At its April 30, 2008 meeting, the Board of Education approved two contracts, one with Webcor Builders and a second with ATI Architects and Engineers, to initiate the schematic design process for the rebuilding of Havens Elementary School at a gross maximum price.We would like to take this opportunity to extend a huge thanks to Mark Becker and Andy Ball, for their ingenuity, commitment, and “can do” spirit.Their generosity combined with a construction delivery model that supports the team approach to quality construction, is a major gift to our school system and to our community.

 

With Appreciation,

June Monach
Board of Education President  

Constance Hubbard

Superintendent of Schools

Dear Citizens:

So much has happened since Piedmont voters approved Measure E back in March 2006.  We are writing to provide you with a Progress Report and to invite you to attend an important event:

  Community Meeting on Saturday, March 29, 2008 from 9:00 a.m.- noon

 where citizens can learn about the proposed school projects and overall budget, and have an opportunity to provide input on a proposal being considered by the Board to rebuild Havens Elementary School.

PROGRESS

Since Measure E’s passage, the District’s goal was to implement the program using a comprehensive, thoughtful, and transparent process with many opportunities for community involvement and feedback along the way.Although this process takes time, we believe it was necessary to build community understanding and support for a quality multi-year construction program.Here is what we have accomplished to-date:

• Took immediate action to reduce risks associated with the most serious seismic issues by vacating classrooms at Havens, removing the tile roof at the PHS Quad building, and minimizing use of the Student Center.
• Assembled a team of qualified professionals, including engineers, architects, peer reviewers, and program and project managers to work with the District’s management team.
• Involved many dedicated volunteers from the community, including the Steering Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and Citizens Oversight Committee.
• Issued the first series of bonds totaling $15 million to fund the necessary planning, engineering and architectural work.
• Completed all of the engineering studies necessary to identify and measure the seismic safety risks as well as the required accessibility, fire and life safety issues in all of our school buildings. 
• Categorized the buildings into three groups (1=red, 2=yellow and 3=green) and prioritized them from buildings with the greatest deficiencies to those with the least.
• Developed conceptual designs and rough cost estimates for all of the target projects.
• Researched the available state funding and initiated the process required to obtain these funds. 
• Established a web site, issued newsletters, and organized community meetings to inform and involve the public.

 

NEXT PHASE

Now we are ready to tackle the next phase of the program, where a detailed design schematic, budget, construction and phasing plan must be developed for each project.  The Board plans to approach program implementation as follows:

Address the Group 1 Buildings (PHS, Havens, and Maintenance Facility) & seek State funding

Consultants have identified buildings with the greatest structural and accessibility deficiencies at these sites.To address these buildings, the District will:

• Develop design schematics, refined budget, and phasing plan to repair PHS Quad Building and Student Center.
• Develop design schematics to rebuild the maintenance facility, critical to ongoing maintenance of the district’s facilities and recovery efforts in the event of a major earthquake.

•  Havens Elementary School
  The school has two vacated glass classroom wings with serious structural deficiencies, 1930’s construction likely to suffer significant damage in a major quake, and significant accessibility deficiencies throughout.

  Design developer Mark Becker, Former Board Member Jim Nybakken, and President of Webcor Builders, Andy Ball, have approached the District with a proposal to rebuild the school at a guaranteed maximum price, anticipated to be much lower than previous estimates to rebuild the school.

  The Board has asked staff to assess the viability of pursuing this proposal which would require that the District enter into a special ‘lease/lease back’ agreement with any interested developer for a guaranteed maximum price. 

  The School Board is seriously considering this proposal, which in addition to addressing the seismic and accessibility issues on the campus, provides many other benefits to the community. 

 

Repair Group 2 Buildings (on the Beach and Wildwood campuses) & seek State funding

Consultants predict that the 1930’s construction on these campuses is likely to suffer significant damage in a major earthquake.The District will:

• Develop design schematics, refined budget, and phasing plan to repair the 1930’s construction at Beach School.
• Develop design schematics, refined budget, and phasing plan to repair the 1930’s construction at Wildwood School.

Reduce fire & life safety, and falling hazard risks at all schools

• Implement non-structural seismic work at all of the school buildings, reducing or removing falling hazard risks from classrooms, hallways, offices, and other public spaces.
• Upgrade fire alarm systems on all campuses, including integration of PMS and PHS system.

 

COMMUNITY MEETING

 We hope you will be able to join us at the Community Meeting on Saturday, March 29, 2008 from 9:00 am noon at the Ellen Driscoll Auditorium.  The meeting will be facilitated by consultant, Gina Bartlett, from the Center for Collaborative Policy.The goals for this meeting include:

• Conduct a ‘Walk Through’ of the Havens campus
• Provide an overview of progress made to-date on the Measure E bond program, including a summary of the overall program budget based on current rough cost estimates of target projects.
• Present the Becker Design for the replacement of Havens.
• Answer questions, issues and concerns you may have about the program.
• Solicit community input on the Havens rebuild proposal and overall program plan. 

Please RSVP to Beverly Feusier, Superintendent Hubbard’s Administrative Assistant at 510-594-2614 or bfeusier@piedmont.k12.ca.us.  If you cannot attend, feel free to provide your input at input@pusdbond.org.  Many thanks for your ongoing support of the Piedmont public school system.

 

Sincerely,

Constance Hubbard
Superintendent of Schools 

June Monach
President, Board of Education 

 

 

P.S.EXCITING NEWS!   We just posted a NEW District Newsletter to the PUSD website.The communication is intended to inform the community about our efforts to maintain and improve upon quality educational opportunities in our schools.Go to: www.piedmont.k12.ca.us and let us know what you think.In addition, if you would like to receive updates on the bond program, go to:  www.pusdbond.org and sign up for E-News.

TO:                  Board of Education
FROM:           Constance Hubbard, Superintendent
SUBJECT:     REVIEW OF DISCUSSION GUIDELINES FOR MEASURE E PROJECT DECISIONS                                                              

I.              SUPPORT INFORMATION

The Board began the discussion of the policy and planning issues linked to the decisions required in the Program Plan Development phase of Measure E projects at the September 26, 2007 Board meeting. 

The Project Investigation and Concept Development phase is due to be completed by November 14, 2007.  The Program Plan Development phase is scheduled to begin at a Special Board Meeting scheduled for November 28, 2007 and is expected to go through January/February of 2008.  The Program Plan is the defined scope, sequence and budget for each project that is to be included in the Measure E implementation phase.

The timeline is scheduled to be discussed at each of the Parent Club meetings in October and staff meetings to be scheduled prior to November 14, 2007.  Parents, staff and community members are encouraged to provide direct feedback on the proposed Guidelines for the Project Program Development Plan at the Regular Board meetings scheduled tonight, on October 24, 2007 and November 14, 2007 and through the bond website at: www://pusdbond.org. 

The goal is for the Board to discuss, receive input and to approve Guidelines for the Project Program Development Plan by November 14, 2007.  The approved guidelines will be used in the prioritization process for the adopted Program Plan for Measure E.

Attached is a graphic of the various issues that impact the Program Plan Development and a copy of the information on the issues and recommendations presented to the Board.A summary of the recommendations grouped into two basic categories of Cost/Budget and Design Parameters is also provided.
II.         RECOMMENDATION: REVIEW & DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the Board discuss the issues and recommendations as presented.   The goal is to have the criteria finalized by November 14, 2007.

CH/bf

Attachments

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION OF GUIDELINES FOR MEASURE E

PROJECT DECISIONS

(Presented at Board Meeting of October 10, 2007)

Following is a summary of the recommendations presented to the Board on September 26, 2007 for the guiding criteria to be used in the decision-making process for the Program Plan Development.  The information is grouped into two categories: Cost/Budget considerations and Design Criteria.

Cost/Budget

The project investigation phase includes estimated cost for the implementation of the concepts presented for each project.The funds available from various sources must also be considered in the Program Plan development.  The cost estimate and the funds available are a guide to the decisions about scope and sequence.The budget to be allocated to each project and the overall plan must balance cost and funds available.  The prioritization process includes contingencies as funds are/are not available.  The recommendations presented as they relate to budgeting and costs are:

1.     Budget Measure E funds to each site to address all safety issues related to earthquakes including non-structural deficiencies identified as first priority.

§  Structural seismic

§  Accessibility as required by DSA (Division of the State Architect)

§  Fire and Life safety as required by DSA

§  Address fire alarm systems at all sites

§  Non-structural seismic hazards

2.     Budget State Modernization funds to address infrastructure issues to leverage (supplement) Measure E funds on projects.

§  Develop a prioritized list of program improvements to apply as the schedule for receipt of State funds is confirmed.

§  Use Modernization funds remaining to improve programmatic functions at each school.Consider usability after an earthquake in the structural criteria, design

3.     Address accessibility issues not required by DSA from Measure E, State Modernization and Deferred Maintenance funds.

4.     Include maintenance facilities in final plan to improve ability to react after an earthquake (i.e.do not allow to fall off list of Measure E projects)

Design Criteria

1.     Consider usability after an earthquake in the structural criteria for inclusion in the Program Plan

2.     Address all buildings 50 years or older as if designated as historic sites in the development of the repair options 

3.     Require all designs and materials to consider the requirements for LEED^TM (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system, and CHPS (California High Performing Schools).Incorporate sustainability and ecological impact for now and the future for use and selection of materials

4.     Address infrastructure issues at same time facility is disrupted by required Measure E work

5.     Consider long-term implication for maintenance of facilities

6.     Consider program needs for now and future

7.     Parity of educational program offerings among schools (elementary)

8.     Apply approved facilities standards in selection and use of materials

9.     Apply OPSC (Office of Public School Construction) and District program standards in design of spaces

TO:                  Board of Education
FROM:            Constance Hubbard, Superintendent
SUBJECT:      DISCUSSION OF GUIDELINES FOR MEASURE E PROJECT DECISIONS

 

I.          SUPPORT INFORMATION

Safety of human life is at the core of the inquiry to the District’s facilities and the basis for Measure E.From the initial question about seismic safety of our buildings in 2001 by a group of concerned citizens through the passage of Measure E by the community in 2006, safety has been at the core.Providing a safe environment for all who use the District’s facilities is one component of the fiduciary (i.e.hold in trust) responsibility of the Board of Education.Prudent management of all of the Piedmont Unified School District’s resources is that to which the members of the Board of Education as trustees must be accountable.  The guidelines for decisions in the definition of program and scope of projects for Measure E include the consideration of a spectrum of issues that requires the application of overarching policies. 

This evening, the Board will begin the discussion of the policy and planning issues linked to the decisions required in the Program Plan Development phase of the Measure E projects.  The Superintendent has provided information on the issues and recommendations.  The Board will consider the recommendations and begin discussion on the issues this evening.  The discussion will continue over the next two Board meetings and will allow opportunity for community input.  Discussions on the issues will also be scheduled at the site’s Parent Club meetings in October.The goal is to have defined Guidelines for Project Plan Development by November 14, 2007 for use in the Program Plan Development that begins at the Special Board Meeting scheduled for November 28, 2007.  The Guidelines will serve as the principles by which decisions are made to determine scope and sequence of projects as we go through the prioritization of project components.

Measure E, as stated on the ballot, authorized the District to issue bonds up to a total of $56 million for the purpose of “repair, reconstruct, or replace Piedmont public school buildings to reduce dangers from earthquakes and to meet state and federal seismic safety standards”.  The full text of the measure included the expectation for the improvement of accessibility per the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and the addressing of safety issues such as non-structural seismic hazards and fire alarm systems.

The process for implementation of Measure E has three phases:

1.    Project Investigation and Concept Development
(completion November 2007)

2.    Program Plan Development – Defining Scope and Sequence
of all Projects (November 28, 2007 – January 2008)

3.    Implementation and Construction (February 2008 – Program completion)

The first phase will be substantially completed by November 2007.The information for all individual projects that have been brought to the Board for review over the past year will be presented together at a Special Board Meeting on November 28, 2007. The presentation will include a summary of all of the information and a draft Program Plan that includes options for project budgets, scope and sequencing.  The public input process is scheduled to go through January 2008.  The goal is to have an approved Program Plan that includes a prioritized list of projects, with scope, sequencing and budget so that the Implementation and Construction phase can begin. 

In anticipation of the Program Plan Development phase that will define the scope and sequence of all of the projects, clear guidelines for evaluating the priorities for each project and the overall program will expedite the decision-making process.The approved Guidelines will help in the communication to the community of the decision making criteria used in the Project Program Development.

Following is a list of issues, discussion of options and impacts and recommendations from the Superintendent.  The recommendations are based on the detailed information received as part of community input, paid consultants, volunteer experts working as advisory groups, and recommendations and input from school staff. 

The goal is for the Board to discuss, receive input, and approve Guidelines for the Project Program Development Plan by November 14, 2007.  The approved guidelines will be used in the prioritization process for the adopted Program Plan for Measure E.

 

ISSUE (1):  Use of Measure E Funds as it applies to “reducing dangers from earthquakes” The language and intent of the Measure E program is open to interpretation. The Board needs to agree on guidelines as to the application of the range of the use of Measure E funds to individual projects and the overall plan.

OPTION 1.a:  Apply fiscally conservative criteria for use of funds for minimum upgrades required to meet the state and federal guidelines for the FEMA definition of “life safe”.

IMPACT:                                                                       

• Does not consider usability of buildings post earthquake
• Aesthetics and function may be reduced/impaired
• State agencies such as Division of the State Architect (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) have requirements that require upgrades not directly linked to life safety FEMA standards
• May not be best “bang for the buck”, given the disruption and invasiveness of work required. 

OPTION 1.b:  Use Measure E funds on all structures that require seismic work, accessibility and fire life system upgrades and address infrastructure upgrades at the same time.

IMPACT:                                                                       

• Will allow for consideration of usability of buildings post earthquake
• Aesthetics and function may be improved
• Addresses the non-structural hazards
• Will address requirements of State agencies such as (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC)
• Program request likely to exceed funds available
• Increases duration of Program
• Citizens Oversight Committee (COC) may not agree with scope

 

ISSUE (2):  Use of “matching” Modernization Funds from State.  The District has verified eligibility from the State for modernization funds.  The eligibility and receipt of funds are not synonymous.  The Program Plan Development must include a criteria for the budgeting of eligible funds and options for the timeline for the actual receipt of funds from the State by the District.

OPTION 2.a:  Budget State Modernization funds to supplement (replace) the use of Measure E funds

IMPACT:        

• May be able to issue less than total bond authorization for lower tax rate for community
• Must address requirements of State agencies such as (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and all requirements for receipt of “match”.
• Preliminary budgets indicate that Measure E projects will exceed the District required match and therefore supplanting is allowable.
• Does not address any infrastructure improvements (e.g.HVAC systems, technology)
• Does not address any program improvements
• Defined projects not dependent on actual receipt of State funds
• Does not take best advantage of the disruption to the educational program during construction

 

OPTION 2.b:  Budget Modernization funds to supplement (add) the use of Measure E funds

IMPACT:                                                                       

• Must address requirements of State agencies such as (DSA) and the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) and all requirements for receipt of “match”.Preliminary budgets indicate that Measure E projects will exceed the District required match.  District has discretion as to use Modernization Funds once match is provided.
• Funds could be used to address non-Measure E needs for infrastructure improvements (e.g.HVAC systems, technology)
• Provides opportunities to address program improvements
• Leverages the Measure E funds to address facilities needs
• Modernization funds not under purview of COC
• Budgets may exceed realized revenues if State funds are not available

 

RECOMMENDATION (Issues 1 and 2)

Budget Measure E funds to address all safety issues related to earthquakes including non-structural deficiencies identified as first priority.No reduction of programmatic functioning is primary in the addressing of seismic needs.  Use opportunities whenever possible to improve educational program function and flexibility for the future.Budget State Modernization funds to address infrastructure issues to leverage Measure E funds on projects.Develop a prioritized list of program improvements to apply as the schedule for receipt of State funds is confirmed.For example, the addressing of seismic structural issues will require the invasion of wall and roof systems.  Use Modernization funds to insure electrical, heating and technology infrastructure systems are improved.  Use Measure E funds as the primary source for structural improvements.Use Modernization funds remaining to improve programmatic functions at each school.Consider usability after an earthquake in the structural criteria, design and implementation of projects.

ISSUE (3):  Accessibility and Fire and Life Safety Requirements.  There is a broad range to which accessibility and fire and life safety criteria could be addressed.  The Program Plan requires guidelines for the depth and breadth as to how these issues will be addressed in the final plans.

OPTION 3.a:   Address only the minimum requirements of DSA and OPSC

IMPACT:

• May not include a level that represents respect for all to have access to our  facilities for the educational process and as a community resource
• May not provide the minimum level of safety for non-structural hazards such as fire
• May be the most cost effective

 

OPTION 3.b: Address all requirements at all sites

IMPACT:

• Is cost prohibitive
• Unlikely can anticipate all needs
• Existing terrain and structures interfere

 

RECOMMENDATION (Issue 3)

It is likely that the requirements of DSA and OPSC on sites/projects that require major construction will be sufficient to respectfully address accessibility and provide an adequate level of safety. 

The dilemma is for projects that may not require significant construction for seismic improvement that triggers required accessibility and fire life safety upgrades.The District could choose not to include these projects in the overall Program Plan and therefore not be required to address accessibility or the fire and life systems.  It is recommended that all sites have the fire alarm systems upgraded to meet current standards as part of the Measure E projects.  Long term plans to address accessibility issues for sites to be developed and addressed through a combination of Measure E and the Deferred Maintenance program.  It is understood that all accessibility needs cannot be anticipated and/or addressed given the topography of Piedmont.  A plan to improve wherever possible is an important component of the Measure E program and in keeping with the District’s mission to serve all students.

 

ISSUE (4):  Historic/Aesthetic Requirements in Design.   The Board of Education recognizes their responsibility to the community to protect the historically significant aesthetic assets of the school facilities. 

OPTION 4.a:   Cost as the primary driver in design decisions and implementation

IMPACT:                                                                       

• Features of school buildings such as interior finishes in the auditoriums, murals in schools, tile roofs vary in historical significance
• Cost differential may/may not be significant
• Environmental quality review requirements (CEQA) may require review of historic designation that could delay projects.

 

OPTION 4.b:   Preserve aesthetic features of all buildings as is

IMPACT:                                                                       

• Have an obligation to community to protect assets including features of school buildings that have aesthetic value such as interior finishes in the auditoriums, murals in schools, tile roofs.The obligation includes application of best fiscal practices
• Not all features of current structures are historically significant
• Aesthetics value is not obviously, uniformly definable
• Cost differential may/may not be significant
• Address environmental quality review requirements (CEQA) from beginning of all projects.

 

RECOMMENDATION (Issue 4)

Address all buildings 50 years or older as if designated as historic sites in the development of the repair options.  Evaluate the cost differential of maintaining the historic features versus not.  It is important to note that some of the issues such as the tile roof systems once disrupted may be no more expensive to repair to the same aesthetics.  Seek repair options that maintain murals and internal features in the auditoriums.Preliminary investigations indicate that the cost differential to maintain historic features is not significant.  In the design development, when a specific aspect of a project is identified to have economically disparate impacts, consultants are to bring to the Steering Committee for a recommendation and to the Board for decision.

 

ISSUE (5):  Application of Sustainability/Green in Design.  The fiduciary responsibility of the Board includes attention to the effect on inhabitants of structures from the materials used, long term environmental impacts and fiscally responsible maintenance and energy use. 

OPTION 5.a:  Require all designs to meet the requirement for LEED^TM (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) rating system, and California High Performing Schools (CHPS)

IMPACT:

• Requirements address sustainability in choice of materials and use of energy
• Provides more ecologically friendly materials/use
• Certification process often expensive and time-consuming
• Could delay projects
• May impact cost
• May increase eligibility for State grants

 

OPTION 5.b:   Do not consider sustainability issues in design and choice of materials.

IMPACT:

• Not responsible to environment, community and students of future
• May impact cost
• May affect long-term cost for energy, replacement and maintenance

 

RECOMMENDATION (Issue 5)

Require all designs and materials to consider the requirements for LEED^TM and CHPS.Incorporate sustainability and ecological impact for now and the future for use and selection of materials.  Consider long-term implication for maintenance of facilities.  Require all steps for certification only if improves eligibility for increased funding.  Evaluate cost impact over long term in decision making process for specific issues.

 

ISSUE (6):  Consideration of Program Improvements Flexibility for facilities use for the current and future programmatic needs is a Board responsibility. Addressing the safety issues of the facilities will require the significant disruption of the educational process.  Guidelines for the extent to which program improvement considerations are applied in the prioritization process will be critical in the development of the overall Program Plan Development.

OPTION 6.a:   Program improvements are not the purpose of Measure E and should not be considered

IMPACT:

• Not responsible to community and students of future to ignore
• Fiscal implications not clear
• Some programmatic improvements such as accessibility required to be addressed

 

OPTION 6.b:   Consider program improvements only for those structures that will be disrupted by significant structural work as part of Measure E

IMPACT:

• May affect parity for opportunities for students across the District
• May allow for addressing flexibility and future needs as doing work

 

OPTION 6.c:  Consider program improvements for all sites in Program Plan Development

IMPACT:

• Addresses parity for educational opportunities for all students across the District
• Addresses flexibility and future needs for all sites
• Funding of program improvements may not be allowable as part of Measure E and/or State Modernization fund
• Needs are in excess of currently available funds
• Cannot anticipate all future needs

 

RECOMMENDATION (Issue 6)

Given the level of invasive work that is required to address the seismic issues, it is incumbent on the design team to consider program needs.Solving as many issues at once as possible is in keeping with Board goals.  It makes sense to address programmatic and infrastructure needs at the same time students, staff and the facility is being disrupted.   For example, a project may require the entire interior wall finishes in a classroom to be removed.  It makes good fiscal sense to make sure that systems within the walls (e.g.insulation, electrical, technology) are addressed before the walls are replaced and that the wall system that is installed meets the current and future when it can be anticipated; teaching needs (e.g.replacement of blackboards with “smart” boards, installation of projector mounts with the ceiling replacement).

It is recommended that the Board direct staff to define programmatic needs and to develop strategies to address issues of parity in conjunction with the Measure E Program Plan.  This may include alternative methods of delivery of programs, additional teaching resources and professional development opportunities for staff.

In the same vein as having facilities standards for facilities, we are committed to educational standards for the teaching environment.  This includes making sure that all students in the District have comparable opportunities as they progress through the grades.  This becomes particularly important at the elementary level because of having three sites.  Parity in program offerings as they are impacted by facilities for all sites must be considered in the Program Development.  Educational interests can be addressed in multiple ways that include resources other than those under the purview of Measure E. 

 

ISSUE (7):  Consideration of Use of Facilities Following an Earthquake Measure E is intended to make our buildings safer in the event of an earthquake.Imbedded in this notion is the housing of students in a safe environment after an earthquake.

OPTION 7.a:   Address only those projects that are identified as deficient by current standards to meet the life safe definition by FEMA standards

IMPACT:

• Some sites may not meet the technical definition of “life safe” but are unlikely to collapse and likely to allow for safe exiting after an earthquake.
• Some sites meet the technical definition of life safe and are unlikely to be usable after an earthquake. 

OPTION 7.b:  In addition to the FEMA standards, evaluate buildings for likely use after an earthquake.  Use professional judgment and provide recommendations for likely performance during and after an earthquake (e.g.red, yellow, and green tagging by FEMA)

IMPACT:

• Fiscal implications – increase in use of funds now versus cost of repair after an earthquake
• May affect sequencing of projects from original grouping

RECOMMENDATION (Issue 7)

Recovery after an earthquake is an integral part of the overall Program Plan Development.  The cost of strengthening prior to an earthquake is likely to be significantly less than repair after an earthquake.  The unknown is how the structure will actually behave and what damages are sustained.  The strict application of the ASCE standards may not accomplish the intent of Measure E in a fiscally responsible manner.The professional consultants’ recommendations as part of the Program Plan Development will include likely use after an earthquake for each project.  The priority order of projects may need to be altered to improve the District’s ability to attend to after an earthquake.  The maintenance facility, for example, is in the third category to be addressed.  In the Program Plan, it may make sense to address it sooner than later to improve our ability to attend to the needs of the sites after an earthquake.

SUMMARY

The agreement and communication on the guiding criteria for decision-making by the Board before the November 28, 2007 Board Meeting that begins the decision making phase of the Program Plan Development will aid in the prioritization process.With clarity on the over-arching issues, decisions about the details of the scope and sequence of projects can proceed from a common starting point. 

The goal is, by November 14, 2007, to have approved Guidelines for Project and Program Plan Development that can be applied as we begin the next phase for Measure E implementation on November 28, 2007.  It is anticipated that clear guidelines will expedite the overall Project Plan so the Implementation and Construction phase can begin as soon as possible.Inflation and market conditions significantly impact the budgeting of projects.  Delays can also significantly impact the receipt of funds from the State.Once the Project Program Plan is developed, issues of cash flow and bond issuance can be addressed.

 

II.      RECOMMENDATION:  INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the Board discuss the issues and recommendations as presented.  There will be opportunity for further discussion and input from the public at the next Board meeting and additional Board meetings, as appropriate.  The recommendations will be posted on the website at www.pusdbond.org .  The goal is to have the criteria finalized by November 14, 2007.

PUSD Bond Program Update – Save the Dates May 23 and May 30 

• The assessment and evaluation of priority buildings on the Havens Elementary School campus is now complete.
• Three design concept options have been developed to repair identified structural, accessibility, and fire/life safety deficiencies in the buildings.Cost estimates have been developed for each of the options, including estimates for a fourth option to rebuild the school.

The next two opportunities for citizens to provide feedback to the district on the options developed for Havens School are:

• Wednesday, May 23, 2007 as part of a regular Board Meeting in City Hall Council Chambers.The board meeting begins at 7:00 pm and lasts several hours depending upon the number of items on the board’s agenda.
• Wednesday, May 30, 2007 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm in the Ellen Driscoll Auditorium.This meeting will be dedicated to discussing the Havens project.Superintendent Constance Hubbard, School Board Members, Havens Principal, Tery Susman, murakami/Nelson President John Nelson, and Capital Program Management Principal, Mike Wasserman will be on hand to hear input and answer questions.

Public input also may be given via e-mail to: input@pusdbond.org

Stay tuned for additional ‘News and Updates’ by going to: www.pusdbond.org or calling (510) 594-2614.

• While school buildings were vacant over the Winter Break, technical engineering work continued in earnest at HavensElementary School and PiedmontHigh School.
• Murakami/Nelson is conducting a Tier II quantitative structural analysis of Havens Elementary School, and re-creating drawings for the PHS Library/30’s Building in order to begin a Tier II analysis for PHS.
• The Board authorized the Superintendent to begin contract negotiations with two separate firms for peer review services on the Havens and PHS projects (one firm per school).The Superintendent is authorized to prepare purchase orders, at an amount not to exceed $20,000 per firm, to initiate work immediately while the contract negotiations are concluded.
• Program Manager, Dave Burke informed the Board that on January 23, 2007, CPM plans to release a Revised Short-term Milestone Timeline which will identify when to expect technical findings and reports from Murakami/Nelson.
• All are invited to attend a community-wide input meeting on K-12 educational program needs.

January 18      City Hall Council Chambers   120 Vista Avenue        7-9 pm

• Learn from school principals what public education looks like today in the classrooms, libraries, and labs throughout the Piedmont schools.
• The Public Engagement Subcommittee recommended that instead of the February 8, 2007 meeting to update the community on the bond program, the district wait until after the Short-term Milestone Timeline is released to schedule further public input meetings.  Meetings will be scheduled once technical findings and reports are released.Updates will be provided on the website and via E-News.
• A Board Workshop on State Funding of Seismic, Modernization, and Joint-use Projects has been scheduled for March12, 2007, 8-10 am, in City Hall Council Chambers.Program Manager David Burke will present information to the Board.The meeting will be televised on KCOM.
• Through the City/School Liaison Committee, the school district is coordinating its public engagement efforts with the City and its Civic Center Master Planning Schedule.
• Stay tuned for additional ‘News and Updates’ by going to: www.pusdbond.org or call (510) 594-2614.

 

Save the dates January 18 and February 8 for the next community-wide meetings on the PUSD Bond Program.Both meetings will take place in the City Hall Council Chambers, 120 Vista Avenue, from 7:00-9:00 pm, and be televised on KCOM.  The topics for discussion include:

January 18, 2007 – Community-wide input on K-12 educational program needs

• For those who missed the November meetings at PHS and Havens, this meeting will be a great opportunity to learn from school principals what public education looks like today in the classrooms, libraries, and labs throughout the Piedmont schools.

February 8, 2007 – Community-wide update on PUSD Bond Program

(Originally 1/31/07 and changed due to conflict with City’s Centennial Celebration)

• The architectural/engineering firm of Murakami/Nelson has been hired and begun to conduct detailed engineering and cost estimation work on buildings that present the greatest seismic safety risks in our schools.  Havens is first in line for this work, followed by PHS.

• Although recommended options on how to address the seismic needs of the priority buildings will not be available by then – on February 8, Program Manager, David Burke, and Superintendent Constance Hubbard, will provide the public with a status report on the district’s progress.

• School Principals also will be available to answer questions from the public about educational program needs identified and discussed at their respective sites/grade levels and at public engagement meetings in November.Meeting recaps are available at: www.pusdbond.org.From the home page, click ‘Public Engagement’ and ‘Community Meetings’, then ‘Meeting Recap’ for the November 28 and/or November 30, 2006 meeting.

We look forward to your attendance and involvement in the public engagement process!

 

• A Board Workshop on State Funding of Seismic, Modernization, and Joint-use Projects has been scheduled for March12, 2007, 8-10 am, in City Hall Council Chambers.Program Manager David Burke will present information to the Board.The meeting will be televised on KCOM.

 

• Through the City/School Liaison Committee, the school district is coordinating its public engagement efforts with the City and its Civic Center Master Planning Schedule.

 

• Stay tuned for additional ‘News and Updates’ by going to: www.pusdbond.org or call (510) 594-2614.