Working Committee Seismic Upgrade - Meeting 1
Working Committee
Secord Seismic Upgrade
Friday October 26th, 2007
Attendees:
Secord:
Kerri Wallin Cheryll Matthews Mary Rickson
Lesley Chambers Julia Done Karen MacDonald
Kate Perkins Chris Roine
VSB:
Anne Lee
Agenda
1. Review the mandate
2. Seismic upgrade – go forward / delay
3. Review the Options
· Pros/Cons of each option
4. Review the Comment Sheets
5. Consensus
6. Recommendation
7. Timeline
8. Process
Minutes
1. Review the Mandate:
Two issues – the seismic upgrade and how that is handled
- the design and what we live with after the upgrade
Re-establish trust and faith in the process
Review the process for the upgrade
Improve communication
Receive advice on planning
Ensure we take the long term perspective rather than the short term
Best possible design in the best possible way.
Student Safety / Educational Program / Cost / School Community
2. Proceed or Delay
There was unanimous agreement that we go ahead with the seismic upgrade.
An informed decision is desired, with transparency in the process.
3. Review the Options:
B Partial Replacement
PROS
· Maintains some of old building - In this option only the 2001 addition remains; the 1911/20 main bldg would be demolished and replaced by a new 2 storey 2600 sq m bldg.
· Half of school is not on the construction site for 18 months
· Opportunity for after school care
· On site parking for staff underground
CONS
· Less floor space than upgrade option
· Temporary accommodation required
· Second most expensive
· Half of school remains on construction siteLose school cohesiveness which may be difficult to regenerate
COST $16.2M
_________________________
C Partial Replacement – two additions
PROS
· No portables required
· Maintain school cohesiveness
· Least expensive option
· On site parking for staff undergroundOpportunity for after school care
CONS
· All students remain on a construction site
· Final overall footprint of building is larger as old building remains; the future of the main “heritage” bldg would have to be negotiated with the City; maybe seek alternate user for bldg that would be compatible to school use
· Replacement school would be built to current Ministry of Education area standards and overall area would be less than the upgrade option. The major loss would be in the design space - smaller school dimensions for hallways, etc.
· Underground parking security
COST $14.8M
Questions:
Q: check window situation for courtyard structure
VSB: natural light for classroom areas would be considered in the detailed design phase
Q: is the main building being demolished?VSB: See City comments under CONS
_________________________
E Partial Upgrade, no basement - upgrade existing main building
PROS
· · Strong community support
· Esthetically pleasing
· Half of school is not on the construction site for 18 months
· Opportunity for after school care
· Sense of space would remain but allowances would have to be made to accommodate school functions (multipurpose space, washrooms, mechanical systems) that would be removed from the basement
CONS
· Temporary accommodation required
· Lose school cohesiveness and may be difficult to regeneratehalf of school remains on construction site
COST $16.6M
_________________________
Questions / Concerns:
Need more information on all of the options, including costing, what stays and what is demolished.
We’re building based on the existing enrollment rather than the demographic projections
VSB: As part of the feasibility study the school’s current and future (to 2017) enrolment projections are considered.
Need to validate the costs for portables (see estimates below)
What is the costing of the amenities for Van Tech?
VSB: The temporary accommodation costs of $550k included relocation of 5 portables that would be required at Secord ($250K), site prep for fencing, asphalt pathways, relocation of play structure, installation of a 19mx36m hard surface play area, 4 basketball standards ($35K), provision of temporary gym ($160-180K), code/communication work to 17 portables ($100K).
What is the number of portables required and what’s the breakdown?
VSB: 22 portables was based on discussion with school principal - using 10 classrooms in 2001 addition (office also to be in 2001 addition); 18 portables for enrolling classrooms; 1 portable for staffroom; 1 portable for washroom and 2 portables for resource/special ed rooms
Portables:
22 portables on site during construction is an undesirable option from a space and management perspective.
Average of 24’ x 40’ per portable. VSB Portables that would be brought onsite could potentially vary in size.
Decision Process for the Upgrade:
· The Ministry’s guidelines for upgrading are on the VSB web site www.vsb.bc.ca/schools/seismic/default.htm
· At 70% of replacement cost, the MOE preference is to build a replacement school instead of upgrading the existing school. Re-build cost is $14.8M (Option C). Option E is $16.6M
· If it is a heritage building, the VSB has asked whether they can get agreement to use 100% of the replacement cost to upgrade rather than 70%. So, we’re trying to bring the cost of Option E down as close to $14.8M as possible. The greatest flexibility is in the cost of the portables.
· Replacement cost is determined using a Ministry formula and an allocation based on the number of students. An escalation factor is built in to allow for the time between submission and approval.
· Justifications need to be made to the Ministry with the submission as to why the school should remain and be upgraded
Action: Anne to verify cost of portables at $1.2M
VSB: The $1.1M is based on $50K/portable which is VSB’s experience with relocation costs for portables. Each site that the portable comes from, location that it goes to and each portable is unique, consequently $50K is an average used for estimating purposes.
Action: Anne to verify costs of stacking the portables
VSB: VSB Maintenance advised that this option would require custom designed portables and do not have such costs. The cost for a new VSB standard portable is $100k.
Action: What are the amenities that are planned for Van Tech? They are negotiable.
VSB: What has been discussed include: provision of gym, fencing to separate elem/sec schools, school office, resource room, staff parking onsite and agreement for further discussions regarding possible staggering school hours to share Van Tech facilities such as cafeteria, playfield, PC lab.
Van Tech
The working group is to prioritize what’s important in terms of amenities for the Van Tech site if it is being used.
Meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Next Meeting: Secord Working Committee – Tuesday October 30th @ 3:00 p.m.
____________________________________________________________________