Special Meeting/Workshop - SRCS Board of Education San Rafael City Schools March 30, 2016 5:00PM San Rafael High School
Library
185 Mission Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
|
Board President Rachel Kertz, Vice President Greg Knell, Trustee Linda M. Jackson, Trustee Maika Llorens Gulati, Trustee Natu Tuatagaloa
|
President Kertz convened the meeting to Open Session at 5:10 PM. |
|
|
President Kertz reconvened the meeting to Open Session at 6:10 PM. |
|
|
... led the Pledge of Allegiance. |
|
|
To seek authorization from the Board of Education for the issuance of a request for qualifications ("RFQ") for professional Capital Facilities program management services for projects funded under the District's Bond Program for Measures A and B.
|
BACKGROUND: In November 2015, the San Rafael community passed Measures A and B. Measure A has an authorization amount of $108,225,000 to fund elementary and middle school construction and modernization projects. Measure B has an authorization amount of $160,500,000 to fund high school construction and modernization projects. At this time, District staff believes it is beneficial to release an RFQ seeking qualified providers of Capital Facilities program management services for Measures A and B, which will provide necessary expertise and support to the District throughout the course of its bond program and for implementation of the Master Facilities Plan. An RFQ and related documents are attached, and District Staff proposes they be released in substantially the same form.
|
|
This request for qualifications and any contract awarded pursuant to this process will be funded through Measures A and B, respectively. SACS CODE: 21-9010-0-6219.00-0000-8500-700-000-000 (ESD/HSD)
|
Authorize the issuance of an RFQ in substantially the same form as that provided to the Board.
|
Authorize the issuance of an RFQ in substantially the same form as that provided to the Board.
Passed with a motion by Greg Knell and a second by Linda Jackson. |
Yes Linda Jackson. Yes Rachel Kertz. Yes Greg Knell. Yes Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati. Yes Natu Tuatagaloa.
|
|
Agreement for Program Management Services Exhibit "A" Responsibilities and Services of Program Manager Request for Qualifications - Program Management Services RFQ# PM 002
|
|
|
The Board of Education is being asked to authorize the issuance of a more comprehensive request for qualifications ("RFQ") for professional design services (architectural and engineering) for projects included in the District's Capital Facilities Program for Measure A and Measure B.
|
The District notified potential respondents of an RFQ, dated October 27, 2015, for architectural design services for the District's future bond program. The District provided an addendum letter on November 5, 2015 and an addendum email on that same date. The District did receive statements of qualifications, but did not select a firm or firms pursuant to the October 2015 RFQ. Measure A, relating to the High School District, and Measure B, relating to the Elementary School District, were subsequently passed in November 2015. At this time, District staff believes it is beneficial to issue a more comprehensive RFQ for the projects funded under Measure A and Measure B. This will permit the District to select firms qualified for work under either measure. Additionally, the more comprehensive RFQ requires a higher level of detail regarding various topics such as project experience, project management, cost management, and references from previous projects. This additional level of detail will permit the District to better assess each respondent. An RFQ and related documents are attached, and District staff proposes they be released in substantially the same form. Firms that responded to the previous October 2015 RFQ will be able to stand upon their prior submission by providing a cover letter with standard certifications regarding the truth of respondent's representations, conflicts of interest and ethical violations, and agreement to indemnity and insurance provisions. Alternately, firms that responded to the previous October 2015 RFQ will be permitted to submit a new response to either or both the RFQ for Measure A, and the RFQ for Measure B. Firms that did not previously respond will be permitted to submit a response to either or both RFQs, as well.
|
|
This request for qualifications and any contract awarded pursuant to this process will be funded through Measures A and B, respectively. SACS CODE: 21-9010-0-6210.00-0000-8500-XXX-000-XXX (ESD/HSD)
|
Authorize the issuance of the more comprehensive RFQs.
|
Authorize the issuance of the more comprehensive RFQs. Passed with a motion by Greg Knell and a second by Linda Jackson. |
Yes Linda Jackson. Yes Rachel Kertz. Yes Greg Knell. Yes Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati. Yes Natu Tuatagaloa.
|
|
Agreement for architectural services Exhibits A-G RFQ #A-E 003 Measure A Architectural Services
|
|
|
The Board is presented with Middle School Instructional Coach (6-8) job description, for recommended approval.
|
BACKGROUND In 2013, the District initiated a partnership with the Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) program. A required component for the district’s participation was the identification and placement of a 0.5 FTE Literacy Coach at each implementation site. The Elementary District’s Local Control Accountability Plan includes funding for both SEAL instructional coaches and for Instructional Content Coaches to support the implementation of the Common Core. Identified Instructional Coaches are released full time to support classroom teachers at all K-8 sites. The Elementary LCAP for 2015-2016 included funding for 5.0 FTE Instructional Coaches. Due to a number of factors, we were only able to identify 2 Instructional Coaches. CURRENT CONSIDERATIONS Staff has been collecting feedback, input, suggestions and recommendations from our LCAP Stakeholder groups, classroom teachers, site leaders, district staff and SRTA Leadership specific to the role and responsibilities of the Instructional Coaches in the Elementary school district. Based on the data collected, the role of the instructional coach requires greater clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, expectations, and performance targets. Working in collaboration with SRTA, Education Services and our elementary site leaders the job descriptions for the Instructional coach have been revised and updated.
On March 21st the Board approved 4 of these 5 job descriptions. Under consideration for recommended approval is the additional job description for a Middle School Instructional Coach (6-8).
|
|
Approval of the job description.
|
Approval of the job description. Passed with a motion by Greg Knell and a second by Linda Jackson. |
Yes Linda Jackson. Yes Rachel Kertz. Yes Greg Knell. Yes Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati. Yes Natu Tuatagaloa.
|
Approval of the job description. Passed with a motion by Natu Tuatagaloa and a second by Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati. |
Yes Linda Jackson. Yes Rachel Kertz. Yes Greg Knell. Yes Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati. Yes Natu Tuatagaloa.
|
|
Middle School Instructional Coach Job Description
|
|
|
This is the third in a series of community workshops the Board is holding regarding development of a Capital Facilities Program (CFP) implementation plan. The focus of this third workshop will be on the adjusted scenario options for the ESD and HSD, which have been revised as follow-up to the input and responses received on the test scenarios shared at the second workshop on March 21. Public feedback and input on the revised options will be collected. For more information, and to learn more about the previous two workshops, please visit: http://www.srcs.org/mfp
|
President Kertz reviewed the agenda and purpose for the meeting.
Superintendent Watenpaugh noted this is the third of 3 community workshops to build consensus on bond program maps for the ESD and HSD. At the Board meeting on April 18, the recommended program maps will be presented to the Board for consideration and approval. Next steps would include site project manager and team collaboration with sites on details for construction projects to begin. Reaching consensus this evening is important for the work to move forward to break ground by summer 2017.
Capital Facilities Program (CFP) consultant Sarah Schoening reviewed the overall management team, that will include both internal and external personnel, needed to run the program, and the individual project manager team that will be needed for each site project.
Communications and Community Engagement Coordinator Christina Perrino Zecchini reviewed prioritization criteria from the last 2 workshops and input received from workshop discussions and surveys to rank the top 7 priorities. Over 230 individuals have provided input to date. She reviewed a breakdown of the input on test scenarios and rankings for the top priorities for both districts.
Ms. Schoening noted solar will be included in the program after sites are sequenced first; looking for a public/private partnership for return on a solar investment. It was noted that the feedback on the need for solar came primarily from high school students' input.
Mr. Perrino Zecchini reviewed input from the program scenario discussions at Workshop 2.
Marcus Hibser, architect, reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of the scenarios as noted from the discussions at Workshop 2. Group consensus was that Test Scenario B for the ESD responded to priorities best. The HSD discussed Test Scenario A.
Mr. Hibser reviewed Scenario A2 for the HSD, noting a change had been made to the spreadsheet, pulling the district office project out as a separate line item and moving it toward the end of the program to devote bond funds for site projects early in the program.
CBO Thomas noted that Maintenance and Operations staff will still be continuing with summer maintenance projects that are planned for summer 2016.
Mr. Hibser provided an overview of ESD Scenario B2 that was revised to help resolve issues and comments that were raised at Community Workshop #2. He noted the feedback that was received regarding prioritization of the projects for the schools, parity, air conditioning, parking and drop off, STEAM and swing space. In response to questions regarding Glenwood's MPR prioritization. Mr. Hibser noted that this is just a portion of the overall master plan for Glenwood, which had identified more projects that are not being included.
In response to questions about a library, covered lunch area, and classroom expansion for Short School, staff provided information: there are few covered lunch areas around the district; summer projects include getting new library books and bookshelves in the Short School Chalet, which will serve as a temporary library; and most campuses around the district have numerous portables that have been placed to accommodate student enrollment. Ms. Thomas provided an overview of the recent work that was done to renovate the pod classroom area at Short School, with new classroom space and new furniture.
Mr. Hibser reviewed Scenario 3, noting that Venetia Valley has some of largest projects, but in this scenario are getting front portion upgrades first. If the full VV project was to be moved forward in the timeline, it would be at the expense of other Year 3 site projects which would need to be moved back. Breaking out the VV parking and drop off project to be done first to address safety issues in the schedule dependent on CEQA.
Mr. Hibser noted that the 2 ESD scenarios presented provide the most for most students districtwide.
Ms. Schoening reviewed the three levels of contingency that have been built in to the program to better assure funding available at the end of the program.
Dr. Watenpaugh and Ms. Schoening introduced the break out group activity for discussion, with groups reporting out at the end. There is 1 scenario for the HSD and 2 for the ESD for discussion. All were encouraged to mix across grade levels and schools for diversity in conversation. Dr. Watenpaugh noted that if group consensus cannot be reached this evening, the timeline could be negatively impacted.
After group discussion, the following was reported:
Group 1: consensus on the HSD plan and on ESD Plan B-3, which provides more parity for VV.
Group 2: although there were still questions on the HSD plan, consensus was reached in support of it; consensus on ESD B-2.
Group 3: consensus on HSD plan but there were concerns about student representation; B-2 in ESD was approved, however there was strong discussion about B-3 for the parity it would bring to VV.
Group 4: approved the HSD plan; consensus on B-2 which serves the greatest number of students. There was descent from the Short School community who felt there were not being served by either plan.
Group 5: approved HSD plan; for ESD plan B-3 there was interest in parity; would serve the same number of students at VV and DMS. The group felt good about both B-3 and B-2. Short will be getting a temporary library this summer, parking and drop off are important for safety. A question arose as to whether the City of San Rafael could potentially partner with the District to provide funding for parking and drop off. The Short community noted they wanted their voices to be heard; seeing this as a trust and parity issue; $5M down from an initial $19M, is not enough.
Group 6: approved the HSD plan; no approval of either ESD plan; felt the same sentiments as expressed by Group 5.
Group 7: HSD plan approved overall, but there were questions about the TLHS cafeteria priority; consensus on B-3 so DMS and VV could get started sooner, but felt the pain of the Short School community; make sure they get a library at minimum.
Group 8: HSD plan approved; consensus on B-2 with discussion about the needs at Short School.
Group 9: HSD plan approved; consensus on ESD B-3 for parity.
Group 10: HSD plan approved; consensus on ESD B-3 to keep parity, but why can't more projects be moved into Year 2? VV has some of the oldest classrooms in the district.
Group 11: HSD plan approved; would like to see Short School project moved up; picked ESD B-3 to have VV moved up with safety key for pick up and drop off.
Group 12: CSEA representatives reached consensus on B-3 because it serves the most, representing all students not just one school; Short School needs to move forward because it has the least; approved the HSD plan, although not all the offices have everything that is needed to provide adequate customer service to parents.
Group 13: Short School parents expressed their needs for a library, cafeteria, MPR, play space, pickup/drop off and parking improvements, and more classrooms.
Dr. Watenpaugh thanked everyone for their comments. He reviewed there are many priorities around the district, with limited bond dollars available. Feedback gathered this evening and any feedback that continues to be received prior to the April 18th Board meeting will be taken into consideration. The Board will be presented with a recommendation for a Capital Facilities Program implementation plan for both districts on April 18, in the best interest of all SRCS students.
President Kertz expressed that all are welcome to attend every Board meeting. She noted that staff worked hard to prepare for these past 3 workshops in March, fitting what was likely about 6 months of work into 1 month. It was a priority for the Board to hear from the community about a CFP implementation plan.
Superintendent Watenpaugh noted that staff would be available after the meeting to answer questions, and are available to come out to sites to answer specific questions; the Short community asked for a session at their site.
|
CFP Workshop 3 Presentation
|
|
Present | Linda Jackson |
Present | Rachel Kertz |
Absent | Greg Knell |
Present | Ms. Maika Llorens Gulati |
Present | Natu Tuatagaloa |
|
|
|