Board Finance, Audit and Operations Committee

Admin Image

Description

Board Finance, Audit and Operations Committee Minutes August 18, 2003 Participants: Board Committee Members: David Wynde, Julia Brim-Edwards, Douglas Morgan Staff Members: Jim Scherzinger, Superintendent; Bill Farver, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent; Heidi Franklin, Interim CFO and Controller; Pam Brown, Director of Facilities and Asset Management; Kerry Hampton, PPS Property Manager; Robert Enninga, Principal/Bond Project Manager; Shawn Cunningham, Communications; Sandi Rosenfeld, Teacher; AJ Morrison, Vocational Village Principal; Misty Scevola, Vocational Village Teacher; Lynda Darling, Vocational Village Teacher Others Present: J. Miller, PAT; Ruth Hander, Madison Neighborhood Association; Dana Peterson, Hospital Public Relations; Amy Roe, Willamette Week Reporter; Eileen Micheau; Sue Hagemeier; Curt Campbell; Jeremy Sarant; Patrick LaCrosse, Real Estate Trust; Richard Levy, Real Estate Trust; Sumner Sharpe, Consultant; Phil Rude, Architect FFA; David Commeree, Architect BBL; John Ronter, Vocational Village Student Mr. Wynde convened the meeting at 6:15 PM in the L-1 Conference Room. He introduced the board members and others in the room and announced that the meeting was being recorded. He clarified that the purpose of committee meetings was for the Board to discuss issues as they arose. It is not typical for committees to hear public comment. Nine people commented at the last full Board meeting. Public comment can be ...

Informations

• Publié par: Jedul
• Nombre de lectures: 94
• Langue: English

Extrait

Board Finance, Audit and Operations Committee Minutes August 18, 2003 Participants: Board Committee Members: DavidWynde, Julia BrimEdwards, Douglas Morgan Staff Members:Scherzinger, Superintendent; Bill Farver, Executive Assistant Jim to the Superintendent; Heidi Franklin, Interim CFO and Controller; Pam Brown, Director of Facilities and Asset Management; Kerry Hampton, PPS Property Manager; Robert Enninga, Principal/Bond Project Manager; Shawn Cunningham, Communications; Sandi Rosenfeld, Teacher; AJ Morrison, Vocational Village Principal; Misty Scevola, Vocational Village Teacher; Lynda Darling, Vocational Village Teacher Others Present: J.Miller, PAT; Ruth Hander, Madison Neighborhood Association; Dana Peterson, Hospital Public Relations; Amy Roe, Willamette Week Reporter; Eileen Micheau; Sue Hagemeier; Curt Campbell; Jeremy Sarant; Patrick LaCrosse, Real Estate Trust; Richard Levy, Real Estate Trust; Sumner Sharpe, Consultant; Phil Rude, Architect FFA; David Commeree, Architect BBL; John Ronter, Vocational Village Student Mr. Wynde convened the meeting at 6:15 PM in the L1 Conference Room.He introduced the board members and others in the room and announced that the meeting was being recorded. He clarified that the purpose of committee meetings was for the Board to discuss issues as they arose.It is not typical for committees to hear public comment.Nine people commented at the last full Board meeting.Public comment can be made at appropriate future Board meetings. Glenhaven An agenda item is the recommendation from the Superintendent that the Glenhaven/Vocational Village site be declared surplus property.Mr. Wynde stated that the Boards intent is to support the Vocational Village High School program, wherever it is located. He outlined the topics that the Committee members wished to address: •Status of the existing building 9Suitability for current use 9Costs of the building •Potential sites for relocation 9Issues of colocation •Timeline issues •Next steps

Status of the Building Pam Brown introduced Phil Rude from Fletcher Farr Ayotte (FFA).He distributed Handout #1 and explained how his firm explored alternative ways to meet the goals of the capital bond program to provide safe exiting.The building has portions built in 1912, 1949, and 1990.The 1912 portion has significant seismic issues, as does the chimney for the boiler.There are no fire sprinklers, though most classrooms have exterior doors. FFA proposed in 1998 that further investment in the building would not be cost beneficial. In2001, they again recommended that this building not be upgraded.In addition to seismic and fire & life safety issues, other issues include: •Accessibility (ADA compliance) •Fire alarm is one of the oldest in the District and in need of improvements •The exterior stucco is in bad shape Seismic upgrade is not mandatory by city code.The District is voluntarily doing seismic upgrades to a safeexisting standard.Bob Enninga noted that Board Resolution 1827 passed by the Board in 2001 recognized that bond funds are limited and targeted use is desirable. (BoardPolicy on Lateral Force Upgrade is included in Handout #2 which was available at the door.) Mr. Enninga explained that District consultants concluded that even if significant seismic improvements were made, this building would perform poorly in a seismic event.He then read two paragraphs from page 3 of Handout #2 under “Findings.” Mr. Morgan asked if there was any countervailing information was included in these findings, since none is presented in the handouts.Mr. Enninga replied that there is none of which he is aware.He noted that a second opinion on seismic issues was obtained, which concurred with the findings presented here. Alternative Site Criteria Ms. Brown discussed relocation options for both the shortterm (180 students) and the long term (350 students) as studied by Barrantine Bates Lee (BBL).David Commeree reported on the criteria developed through a matrix based on a series of meetings with the Vocational Village High School principal and staff over several months.The criteria taken into account include: •Facility features •Access to public transportation •Ways to maintain Vocational Village High School’s separate identity •Entrance into the facility •The capacity of the existing high schools and middle schools Page 4 of Handout #3 lists four middle schools and four high schools as potential sites. Meek Elementary School and Whitaker Middle School were also considered. Ms. Morrison was asked about issues with colocation.She noted that the more distinct the mission of those colocating, the easier it is to colocate.She cited the Julia Richmond School in New York.Her first choice is a standalone site, which allows for

the type of structure that encourages these potentially atrisk students.The focus should be on education and not arguing over sharing the cafeteria or gymnasium.Ms. Morrison listed some concerns about colocating in a comprehensive high school, including the inability to enforce the structures that keep students from smoking and keep the need for police to a minimum.The police have not been needed at Vocational Village in the five years that Ms. Morrison has been principal. She expressed the thought that a middle school environment could work, since Vocational Village students would be a good role model for middle school students. Educationally, Vocational Village uses a model known as “High Schools That Work.” For example, the automotive program provides contextual learning and always fills up first. Itis a significant draw to the program. Next Steps Mr. Morgan asked about the process for making decisions about where the school may be located, since the Board does not decide.Mr. Wynde reviewed the requirements as outlined in the proposed Board resolution.The concerns are addressed in Handout #4, a memorandum from Jim Scherzinger and Pam Brown re:Relocation Options for Vocational Village.Mr. Wynde then distributed a proposed rewording of the second to last “Resolved” in the resolution to have the District leadership exercise its role to find the new location.(Handout #5) He clarified that the process outlined in Handout #4 is the process that will be followed. This common understanding need not be formalized in the resolution. Ms. Morrison noted that the District is thinking about how to address the needs of the th th City for its 900 students who drop out in 9 and 10grade and get to Vocational Village th th in 11and 12grade. Theideal size is about 300 students.The Board will look at the recommendation differently if the dollars needed are an investment in expanding the program to double its size.This means the Superintendent needs to report on how the District will support that growth.Mr. Scherzinger noted that this is part of highs school reform, which is looking at smaller schools within schools.As he stated in his memo, the needed space is in existing large high schools.This report on alternative locations could be used in identifying available spaces for other uses as well. Resolution changes •The seventh “whereas” clause should reference in item 1) Vocational Village High School •In paragraph a) of the fourth “Resolved”, add the word “of” after the word “possession.” •The second to last “Resolved” paragraph is reworded in accordance with Handout #5.

Public Comment Mr. Wynde opened the meeting for public comment, using the same rules as the Board meetings. Jeremy Sarant, citizen volunteer, noted that the focus was on suitable, which it is in the short run.He emphasized that identity as Vocational Village High School is important for the students’ success.That becomes a problem with High School colocation.He predicted that middle school parents would push back on any plans to locate the program at a middle school. John Ronter, a Vocational Village student, shared his reasons why he left the traditional high school to attend Vocational Village High School.He was concerned that Vocational Village would become just a program in another school.He also expressed concern that other students may not be aware or involved in the process. Conclusion The Committee members unanimously voted to recommend the resolution as amended to the full Board.The agenda committee will determine when this will be on the Board agenda. Ms.Morrison has already notified her community that it will likely be on the th August 25Board meeting agenda. Mr. Wynde thanked everyone for attending and participating. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. Handouts from this meeting are available in the Board office.