was informed that the district was not receiving input yet on this issue. I realize that the business case is not built and prepared for public feedback. Input on the SD68 senior staffs upcoming perspective is not the conversation I was seeking with you.
I would really like you to consider this situation as it presents to the public. SD68 senior staff have put this issue before the trustees in a public forum and involved Rutherford. In doing so, they have chosen to ignore all the previous decisions and recommendations with regards to north end schools. They have ignored the very difficult decisions of multiple Boards of Trustees. They have discounted many years of previous staff's efforts, multiple consultants, many public forums, surveys, letters, presentations that led to those decisions over the last decade. Now, they are asking permission from you to spend even more taxpayer dollars to attempt reinventing the wheel, with what appears to be an even smaller perspective on the issue. Thisis the issue that is pertinent, this week. This is the issue before the board this week, that I as a taxpayer and parent of four children in SD68 schools wanted to discuss. Instead, we have been told that the door is closed and we should stay silent until our senior staff are fully ready to defend themselves with a case to close Rutherford school? Please explain to me how this is OK with you?
Thank you for your feedback,
Tina Bray
Rutherford Elementary and Dover Bay Parent
Page 30 of 58 9.13
June 17, 2015
School District 68 Trustees
My name is Tina Bray. Iam a Rutherford Elementary Parent. Three of my children are at Dover Bay after going K-7 through Rutherford and my youngest has three more years at Rutherford. I have in the past been very involved in discussionsaround facilities renewal, advocated for an opening ofa daycare and the Strong Start Centre at Rutherford. I understand that in your current capacity, many of you are new to this conversation with regards to Rutherford. I hope you realize that there are many others who are not.
We've spent years thoroughly reviewing everything remotely related to school facilities and community planning, had a very public and exhaustive process result in a unanimous vote to keep Rutherford Elementary open. Following this, it was proposed that the issue of building inefficiencies be addressed by applying to rebuild Rutherford on the same site. At this time Rutherford Elementary was declared one the best school sites in the province which should be kept and invested in.
Now, you have presented the possibility of returning to conversations around the closure of Rutherford. There has been no new information added, no new reasoning, essentially nothing that would make this idea more appealing than it was previously. On the contrary, there have been some changes that make the plan seem less likelyto succeed. So, forgive me for my frustration but I have to ask, why do you believe that you willcome to a different decisionabout Rutherford? The facts have been played and replayed in public forums for more than a decade. Based on that research, other Central & North end schools were closed / consolidated and Rutherford kept open. I have to wonder if this is being pursued because you feel any proposal you put forward has to have a north end target?
School closures and consolidations in central and north Nanaimo have already happened. if Rutherford was needed before other schools were closed, it is going to be needed now. On that issue numbers won't lie, no matter how you crunch them. Likemany BCschools, the building is old. Thankfully, the portables that used to line the fields are no longer needed. it has been reviewed on more than one occasion and determined that SD68 will need Rutherford as an Elementary school site, now and in the future. Even those that support "conso|idations” have eventually come to know this. What remains in the north end is not a capacity issue, it is funding issue. Bringing Rutherford and neighboring schools through another consultation process that is likelyto lead to the same result, will not change this. What it willdo, is take away from the abilityof the senior staff and trustees to focus on the areas ofthe district that have been waiting to have legitimate, concerning issues addressed.
I respectfully encourage you to allow yourselves the ability to focus on the areas of the district that have been asking for adequate time and attention and take Rutherford off the list for closure consideration now.
Thank you
Tina Bray, Rutherford Elementary Parent
Page 31 of 58 9.14
June 19, 2015
2554 Cosgrove cres Nanaimo, B.C. V95 3P3
Members of the SD68 school board and Leonard Krog, MLA
Re: closure of schools in SD68
I'd like to comment on the data presented in the facilities plan 2015-2021. This data has been used to formulate decisions regarding school closures. Iam concerned that poor understanding of the data has perhaps led to a decision to close schools when a proper analysis of the data may have led to alternate conclusions.
Iam going to use DB Eco School as a primary example, but most of my arguments can be applied to the other schools as well. As a disclaimer, I do have a child at DB Eco School and am very happy there and would like to see it remain open.
I'd first liketo ask if any of the members of the board or the MLAhas visited DB Eco School? It might be worth a visit before making such a drastic on—paper decision.
In the faculties plan for 2015-2021, I am most disappointed at the simplicity of the data provided (not enough) and the poor data analysis used to make the decision to close the schools. I understand schools may have to close, but I am very concerned that the conclusions drawn here are based on other motivations not represented in the data.
With poor data analysis, SD68 may be misdirected into closing a school that is in fact growing and not closing a school that is in fact, not growing. These i||—informed decisions will likelylead to greater cost inefficiencies In the future.
I have 12 points of concern that I would like to get responses for:
Page 32 of 58 9.14
Points of concern:
1. The most obvious data analysis flaw being a description of 'enrollment declining’ and ’negative student flow’ at DBEco School. Page 9 of your report shows exactly the opposite trend. In fact, the numbers are increasing for the last 2 years. The exact numbers are absent from your table on page 5. Why is this?
V_7lt,JblI_*'J|-.'t“\V" v_,;_--A. ,* <1’.
FlmttlolznlGilbacly :1 Enml lillllhillnn nepmure Bay 215 ‘l?-4 67% Cllalre 205 195 97% 2 Rock City 317 S22 1D2% /1 Frank Nev 205 221 I087» 2 ‘ UIJenrolment included In other sdioabi 2
Departure Bay
-— — —— no - 7» ~ ~ 7
mo -_- ~ -- I —»
— — — so , V l
J. .— .. «7 —— — 2013 mm 2015 me 2017 zozt mm
mm Enrolment ---- «Capacity
2. With the new ‘Eco’status attained by the school, it is almost impossible to get accurate expected numbers for future enrolments. Where did you get these projected numbers from? What are the projected numbers from the principal of DB Eco School for 20152016?
3. In the table on page 5, where is the data from 2015? Why did you only include data from 2014? Where is the historical data? At least include information from 2010-2015. Taking information from just one year is not representative of a trend; it is only a snap shot and does not support the conclusion of declining enrolment.
4. The first 2 historical graphs show data going back to 1999, so why not also do this on a school- by-school basis, as to get a more complete story of what is going on and how neighbourhoods are changing?
5. For the historical graphs presented on page 4, the axes are different in scale when trying to make comparisons over the years. This is very misleading and very basic data presentation error. These two graphs should be combined.
6. Despite the changes in axis values, it is evident in the first graph that a natural decline in elementary school enrollment can be seen from the years 1999-2007.This same trend can be seen in the high school data, just as expected, exactly 5 years later. If you didn't split the graphs and change the axis, it would be apparent that we are currently in the upswing of elementary
..-».:~zv_4tev:
Page 33 of 58 9.14
school enrollment. This stands to reason that we willbe expecting more students, not less, in the coming years.
?eidlwwmdowtkb 0 lpgggag ’hLs_l,_;._[ :9?-4-“E|HE]rE{31k§)V 'nTa§§§;$."§“?Z‘§‘n§$ »
HistoricalEnrolment 1999-2014
msm —. . —— .
, mmmww .l -..—El:ln5I\l:|y —--semnnavv
Enrolment Projection 2015-2025
1015 ms mm me we mm
...«:Elementuv£:pa 7. The ratio representing school condition seems misleading. Facilities Condition Index is determined by: Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Deficiencies of the Facility(—ies) FCI= ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— -- Current Replacement Value of the Facility(—ies) What are the actual numbers for repair? The FCIis a ratio only and ratios, by definition are proportional. So, a FCIof 0.41, as listed for DB Eco School could mean it would cost $41 for repair based on a $100 value of the school. Or, it could mean that it would cost $4,100,000for a school worth $100,000,000. What are the absolute numbers? I'd imagine most schools have a similar value, so the cost of the repair would be the main driver of the FCIvalue. Why not report this information? Ifa budget reasons are a concern, why not report this data? Ifyou don't group the FCIinformation, you get the following graph: Page 34 of 58 9.14 ’ _, ______. ,.__, , ._,,, , ._ .. J] . V7 0.4. L V “k “ " U 'i" 'l l‘ l V l l‘ ‘l '1" l' l '7' l I - I "I 'i"i «%§.€5'5'i8-"3§~E%%%$5%AE%%$-E 5,5 ml?‘-’Z°E‘°:'n"‘“5‘S‘s‘§§5v9=i35-‘3" $5 -V —- \ - ‘U $9 on ,: .9 3 >- m 61 > ._ 4.: : 13 M E 7’ E D‘ :5 8 4: E '5 at? “’ "J :1 :23 C 4? ‘V E -1'5 w 3 “- "3 "’ 3’ 3 4: oz ,‘%,45 5 m g ‘:3 .2 8 o "g 0: 5 g t: cc 2’; '5» m ‘E 3 U. m rt: ‘“ ’° '5 (U 0 cl: :3 D. 9 h, 0 m C5’ 3 E ‘ The red line represents the average FCIvalues: The average FCIis: 0.343 with a standard deviation of +/-0.089 Uplands appears to be among the schools requiring the most repair. Was this school considered? Cilaire and DB Eco School have almost equivalent values. Cilaire is 2 stories tall. What impact does this have on repair costs? Baragar 2014 is given as a reference under the main table. What is this reference? Again, this is an extraordinarily BASICreference error. How would someone else be able to obtain this data and reproduce these results? Where is the projection data coming from? Since the long form census was cancelled, where is the data coming from? My city taxes certainly don't reflect how many school-aged children I have and where they might be going. Actual enrolment in Cilaire and DB Eco School differs by 15 children. The main reason DB's enrolment looks so bad is that the capacities are different and that is driving the enrolment numbers. This changes the reason the school's enrolment looks like it is low, when in fact, it isn't. What are these capacities based on? Number of rooms? What does under-used capacity mean in terms of cost? The number of students enrolled in DBvs Cilaireare very comparable, as are Frank] Ney and Rutherford. Has Bayview or Brechinbeen considered? V _ <.—Qff—gj: - A‘, Page 35 of 58 9.14 2014/2016enrollment .._.._,., .. e_T.___._.___.._._.. , , _ ,. ., .,_ . .. . . 1.. 350 A -—'~ ll!2014 enrol l2016 enrol 10. Graphs on pages 7, 9, and 12 comparing the school-to-close with the surrounding school's enrollment is also misleading. You added the number of students to be moved to the school onto the same graph! This should be separated to be made more clear. Also, again the axis scales are different. They should be set the same or placed on the same graph. 11. Why is over-capacity not a problem? 12. These recommendations go against almost all of the information you gathered in ‘YourVoice 2015'. What was the point of that survey? How much did that survey cost the district? The majority of the comments gathered in that survey highlight administrative cuts. Was this option explored? For the ‘Rationale for Closure’, you state for Departure Bay: Inability to expand on existing property (placing portables on site) — Has anyone been to DB Eco School? The fields are very large and could support numerous portables. Also,you just stated that a reason for closing it is UNDER CAPACITY,so clearly it has more room to accept other students. Declining enrolment — this conclusion is completely false based on the data provided. A ‘ ‘ ' ‘ ’ ‘ ‘ A lI.l Mountain‘/iew~GeorgiaPleasantLadsmithDepartureLadysmithParkChaseFrank}ForestRutherfordRandersonCoalCinnabarGabrielaFalrviewSeaviewUpiandsBayviewAvenueBrechinMcGirr\/alieyCilaireRiverTyeePrimParkNevBayint __‘:_.‘L_'M‘1‘'0A f:V.'" -“ '4OLnL— C)3nlI.Numerofstsudents5Ol ONAlnL U1l\IC)vu lt Page 36 of 58 9.14 Facillty condition — must be put into the context of actual dollars. My understanding is that DB is in better shape, earthquake-wise. Also,it is single story, as is Rockcity, relative to Cilaire that is 2 stories tall. I'd imagine a second story lends a certain risk to the earthquake readiness of a building. Negative student flow — again, look at your own numbers. This is an incorrect conclusion based on the table on page 5 and the graph on page 9. Location within zone — what about it? Ifyou want to close the school because it just happens to be the school in the middle of 3 schools located on a road with the same name, just say so. What are you basing this decision on? Benefits of DB Eco School that you may not have considered: 1. With its larger capacity, it has the ability absorb other students from other schools. Neighbouring schools are already at capacity. 2 minute walk (and SAFE!)to Departure Bay beach 1 minute walk to a salmon-bearing stream (Woodstream). Cilaire is also close to a stream, but if you have visited it, it does not contain a salmon run and it is a dangerous stream for kids to get close to. 1 minute walk to Sugarloaf mountain (of geological interest) 15 minute walk to the Pacific BiologicalStation Departure Bay road at this point is much calmer than Departure Bay road at Brooks Landing. Single story Very large fields 2 playgrounds where one has been recently upgraded 10. Community involvement is evident with planter boxes and gardens at the front of the school. 11. Proximity to First Nations sites. Thank you for your time, Amelia Mahony ‘9P°.".°‘E-"‘:’> E“ Page 37 of 58 9.15 KelseyToye Subject: FW:Letter for the June 24th Board meeting Hello, My name is Allison_Mar1ning.I am a mother to a beautiful baby girl that is 8 months old. I am sending you this email to express my concerns over the proposed closure of our neighbourhood school Rutherford Elementary. Although my daughter is a few years away from even attending school, I feel that as a future student to Rutherford it is our job to help keep it thriving. I am born and raised here in Nanaimo. When my husband and I decided to purchase our ?rst house we looked very hard for the perfect neighbourhood. We wanted a quiet cult de sac with a highly recommended Elementary school that was within walking distance for our children that we wanted to have. When we talked to some people in the area we knew this was it. We had to buy in this catchment to go to this school. After we had moved in we heard from our neighbours that a few years back the school was listed as one to be possibly closed, but had been overturned and was going to thrive. We were ecstatic and couldn’t wait till the day we would get to walk our childrento their first day of school. However, our dreams have been temporarily crushedwith the thought of the proposal to close our school. Rutherford school has been amazing in our neighbourhood. We just ?nished having our annual fun fair that is truly a great night for the children and the community around. The community spirit at the event was so uplifting, even under the thought of the proposal from the school board in the back of everyone’s minds. Our school also houses the life skills program that is essential to children in Nanaimo. These kids need this program to help them through difficulttimes as they grow into teenagers. I believe that changingthe location of this program will be detrimental to these kids that thrive on learning in an environment that they are used to and love to go to. In fact I have a neighbour with a son that has attended Rutherford School. The difference in him from when we ?rst moved to the neighbourhood, to when he graduated from there is amazing. He has grown into a terrific young man. I believe with the great support he had at Rutherford this helped him. My concerns about putting the kids into the outlying schools weigh heavily on a lot of parents minds. With putting them in Frank Ney that school is running 108% capacity already. Which indicates that kids will be put into portables until the so called expansion is in place. Portables are not an ideal learning environmentfor any child. Especially when it can be avoided by leaving Rutherford school open. The property that this school is on is also not as big as it should be to house that many kids. Currently kids are using the city park and harry Whipper Park for some outdoor activities. I ?nd this unacceptable, especially since they have to cross a stream to get there. As for Randerson School they are already at 90% capacity. Yes you could put a few children there, but in the next few years the development right behind them in Linley Valley will be finished and there will be no room for the kids in Randerson. So then Rutherford would be the over?ow for Randerson. Nowhere in the proposal does it reference Linley Valley or any housing developments that are on the rise. So a childthat lives right across the street might not be able to go to his own school because it’s full of out of catchmentkids. Also 1 Page 38 of 58 9.15 Mcgirr is running at 104% capacity already. That is not including the kids that they would put there. So it is already running at an unacceptable level. If we put all of our Rutherford children into these outlying schoolsit will detrimental to them. How do we expect our kids to learn when the classrooms are so overcrowded? And if portables are going to be placed on the school grounds at all of the schools imagine how much room that will take up. That space should be used for physical activity which is also necessary for our kids. I also understand that the school does need upgrades, but out of all the schoolsin Nanaimo there are far worst structures that aren’t even on the plan. I was under the impression that Rutherford was on the list to have renovations last year. What happened to that plan? I worry that if Rutherford school gets shut down what will happen to the beautiful grounds that it sits on. It is thriving right now, but years from now will it be decrepit and a skeleton of its former days. As our cities grow we are losing green spaces as it is. Closing this school will be just one more area that has less green space. Not to mention if the school was to shut, what will happen to the property, will it be sold to subsidise futureprojects and budgets? Then when all the schools that are left are so full and we need to build another school again, at what cost will it be to buy another piece of land to build again rather than keeping the existing school in place. Keep this neighbourhood thriving and Keep Rutherford School open. So please take into consideration everyone’s concerns. We as a community have our hearts and heads vested into Rutherford School, its students, and staff. I would love the opportunity that most nanaimoiteshave, and walk my daughter to her ?rst day of school and every day after that. Although we have been turned down from being able to present at this week’s board meeting, I am hoping that this letter makes its way into the meeting to be heard. Thank you very much and see you at the next board meeting. Sincerely, Allison, Scott, and Carley Manning Page 39 of 58 9.16 KelseyToxe Subject: FW:Rutherford From: Heather [h|[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 8:40 AM To: Scott Kimler Subject: Rutherford June 19, 2015 Dear Trustee Kimler, I am writing to you with regards to the proposal to close Rutherford School in June 2016. A significant component ofthis proposal is moving the District Lifeskillsprogram to another location. I am a recently retired Student Support Teacher, having spent 20 years at Rutherford School. When the Lifeskills Program was first moved to Rutherford approximately 13 years ago, it was done after painstaking consideration that involved a very experienced teacher as well as a committee of District employees. They toured a variety of facilities within the District and deemed that the site at Rutherford was by far the most suitable. These factors includedthe amount of space available, the physical location of the available space within the school, outdoor access, and the ability to renovate the rooms to meet the unique and complex needs. Once this decision was made, a great deal of renovations occurred in order to accommodate the students. Liftsand ramps were installed, bathrooms were created as was additional storage, a kitchen area, a laundry area, a quiet space, an indoor exercise area and an outside fenced playground. Thiscame at a significant monetary cost 13 years ago. One can only estimate what these costs would be in today's market. The students in the Lifeskillsprogram are the neediest within this district. They require very specialized equipment as well as resources. Equipment such as bicycles, wheelchairs, walkers all take up a great deal of space. At Rutherford the Lifeskillsprogram occupies two oversized classrooms and one fu||—sized classroom, and this is not excessive. Even with two washrooms and a change table area, there are frequent times that there are |ine—upswaiting to use these facilities. The Lifeskillsprogram at Rutherford has been very successful. The community of students and parents has embraced the children and they are integrated at every opportunity possible. They attend assemblies, they manage the milk program, they deliver attendance sheets, they visit classrooms and participate in appropriate activities, and they participate in recess and lunch play periods. It has been stated that the Lifeskillsprogram should be in a more central location. I ask you to consider deeply ifthis one aspect should trump all other factors. Has this recommendation been made by people who have rarely, ifever spent any time in the LifeskillsProgram during the day when it is fully occupied with students, teachers and Educational Assistants? Has this recommendation been made to minimize Rutherford’s relevance thus creating an additional justification for its closure? As trustees, you are tasked with making tough decisions. I encourage you to visit the LifeskillsProgram during the day when all the activities are in full swing. l ask that you spend time with the children in order to understand their obstacles but also their strengths and their successes. I ask that decisions effecting these vulnerable students and families are based on educational ratherthan business factors. Thankyou. Page 40 of 58 9.16 Sincerely, Heather Pedersen Page 41 of 58 9.17 KelseyToye From: Jennifer Sage To School trustees and members of the board, We are parents of children that are and will soon be attending Rutherford Elementary school. We chose to purchase a home and settle our family in the neighborhood and catchment area of this school becauseof it's good reputation, diverse student population, and communityfeel. We are disheartened to hear that the new facilities plan is now to consider closing the school when just a year ago the plan was to have the facility rebuilt. If you have visited the school lately you will see that it has an amazing and vast property on whichthe childrenplay every day rain or shine. They love it! Why consider sending them to another schoolthat would force them to travel beyond a comfortable walking distance to attend a school that is already at capacityor has such a small play area that they have to play in a public park? Why consider putting an addition on two schools when the funds could be put towards updating Rutherford Elementary? We can see no positive impact on our daughters’education by having this decision made on their behalf. Our plan was to settle into our community and have our kids travel through their elementary years with their neighbors and friends until at least high school, but now we hear they may be split apart and sent in separate directions. Did you ever have to change schools as a youngster? It's stressful and causes anxiety and isn't fun! Please consider the children and community when making your facilities plan. Crarnming the childreninto overcrowded schools to balance your budget is an easy thing to do, but removing a school from a community such as this one affects the lives of hundreds if not thousands. Let's get this right for once and put the children first, growing up and ?tting in is hard enough. Another disruption courtesy of the education system is unjust and morally incorrect. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, a couple of concerned Rutherford parents. Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab®4 Page 42 of 58 9.18 KelseyToye From: HollyBoxrud Follow Up Flag: Flagfor followup Flag Status: Completed Dear Board of Education, Progressive schools such as Departure Bay Eco School are an important step in the development of the next generation's connectivity to community, the environment and the natural systems that must be fostered and encouraged in today's youth for tomorrow's economic and environmentalprosperity. The schoolis developing the leaders and community members that will ensure the sustainability and positive growth and development of Nanaimo and the neighboring communities. These schools should be celebrated and embraced, not shut in the interest of meeting short term ?scal budgets; the latter being a direction that is both short-sighted and na'1've. Financially or ?scally speaking, these schools should be considered an investment with long-term returns, not opportunities for short-term budget cuts. Displacing the Eco programs from their organic location (in small communities that believe in their purpose) in order to institutionalize and capitalize the efforts with the aim of creating ef?ciencies and cutting costs isn’t, in my belief, the answer either (i.e. we love the eco literacy concept so let’s make it a well—oiledmachineon a macro level, surely we will have an even bigger better outcome and we will balance our budgetl). The very crux of why these ideas and initiatives are revered and become successful are because of the communitiesand the passion of the people who run them; who care about the purpose; who wake up every day to bring their children or teach the community’s children as they believe this is the future; and (yes!) those who fund them. This type of passion is generated through small batch intensity, not macro institutionalization. In all honesty, in my experience budgets cuts like this are not strategy and they almost always fail long-term. Nanaimo willjust face yet another unbalanced budget next ?scal or perhaps in two more ?scals, that we don’t know. However, what we learn time and time again is that cutting off community programs have detrimental effects that create future cost inefficiencies ~ it is one big vicious cycle. The strategic direction shouldbe focused on ambitious moves in building on revenue generating initiatives in the ways of tourism; leveraging in our resources and capabilities; investing (not divesting) in community and education (particularly in new and innovative ways of approaching them); investing in capital ~ all those good social and economic things you hear about happening in growing and prosperous communities. Think bigger Nanaimo, think long-term; think development and community; think ambitiously — that is where you will ?nd the sought after ?scal spanning balanced budget. Lots of very smart, creative and educatedfolks here; I have every con?dence that the right direction can and will be made. Sincerely, Heather Boxrud Page 43 of 58 9.19 KelseyToye Subject: FW:demolition of Harewood school From: Jeff Solomon Sent: June 8, 2015 6:49 PM To: ken martinson Cc: Kelsey Toye Subject: RE:demolition of Harewood school Ken. Harewood Schoolhas been discussed. I am not aware of any set time frame for its inevitable fate. I am forwarding this letter to staff for consideration. I do realize that many in the neighbourhood would likea solution but it is not a simple matter. Jeff -asum.».4Wnwmm« g.mm..mmummml._gmmumu.u.wma.w.. um m..uwu..m=mmmm.mg¢, From: ken martinson [k|[email protected]] Sent: June-08-15 12:50 AM To: Jeff Solomon Subject: demolitionof Harewood school Dear Mr. Solomon, I was wondering if the School District could plan to demolish the old Harewood School on Fifth street and Harewood Road in the near future. I am aware that one building on the site is useful for meetings. But the main building is from the 1920s,and is an eyesore to the neighbourhood. Best Regards, Ken Martinson Page 44 of 58 9.20 KelsezToxe Subject: FW:Facebook Post feedback for Trustees Nicole Hewitt Hi SD68,.. since there isnt a question and answersection on here in going to ask here smile emoticon PACs (you know the work horses of the school in the sense were asked to fundraise for countless things that our SD cloesnt pay for)... is constantly being pressured to pay thousands of dollars a consultant for provide fairly graphic sex ed we have amazing child and youth care workers, social workers, school counsellors. Heck we even have Island HeaIth....why is this part of the curriculum? And ifit is why as parents/pacs expected to pay for this?! I would far rather kickin $500 (along with other schools) to send a cupe employee for training, to purchase ‘reachabletools... so that this is handled appropriately. Please address this issueslll l'd:’§t Iii fs'il‘¥t{H}E 5'“; Dale Burgos | Director ofcommunications Direct 250 741-5273 1 Cell 250 616-6463 395 Wakesiah Avenue, Nanaimo, BC V9R 3K6 [ www.scl68.bc.ca .‘ This e-mail is privileged, con?dential, and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited. Page 45 of 58 9.21 KelseyToye Subject: FW:Velodrome & Gym for Hammond Bay Elementary From: John Lam [mai|tr;Lv;l Hi Kelsey, We've communicated in the past regarding the IB program. I have another idea for the board to consider. I am a director of the Nanaimo Velodrome Association, and our group has been lobbying the city for a spot to build an indoor cycling track (Velodrome). The in?eld of the Velodrome can be used as a gymnasium. Do you think the school trustees would be interested in hearing a proposal to build a Velodrome and gym on SD 68 property? Hammond Bay Elementary seems like a good fit as it was slated for a new gym in the 10 year plan. We are open other sites as well. John Page 46 of 58 12.2 Dave Mumford Consulting 250.751.1860 Office 5754 Garnet Place 250.714.4008 Mobile Nanaimo, BC [email protected] V9T 6S1 MEMO TO: John Blain, Superintendent/CEO, Nanaimo Ladysmith Public Schools FROM: Dave Mumford, Dave Mumford Consulting DATE: June 22, 2015 RE: Board Policy and Administrative Procedure Development The work continues on the process of separating Board Policy from Administrative Procedures as determined by the recommendations of the joint senior management/ Trustee Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Steering Committee in 2014. Revision, updating and conversion has been completed for the following administrative procedures: Smoke Free Environment School Bus Video Surveillance Retention and Destruction of Records International Students Prizes School Examinations Policies and administrative procedures that are currently the focus of review and revision involve: Emergency Response Planning and Management Inclusion Field Trips Policy & Administrative Procedures Project Dave Mumford Consulting – 22/6/15 Page 1 Page 47 of 58 12.2 Student Grade Placement Policy Course Challenge by Student In addition to the administrative procedures work, the parallel development of an ‘Administrative Procedures Manual’ is in progress. The purpose of the manual is to serve as an easily accessible reference for resources, documents, templates and guides that will assist school administrators in the implementation of specific administrative procedures. For example, the ‘Emergency Response Planning and Management’ administrative procedure will be accompanied by an extensive document that is linked to regional and provincial emergency service agencies to assist schools in developing plans to respond effectively to a wide variety of potential emergency situations. The ‘Administrative Procedures Manual’ will provide administrators and site-based supervisors easy access to important resources in a centralized location. It is anticipated that the joint senior management/ Trustee Board Policies and Administrative Procedures Steering Committee will reconvene in the fall to assess project status. Policy & Administrative Procedures Project Dave Mumford Consulting – 22/6/15 Page 2 Page 48 of 58 14.1 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 68 A C T I O N S H E E T DATE: June 24, 2015 TO: Board of Education FROM: Graham Roberts, Secretary-Treasurer SUBJECT: Capital Project Bylaw 126868 – 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant Funding BACKGROUND: Attached is the correspondence from the Ministry of Education regarding the funding for the 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant and a preliminary AFG spending plan for 2015/16. RECOMMENDATION: That The Board of Education of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) adopts the Capital Project Bylaw 126868 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant in the amount of $2,267,681 and that it be given first reading. RECOMMENDATION: That The Board of Education of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) adopts Capital Project Bylaw No. 126868 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant in the amount of $2,267,681 and that it be given second reading. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Education of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) adopts all three readings of the Capital Project Bylaw No. 126868 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant in the amount of $2,267,681 at its Regular Board Meeting of June 24, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: That The Board of Education of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) adopts the Capital Project Bylaw No. 126868 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant in the amount of $2,267,681 and that it be given third and final reading. Page 49 of 58 14.1 CAPITAL BYLAW NO.126868 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant A BYLAW by the Board of Education of School District No. 68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) (hereinafter called the "Board") to adopt a Capital Project of the Board pursuant to Sections 143 (2) and 144 (1) of the School Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 412 as amended from time to time (called the “Act”). WHEREAS in accordance with provisions of the School Act the Minister of Education (hereinafter called the "Minister") has approved Capital Project No. 126868. . NOW THEREFORE the Board agrees to the following: (a) upon approval to proceed, commence the Project and proceed diligently and use its best efforts to complete the Project substantially in accordance with the Project Agreement (where required); (b) observe and comply with any rule, policy or regulation of the Minister as may be applicable to the Board or the Project; and, (c) maintain proper books of account, and other information and documents with respect to the affairs of the Project, as may be prescribed by the Minister. NOW THEREFORE the Board enacts as follows: 1. The Capital Bylaw of the Board approved by the Minister and specifying a maximum expenditure of $2,267,681 for Project No.126868 is hereby adopted. 2. This Bylaw may be cited as School District No.68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) Capital Bylaw No.12686. READ A FIRST TIME THE 24th DAY OF June, 2015; READ A SECOND TIME THE 24th DAY OF June, 2015; READ A THIRD TIME, PASSED AND ADOPTED THE 24th DAY OF June, 2015. ______Board Chair CORPORATE SEAL ______Secretary-Treasurer I HEREBY CERTIFY this to be a true and original School District No.68 (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) Capital Bylaw No. 126868 adopted by the Board the24th day of June, 2015. ______Secretary-Treasurer Page 50 of 58 14.1 95% _i3R1TlSH C./OLUMB1A April 2, 2015 VIA EMAIL Ref: 181055 To: AllSecretary—'l"reasurers All School Districts ‘Re: 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant The Ministry will provide an Annual FacilityGrant (AFG) allocationtotalling $121386 million in 2015/16to fund maintenanceand repairs of capital infrastructurein school districts.This year, the AFG fundingallocation will be made up of $25196 million from the Ministry’s operating budget and $96190 millionfrom Government’s capital funding allocation, (Please see attached 2015/16 Annual Facility Grant Allocationtable.) In 2015/16, $2 millionwill again be allottedfrom the operating portion of the AFG funding allocationto support CapitalAsset Management Services (CAMS). Schooldistricts are expected to utilizethe facilitycondition assessment informationfor their facilitiesin the CAMS database to help guide their AFG spending decisions. A further $10.89 million from the operating portion will be used by the Ministryto fund start~up costs of upgrades, which began in 2014/15, to the ProvincialLearningNetwork (PLNet) for the Next GenerationNetwork (NGN). Each school district must providethe Ministry with an AFG Expenditure Plan for 2015/16. Pleasenote thatthe AFG Expenditure Plan template has beenrevisedfrom last year to gather more specific AFG expenditure information.(see attached spreadsheet.) The template requires all work using AFG funds that is planned betweenApril 1, 2015, and March 31, 2016, to be identified by facility. (Please note that work using any AFG funds carried over from 2014/15 shouldnot be includedin the AFG ExpenditurePlan for 2015/16.) School districtsmust again indicatewhetherthe planned AFG work will speci?cally address a VFA requirement as identified in the most recent FacilityConditionAssessment(FCA) undertakenby a VFA Canada assessment team. However, those VFA requirementsmust be further attributed witha VFA UniformatCode, as may be chosenfrom the pull—downmenu provided. A separate tab has also been includedthat provides additionaldetailregardingthe subcategories of Uniformat codes used for an FCA and shouldhelp to make the most appropriate selectionfrom the pull~d0WT1menu. Notably, the Actual Cost column, colouredin blue, is not to be used in the initialsubmissionof the AFG Expenditure Plan. School districtsmust submit this additionalinformation after March 31, 2016, when the value of completed AFG work for individualfacilities is fully known. .../2 Mimstry of Planning and Major Projects MailingAddress: Location: Education Division PO Box 9151 Sin Prov Govt 5'“Floor.620 Superior St VictoriaBC V8W 9H1 VictoriaBC V8\/1V2 Page 51 of 58 14.1 This year’s net AFG operating allocationof $12,306 million ($25.196 million less the CAMS ' and PLNet contributions) will be paid to schooldistrictsin one installment in July 2015. Each schooldistrict will be granted a single Certi?cate of Approval (COA) for its portion ofthe 3396.190million capital allocation.A standardcapital bylaw adopted by the boardof education, using the project numbers provided in the attachedtable will be required prior to the issue of the COA. In accordance with ProvincialTreasury policy, draws against the COA should not occur until capital project expenditures have been made. School districtsare requested to submittheir AFG ExpenditurePlan to their Planning Officer as soon as possible. School districts will receivetheir COA for AFG as soon as they have submitted the required capital bylaw and spending plan. Please contact your Planning Officer if you have any questions regarding the new AFG ExpenditurePlan template. School districtsare encouragedto maximizeall AFG spending for capital—relatedmaintenance workthat meets the criteria for capitalizationand to follow the AFG policy, which can be found at the following link: _hLtl2;/Zw_.v_vw.;;rggnbgrga/acvtturaic..nara:Z:®?_8£.4Q9.B:i2J3.l€lD_QBAQ2.’7CBA0l365.3231;‘ Please be remindedthat all such planned AFG work must be completed by March31, 20] 6, when the COA will expire. For your reference, the 2015/16 AnnualFacility Grant Allocation table is also posted on the Ministry’s capital planning website, at: lttuztnazubneatacy/t<>12i C .1>r1n<.=_‘1id-_’l3.l3I3C858711A(;3.4liL3l3‘96._/\4..__.._158337901213212 Thankyou for your attentionto the requirementsaroundthe allocationand use of AFG funding. Sincerely, .loeLl’a1mer',ExecutiveDirector Capital Management Branch Attaclnnents pc: All Superintendents of Schools Regional Directors, Capital Management Branch Planning Of?cers, Capital Management Branch Page 52 of 58 14.1 2015/16Annual Facility Grant Allocation Capital Liperatlngfrwitigxn Total School District Project Total Capital Withheld Allocation Number AFG Portion Gross CAMS NQN Net to Districts 5 Southeast Kootenay 126869 1,482,718 1,171,291 311,427 24,430 133,021 153,976 1,325,267 6 Rocky Mountain 126870 1,011,596 799,122 212,474 16,667 90,754 105,053 904,175 8 Kootenay Lake 126871 1,444,438 1,141,051 303,387 23,799 129,586 150,002 1,291,053 10 Arrow Lai Page 53 of 58 14.1 AFG Fiscal 2015-16 Budget Summary I?,RC3JECIJDESGI§lPT3ifQJSl, J 2 Exterior Painting Program $ 100,044. Re«rooflng Program :3 559,058 Pre—painting repairs to facility exteriors 53 29,424 Priority Flooring Replacement $ 58,850 Information Systems Upgrades $ 52,965 Priority Boiler Replacement $ 294,242 Strategic Energy Management Plan $ 294,239 Cedar Secondary - Conversion to Secondary 5 500 000 (10 Year Plan) ' Other AFG projects room created by funding $ BOQOOO 500|< for Cedar with prior surpluses Contingency S 176,965 Total gt 2,555,737 Page 54 of 58 Motion # Motion Comments Assigned Due Date Completed That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) urge the Government of BC to immediately withdraw the sections of Bill 11 that override the authority of democratically elected Boards of Education. Specifically where Bill 11 adds new provisions which broaden the Minister's authority to issue administrative directives, where Bill 11 would amend the special advisor provision and where shared service providers are designated by the R15/04/22-17 Minister of Education. Tania Brzovic 27-May-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) reopen the Cedar Secondary/Elementary site as a high school with a grade 8 -12 configuration for the start R15/04/22-13 of the 2016 school year. John Blain 23-Sep-16 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) provide busing for one year (2015-16) and that staff develop the required next steps as outlined in their R15/04/22-12 presentation. Pete Sabo 27-May-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) refer the correspondence from Ms. Jeanette Pongratz-Doyle to staff when there is such a time that the R15/04/22-09 data is available for a response. John Blain 23-Sep-16 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) refer to appropriate staff for response and the issue of Harewood Elementary and its future be referred to a meeting of Nanaimo City Council and the Board of R15/04/22-07 Education. Graham Roberts 27-May-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) receives the correspondence items 11.5, 11.6 R15/04/22-06 & 11.8 and refer it to appropriate staff for a response. 27-May-15 No Page 55 of 58 15.1 That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) enter into discussions for a protocol agreement R15/03/18-16 with the Town of Ladysmith and the District of Lantzville. Steve Rae 27-May-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) initiate a communication strategy to raise awareness within the community of the budget shortfalls R15/03/18-14 and it's opposition to it. Graham Roberts 22-Apr-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) direct staff to continue to explore the possibility R15/03/18-10 of RCMP liaison services with Ladysmith Schools. John Blain 22-Apr-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) rescinds the motion to merge SOGI/MRR until R15/03/18-09 the Board has such time to review again in June. 24-Jun-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) Board Chair write to the Superintendent of the RCMP, requesting that current staffing for police liaison R15/03/18-08 services be maintained. Steve Rae 22-Apr-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) requests the staff in the Communications Department to develop a plan for streaming R14/11/26-18 communication for school board meetings. Dale Burgos 25-Feb-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) directs staff to prepare a five-year enhanced program for elementary music that may include the construction, modification or alteration of existing facilities R14/11/26-12 as required and financially viable. Pete/John working on this. John Blain No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) requests staff to consider starting a Special R14/11/26-05 Olympics program in district schools. Start in Spring John Blain No Page 56 of 58 15.1 That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) requests staff to consider a pilot study on the impact of school closure on the student achievement in the R14/10/22-12 Cedar Zone. Postponed/In Progress John Blain 28-Jan-15 No That the Board of Education (Nanaimo-Ladysmith) encourages the incoming Board, through the Education Committee, continue with the assigned responsibility of working on the poverty initiative/goal as identified with our R14/10/22-11 District Strategic Plan. Steve Rae No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) receives the Learning Services Therapeutic Swim Review and further requests that an update be provided to the Business Committee in March 2015 in time R14/09/24-40 for budget discussions. Refer to Budget 11-Mar-15 No That the draft Parents' Roles, Responsibilities, and Rights Administrative Procedure be referred to the Education R14/09/24-29 Committee. Currently doc is out to DPAC. John Blain 25-Feb-15 No That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) receives and files the correspondence from the BCSTA regarding the "Bargaining Table" and further refers the matter of membership in the BCSTA to the incoming R14/09/24-24 Board. Graham Roberts 28-Jan-15 No That Policy 3.8 "Recruitment and Selection of Personnel" be referred to a future Regular Board Meeting, following the Governance Workshop for discussion as a Committee R14/06/25-33 of the Whole. John Blain 28-Jan-15 No Page 57 of 58 15.1 That the Board of Education of School District 68 (Nanaimo- Ladysmith) directs the Superintendent/CEO to develop draft policy/procedure to establish the position of Student Trustee on the Nanaimo-Ladysmith School Board for the purpose of encouraging open communication between the student body and the Board, increasing student engagement in School District Governance matters, and Updated Board Nov 26 14 - will increasing student participation in district planning and come forward in early Spring. Bob R14/05/28-25 policy and program development E. will update Board. John Blain 25-Mar-15 No Page 58 of 15.1