Your browser does not support JavaScript!
January 27, 2010 - Property Operations Minutes
Property/Operations Committee
January 27, 2010

A meeting of the Property/Operations Committee was held at R.G. Sinclair Public School, 19 Crerar Blvd., Kingston, on Wednesday, January 27, 2010, at 5:30 p.m.
Present Trustees:
L. French, Chair
H. Brown
H. Chadwick (ex-officio)
E. Crawford
A. Goodfellow
D. Jackson
B. McLaren
Present Staff:
G. Carson, Manager of Facility Services
E. Lalonde, Recording Secretary
P.Lynch, Manager of Financial Services
R. Richard, Superintendent of Business Services
W. Toms, Manager, Information Technology Services
S. Wowk, Manager, Tri-Board Student Transportation Services     
Chair French extended thanks to Principal Pattie Shultz for hosting the meeting and indicated that the school looked great.

Chair French called the meeting to order, welcoming those present to the meeting.

Approval of Agenda

Trustee Jackson requested that the RFP for photocopier services and the architect selection process be added under Other Business.  Chair French indicated that the RFP for photocopier services was already on the agenda under Information and could possibly be discussed there and that the architect selection process would be added to the agenda..
Chair French indicated that there were two additional items for private session.
MOVED BY Trustee McLaren, that the agenda, as distributed and amended, be approved.–Carried

Request from School Council re: Building Committee Representation for New Kingston East School

A signed letter from the co-chairs of J.E. Horton P.S. School Council and École Lundy’s Lane P.S. School Council was reviewed.  Superintendent Richard indicated that the letter from the school councils was fairly straightforward.  The letter requests “that the school staff and parental composition of the Building Committee be equivalent to that of PARCs, as specified by LDSB Administrative Policy 120, containing six (6) members including the Principal from each affected school”. Superintendent Richard indicated that staff did not have any additional comments on the present makeup of the Building Design Committee.  It has been presented on two (2) different occasions to the Property and Operations Committee and presently the Building Design Committee includes the school principal and the school council chair from each school affected.  It was thought that the principal of the school and the chair of the school council could receive comments/input from the school staff and school community respectively and those comments/input could be brought back to the Building Design Committee for discussion.   Trustee Crawford handed the original signed letter to the recording secretary.

Trustee Goodfellow asked who was included on the Design Committee. Superintendent Richard indicated that the committee included members such as: the Chair of the Property and Operations Committee, the Manager of Facility Services, the School Principal, the School Council Chair, the Project Coordinator, the Architect, the area Trustee and the Plant Construction Supervisor.
Trustee Goodfellow asked  how much leeway does the Design Committee really have?  Superintendent Richard indicated that the province developed a new school template that had to be used by school boards and approved by the Ministry of Education prior to the Board completing an RFP for the hiring of an architect. The Ministry of  Education has really tightened up the school construction process and we will need approval from them at several stages in the process.  He further indicated that the Ministry has included one additional item that makes it mandatory to hire an independent cost consultant.

Trustee Brown stated that she had read over the letter and had some thoughts about maintaining the committee as is.  The size of this committee for this PARC, and the other PARCs, which include even more schools, would make it a very large number of people and she felt that it was actually too large to be effective. She indicated that the Design Committee was quite different from the actual PARC. Trustee Brown believed that we will receive lots of input from this committee. She stated that she would prefer to leave the composition of the Design Committee as is.

Trustee Chadwick asked if the Building Design Committee’s responsibilities were outlined in our policy.  Superintendent Richard stated that the policy dealing with accommodation reviews does not deal specifically with the Building Design Committee. He further indicated that staff, on two separate occasions, outlined for the Property and Operations Committee and the Board the suggested composition of the Building Design Committee. Trustee Chadwick asked if this committee would be voting during its deliberations. Superintendent Richard said that it is a working committee and that the committee would most likely use consensus to arrive at its final recommendations. The final recommendations of the committee will be brought back to the Property and Operations Committee and the Board for final approval . The committee itself would have no voting rights. Trustee Chadwick indicated that if there was only one community representative on the committee then the community would be expecting that person to listen to all of the suggestions and input from the broader community.  It will place a lot of pressure on that one person.

Trustee Crawford stated that she had the same concerns as Trustee Chadwick.  The chair of the school council felt pressured by being on the PARC.  Trustee Crawford has read the proposal and agrees that it is fair, as well as transparent and it would be good to have up to three (3) parents on that committee. She indicated that we could look at each PARC individually.

Trustee Jackson agreed with Trustee Crawford and indicated that the advisory working group is a valuable committee.  From the community’s point of view, particularly with the pressure from the Ministry of Education, they are not saying that we can address all the concerns from people, however they will feel much better if the larger community is well represented.   It would still be smaller than the PARC.

Trustee Goodfellow indicated that she could not agree with the motion and would find the size of committee too unruly. We might never get any decisions made. We already have 10 or 12 people on the working committee. She stated that the school council chair’s job is to get the input from their community, as that is what they are there for. She explained that Kingston West has 11 schools and if new construction was required, it might mean some 60 people being on the working committee.

Trustee McLaren stated that looking at the community, they would know very little about building a new school. It is the architect, and the consultants and Facility Services staff  that do that. The community input with respect to artifacts and other such items being moved  from one school to another would be helpful.

Trustee Brown indicated that the Napanee area would have over 20 people on the working committee.

Trustee McLaren indicated that we want the parents’ input, however it is still the board’s responsibility to build the new school.

Trustee Chadwick indicated that she is seeing it differently than her colleagues.  From her experience dealing with parents, she believed that the parents were very happy that they were involved. During cost cutting times, parents are there to help.  She do not see it as a huge problem. A question was asked related to the transition committee outlined in the Board policy. Superintendent Richard indicated that there is an integration committee and its role is outlined in Board Policy #15 - School Accommodation.

Trustee Crawford indicated that she would like a recorded vote. She stated that based on her experience in the community, one school council chair may not always be able to come to a committee meeting. She indicated that back with the former board, we needed the three separate school trustees to represent the people.

        MOVED BY Trustee Crawford, that up to three (3) parents from each affected school be included on the Building Design Committee.

The result of the vote was as follows:
YEAS:   Trustee Crawford, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee Jackson (3)

NAYS:   Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee McLaren, Trustee Brown (3)

Chair French declared that the vote was a tie.  Chair French cast the deciding vote and voted against the motion. The motion was therefore Lost. She indicated however that discussion could continue and alternate options could be brought forward.

Trustee Jackson indicated that if having three parent members on the committee is not acceptable, then we could perhaps move a motion calling for 2 parents to be on the committee. Trustee Jackson also indicated that based on his experience having served on a number of committees in the past, he believed that the need for representation will vary from area to area but that additional representatives will help us enormously with any cuts that may have to be made.

Trustee Chadwick said that having at least two (2) parent members would address the issue of one parent not being available to attend a meeting.

Trustee McLaren indicated that in the past if one member could not attend, they could send an alternate. That one person can get the community’s support and it is a better way of logistically doing this.

Trustee Crawford stated that she supports having two parent representatives on the committee but would have preferred three.  Trustee Crawford asked for a recorded vote.   

Trustee Chadwick indicated that she would like to have two parent members from each school.  Trustee Jackson stated that he would also like to see two members on the committee.

Trustee Brown asked if we are suggesting that we do this for every PARC.  Trustee Chadwick said that we are not suggesting that.  In this case, the request has come from this community and that’s how we should view the request.   

Trustee Goodfellow asked if we had a policy or do we need to have a set procedures.  It would not be fair if we are going to have a different set of procedures for each PARC. There is no reason that the people who represent the community can’t go back to their communities for input.

Trustee Jackson asked if this committee is able to set procedures for other committees? We are really only adding one new member to the Design Committee.  Superintendent Richard clarified that we would be adding a total of two members (i.e. one per school) to the Committee.

        MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, the Property/Operations Committee recommends to the Board, that the Kingston East Elementary Building Design Committee include two (2) parents from each of the affected schools - J.E. Horton P.S. and Lundy’s Lane P.S.

Chair French reminded Trustees that a recorded vote had been requested. The result of the vote was as follows:

        YEAS:   Trustee Crawford, Trustee Chadwick, Trustee Jackson (3)

        NAYS:   Trustee Goodfellow, Trustee McLaren, Trustee Brown (3)

Chair French declared the vote a tie. Chair French cast the deciding vote and voted in favour of the motion. The motion was therefore Carried.

Trustee Goodfellow asked if we needed to have a set procedure for all PARCs.  She did not realize that we would have a different procedure for each PARC.  If we do have 2 parent representatives for each school, then the Sharbot Lake Building Design Committee will have 12 parent representatives alone.

Trustee Chadwick indicated that each school area is distinct. Some parents are more involved and some are less.  It depends on the situation. She does not see a problem with Napanee or Sharbot Lake wanting something different. She indicated that, as we learned from special education, sameness is not fairness.

Trustee Jackson stated that he believes that the Board will end up with a better building, if we have more input.

Trustee McLaren responded and reminded the Committee that whether it is one or several people representing thousands, we will be presented with all of the community feedback that we need.   

Trustee Jackson indicated that we will listen carefully to comments.  Once again he indicated that he has worked on many committees.   The material would be presented and decided upon that night.

Trustee Goodfellow indicated that there will be an elected area Trustee on the Design Committee, as well as a  principal and a school council chair from each school representing the community. We already have three people representing the community. She believes that we will have plenty of input from the people elected to represent them.  She stated that she quite likes the current makeup of the committee.

Chair French clarified that the Board  has not dictated how the community will decide on the second parent representative.

Trustee Goodfellow indicated that she was not clear. She indicated that we had just voted for this community to have two parent members from each school on the Building Design Committee. She wondered if we should be setting a standard process for all PARCs. Should we be moving to have a set standard for the others?

MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, that all PARCs have the same makeup for the Building Design Committee going forward and that there only be one parent representative on the Committee.

Chair French ruled that this motion was out of order, as it was in direct conflict with a motion already approved by the Committee.

Trustee Goodfellow withdrew her motion.

Chair French indicated that for this community, we have an approved motion for two parent representatives to be on the Building Design Committee.       

Trustee Chadwick indicated that the Board can still bring in experts to assist the Design Committee. We never say others shall not join. Trustee Goodfellow indicated that we always have had experts that can be brought in. Trustee Chadwick said that we may need to add one of them to a committee.

Manager Carson indicated that when we select the architect, what we are really doing is selecting the architect’s team, which is comprised of several consultants  Each consultant may attend Design Committee meetings at different times, depending on what is specifically being discussed at any particular meeting.

Chair French thanked everyone for the excellent discussion.

Building Construction Internship Program - Barr Homes

Superintendent Richard indicated that, as we have witnessed in past years, QECVI is requesting that the Board approve an additional Building Construction Internship Program (BCIP) project for the second semester of the 2009-2010 school year. The project will be completed with Barr Homes acting as the general contractor. Superintendent Richard indicated that QECVI is also continuing with the Harvesting House project during the second semester.

        MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, the Property/Operations Committee recommends to the Board, that the Board enter into an agreement with Barr Homes for the construction of a single family residence on Lot 1 (Phase 2-B), Islandview Drive, Amherstview to be completed by June 25, 2010 by the QECVI Building Construction Internship Program.  - Carried.        

Tender for Photocopier Services and Supplies

Manager Lynch indicated that the Board actually has two (2) contracts for photocopier services and supplies. Each contract is for a 4 year term, with the option for a fifth year at a lower cost..  He indicated that every two years we tender for half of the total services required by the Board.   The tenders are scored and the specifications provide for more than just cost. Manager Lynch indicated that we had 5 companies submit tenders. The tenders were as follows:

Company                       Cost per Copy                        Estimated Annual Cost

Konica-Minolta                          $0.01230                                $209,100
4Office Automation Ltd          $0.01350                                $229,500
Kyocera Mita Canada Ltd         $0.01364                                $231,880
Ricoh Canada Inc.                       $0.01380                                $234,600
Toshiba of Canada Ltd           $0.01390                                $236,300
Manager Lynch indicated that Konica/Minolta offered the Board the lowest cost and received the highest overall point score on the tender.  Konica/Minolta operates locally through Upper Canada Copy and has provided photocopier services to the Board for a number of years now.

Superintendent Richard stated that Trustee Murray had forwarded an email to himself and Chair French indicating some concern that issues related to the RFP had been presented to the Board at an earlier Board meeting and more specifically that a particular company had indicated that the Board’s RFP did not allow for environmental technologies. Superintendent Richard stated that the contract was for a minimum of 4 years. We have found that new equipment provides the best value for the Board, as there are a relatively small number of problems with the equipment. The company in question was offering recycled equipment with some new replacement parts and was trying to try to make the case that their equipment was therefore environmental technology. Superintendent Richard reminded Trustees that one study completed, which compared the carbon footprint of the various machines included in the tender, showed that the company’s carbon footprint for its machines were 6 times higher than for the Konica/Minolta equivalent machines. The current tendering process has served the schools very well.

Trustee Chadwick inquired as to why the costs have gone down. Manager Lynch indicated that it is very good pricing; however, not a really huge drop for us.  One reason is because there is really good local competition. He indicated that the last time the Board tendered, the one company lost the tender and bid aggressively this time. As well, there was a provincial tendering process taking place for photocopier services. It was noted that a twenty-two percent reduction in costs was exceptional.

Trustee Jackson indicated that he had no problems with the tender but indicated however that there is a broader issue.  He believes it is not unreasonable to use reusable equipment and would like to have the Environmental Sustainability Committee review the issue and provide a report to the Property and Operations Committee.  He would like the Board to look at future RFPs to see what environmental practices we could allow and under what conditions that they may apply.  

        MOVED BY Trustee Jackson, that the issue of using reusable equipment be forwarded to the  Environmental Sustainability Committee for its review.
Trustee Chadwick indicated that she did not know how much relevant data was available, which analyzed the differences between the use of brand new equipment versus refurbished or old equipment. She indicated that indeed this may be a question for the Environmental Sustainability Committee.

Trustee Brown indicated that she believes that staff is constantly looking at this issue.

Superintendent Richard indicated that the Ministry has asked boards to look at this issue as well.   People are just starting to get into this in a broader sense.      

Trustee Goodfellow questioned why we needed a motion to refer this issue to the Environmental Sustainability Committee. Have we not just directed staff to bring this issue to the Environmental Sustainability Committee.
Chair French was unsure of the protocols related to one committee of the Board directing another committee of the Board.  The Committee nevertheless agreed to refer the matter to the Environmental Sustainability Committee.
The motion was called and Carried.

Department Updates

ITS Department

Manager Toms stated that ITS has two pilot projects going on at the moment at Westdale Park P.S. and N.D.S.S. These projects have been prepared by teachers and administrators at the schools and involve the use of technology to improve student achievement.

Manager Toms indicated that ITS assisted the Technology Coordinator in developing a web site for the Harvesting House project. The website address is harvesting

Manager Toms stated that all of the Board’s IT technicians will be participating in a professional development day with other boards in Eastern Ontario. The Board is receiving funding for a one-day professional development day

Manager Toms indicated that his department is assisting Ruth Bailey with the Sharbot Lake Family of Schools and the Kingston West and Loyalist accommodation reviews.

Trustee Jackson asked if Manager Toms could circulate the power point presentation made to Trustees at the last Education and Human Resources Committee meeting. Manager Toms indicated that he would.

Chair French thanked Manager Toms for his update.

Tri-Board Student Transportation Services

Manager Wowk indicated that everything is running smoothly at Tri-Board Transportation (Tri-Board). He stated that they are receiving many phone calls from around the province as a result of Tri-Board’s success with the last E & E review. He further indicated that they have spent many hours discussing issues with other boards and helping them prepare for their own E & E reviews.  Manager Wowk stated that Tri-Board had to continue to innovate even when we had achieved a perfect score on our review.

Manager Wowk indicated that the change of semester in the secondary schools is like a mini start-up for Tri-Board.  There are some 2,000 transportation changes which must be administered in a very short period of time.  The changes are required as a result of some students changing schools or attending other programs offsite.

Manager Wowk also mentioned that they have improved the bus cancellation process.  We have also been very fortunate with bus cancellations this year.  

Tri-Board is also continuing to ensure that our student information is as up to date as possible. We have approximately 1,000 addresses to correct, of which 600 have been corrected to date.  

Trustee Chadwick stated that at the recent trustee conference, the Trustees from our Board and the Hastings Board received many accolades related to the results of our E & E review.  It was incredible to see the level of anxiety exhibited by trustees in many other boards related to their difficulties in preparing for their own E & E reviews. It is obviously not going well in many cases. It is such a relief for us (Limestone and Hastings Trustees) to not have to worry about transportation issues, so that we can focus on what is most important and that is our students. Trustee Chadwick thanked Manager Wowk and his staff for the excellent work in this regard.

Chair French added that some boards are still struggling to even set up their consortiums.      

Superintendent Richard indicated that he was glad to hear that the Trustees were able to get an understanding of what is going on throughout the province related to transportation consortiums. It certainly gives us a good appreciation for the excellent partnership that we enjoy with our coterminous boards. All three member boards deserve a lot of credit for placing students first and working collaboratively to make the consortium the success that it is.

Superintendent Richard indicated that the Ministry of Education may consider legislation if boards cannot manage to set up effective transportation consortiums as required by the government.

Chair French thanked Manager Wowk for providing a Tri-Board Student Transportation Services update.
Facility Services

Manager Carson informed the Committee that the City of Kingston (City) is taking the lead with respect to the RFP for the track and field athletic centre.  The RFP document is almost completed and will be ready for advertising fairly soon. The City has made various adjustments to the RFP based on input provided by facility Services. The City has been doing an excellent job.

Manager Carson indicated that the addition to Sydenham H.S. is the first Board project to be approved under the Ministry of Education’s (MOE’s) new guidelines. Board staff have started procedures for the rezoning of the surrounding property owned by the Board.  The project will have to be carefully designed to include the biomass boiler system project, which was approved for Sydenham H.S. under the MOE’s energy management program. Board staff are working with the township to ensure that all necessary approvals are obtained. We still need to secure one more small parcel of land adjacent to our property and we are working with the township in this regard.  Facility Services has started to meet with the school team and the architect to work on the design of the addition. Facility Services is hoping to have shovels in the ground this summer.

The RFP for architectural services for the new Kingston East and Greater Napanee schools will be completed this week and it is anticipated that the RFP will be advertised on Friday, January 29th or Monday, February 1st at the latest. The Board was not allowed to tender for architectural services until it had received MOE approval of the school templates, which in fact the Board has just received. Staff believe that the RFP process will ensure that the Board is able to contract with a very good design team(s).

Manager Carson also indicated that Facility Services is in the midst of completing numerous small projects in the schools in conjunction with the semester turnaround. There is some pressure as the work needs to be completed in a two (2) week period.   

Manager Carson indicated that we experienced some major water main breakdowns after the Christmas holiday season, related to the extremely cold weather which took place after a mild spell. He stated that we are dealing with schools that are well over 50 years old in some cases. He  further indicated that this may not be rare occurrence going forward, as the buildings continue to age. Facility Services will do its best to try and ensure that it does not happen.  Unfortunately, in some cases we do not know there is a problem until a major malfunction occurs. He reminded Trustees that our newest school is Cataraqui Woods P.S., which is now 12 years old and Lancaster Drive P.S., which is our second newest school, is now 20 years old.

Trustee Crawford confirmed that Manager Carson had indicated that the Board had received approval to continue to the design phase for the new Kingston East and Greater Napanee schools.  

Manager Carson informed the Committee that Director Hunter had received a telephone call from an individual with respect to tree planting.   Manager Carson indicated that the Director was trying to put an information package together for the Trustees’ consideration. Last year the Board completed a project for the planting of some 300 trees. The work was completed but there was no budget established for the project. It is Facility Services’ understanding that a proposed 2010 project would involve the planting of some 1,000 trees. The Director’s Office is working on the project scope and budget.    

Trustee Crawford said that she understood that all of her schools were getting trees, probably 200 in total. Superintendent Richard stated that this project is a huge undertaking for the Board. All of the trees need to be professionally planted and then the trees need to be staked, painted and mulch deposited at the base of the trees. During a normal summer period, the trees need to be watered every week for at least a six week period. This will be an expensive project. Staff need to get costing information for the Board, before we proceed with any of these projects.
Trustee Goodfellow commented on the great work done by Facility Services in getting the schools operational so fast after the water main breaks.   

Trustee Jackson asked if they could go back to the Sydenham H.S. addition.  He indicated that he was not aware of this project. Superintendent Richard indicated that some six or seven years ago, boards in declining enrolment environments complained that they had no chance of receiving new pupil place funding, despite the fact that they were experiencing population growth in some areas of the Board. In response, the Ministry of Education (MOE) introduced the Enrolment Pressures Grant program, which provided boards with new pupil place funding to construct additions to existing schools to solve the enrolment pressures problem. Our Board received approval for 5 school sites, namely Sydenham H.S., Frontenac S.S., Bayridge S.S., Westdale Park P.S. and Prince Charles P.S. It was obviously impossible to complete all of these major projects at once. The work at Frontenac S.S. was completed first and Bayridge S.S. next. We are now working on the Sydenham H.S. addition. We now must follow the MOE’s new capital guidelines and thus a school template had to be completed for the Sydenham H.S. project. We have received approval from the MOE to continue to the design phase for this project. The approval is for 145 new pupil places. Once the proposed design for the new addition at Sydenham H.S. is completed, it will be brought back to the Property and Operations Committee and the Board for approval.   

Trustee Jackson asked if there was a school template for Sydenham H.S. Superintendent Richard indicated that there was an approved school template and that we can present it to the Committee at its next meeting. Manager Carson stated that Facility Services may be able to also bring a tentative floor plan to the next meeting. Superintendent Richard  indicated that the Board has purchased several parcels of land surrounding the school over the last number of years.

Chair French thanked Manager Carson for his updates.

Trustee Crawford thanked Manager Toms for dealing with her concern related to a portable.       
Trustee Jackson inquired about the RFP for architectural services and asked when it would be advertised.  He also asked if there was a potential for 2 individual firms to be awarded the contract, that is, one for Kingston East and one for Greater Napanee.  Superintendent Richard indicated that the RFP would be advertised starting on Friday, January 29th. He also stated that the Board could allow one firm to receive the contract for both schools or the Board could appoint two separate companies, one for each school. A specific recommendation for the Committee and ultimately the Board to consider would only be forthcoming after the RFP review committee had completed its process. He further indicated that the Board might receive a very favourable fee structure, if a single company was awarded both school projects.

Trustee Jackson asked if the building design committee would have input with respect to the selection of the architect(s). Superintendent Richard indicated that no, the process will be like all other RFPs put out by the Board.  The RFPs will be reviewed by a tender opening committee. He noted that for the first time the Board would be using Bidingo to advertise this RFP. Interested bidders will be able to get all the information they require to bid on the RFP on the Bidingo site.  Trustee Jackson asked if we could circulate the RFP document early.  Superintendent Richard stated that the RFP document could be distributed to all Trustees.

Trustee Jackson asked if the MOE approves the school templates. Superintendent Richard confirmed that the MOE indeed does approve school templates, however the Board does have some leeway with respect to the actual design of the building.  He further indicated that the MOE also provides further approvals at different stages in the project. For example, the MOE will analyze and approve the final projected costs of the project before construction can begin.   

Trustee Crawford asked if the Board will receive the original funding allocation. Superintendent Richard confirmed that the Board would receive the original funding allocation. He further indicated that as part of the approval of the school templates, the MOE indicated that the Board could not exceed the benchmark gross floor area nor the construction budget.

Trustee Jackson indicated that he would have preferred to have seen the tender information before it went out. Superintendent Richard indicated that this is actually a RFP and not a tender. The RFP review committee will not be just looking at fees, but will also look at company experience and references, methodology, staff qualifications, schedule, etc. The bidders will also be making a presentation to the review committee. We are following the same procedure that we always use for RFPs. Trustee Jackson stated that he would have preferred to have the RFP document come back to at least to this committee.   

Trustee Chadwick indicated that the Board is in a better position to make the corporate decision of who would be the most appropriate architect.   Respectfully the design committee is still involved but she does not see it as an issue.

Trustee Goodfellow wholeheartedly agreed with Trustee Chadwick and stated that the Board had very qualified staff working on the process and they should be designing the RFP document.

Trustee McLaren asked if we were doing anything different from other boards. Superintendent Richard stated that our Board’s process was very similar to other boards in the province.  
Recess to Private Session

MOVED BY Trustee Goodfellow, that the Property/Operations Committee recess to Private Session.– Carried

Recess to Public Session

MOVED BY Trustee McLaren , that the Property/Operations Committee move back into Public Session.– Carried

Next Meeting Date

The next meeting of the Property/Operations Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, February 24, 2010, at Sydenham H.S.   


MOVED BY Trustee McLaren, that the meeting adjourn at 8:33 p.m.– Carried


Chair French asked Manager Wowk to present his information items.

Manager Wowk shared that there had been a death at a school bus stop in the Hastings area.  A woman in Hastings was standing with her two (2) children at a bus stop, when a car slid and hit her.  The 37 year old mother was thrown down a bank and was killed.

Trustee Goodfellow asked if we could send a card to her family. Manager Wowk will check with the Hastings and Prince Edward Board and will let us know if this is appropriate.

Manager Wowk provided an update on a labour dispute occurring in the west half of the Tri-Board area.  
Superintendent Richard provided an update on the Napanee District Secondary School retrofit project.
Recess to Public Session

MOVED BY Trustee McLaren , that the Property/Operations Committee move back into Public Session.– Carried