— from Justin Paulsen —
It appears that the current school bond proposal has been framed as an “I like the Music Room” vs. “I like the Track” discussion. Even though that is how the discussion has been framed, it isn’t necessarily how the discussion SHOULD be framed. Each individual item up for discussion has an obligation to the voters to stand on its own merits. The track should no-more be measured against the music room than the High School HVAC improvement should be measured against repairing the road. They each need to be weighed on their own merits and then weighed in totality against the public’s willingness/ability to fund them.
Many of us in the community believe that the track is a very worthy concept, appreciate the donation and fully support the community use aspect of it, but a question that needs to be asked of every item is “What is the best use of public funds for the benefit and safety of the school and the children it serves?. In that discussion, we should also ask what parts of the current bond proposal are necessary to meet the base needs of the school’s physical plant? What parts help to make up for years of deferred maintenance by bringing failed systems up to current standard and keep the buildings surrounding them from suffering further degradation? What are the possible down-sides of going forward with any particular project beyond simply looking at the base cost? If an item is an expansion, how much future cost will the expansion add to the districts already unmet maintenance burden?
In answer to those questions, I offer the following thoughts:
The School Board has identified that it is in the interest of “fiscal responsibility” to include the track because of the $1 million donation. And… on its face, that is an exceptional value! Except, that if it weren’t for that donation, the Track, and the additional $1.3 million in taxpayer funded expense would not even be part of this discussion. When a scaled down $20 million +/- bond (that was rejected) was conceived as a road map to modernize the entire campus and meet the needs of the school for decades to come the idea of a track was intentionally left off as it was deemed unnecessary. At that time, a track was removed as part of the long range plan for the district property. It is not the needs of the district that is driving this expense, it is a donation that has created the need. In looking at almost every other item being considered for inclusion in the new bond (many of which are not currently included) they are a reflection in-part of the modernization proposal.
With regard to impact and side effects, there is no other single project within the collective, except the track, that presents a reduction in available use to the community and the school. For over 4 years, Orcas Island Park and Rec District has used the current field configuration, in cooperation with OISD, to run programs alongside school athletic programing. It is not uncommon for there to be over 200 kids, age 4-18 on the School fields and at Buck park at any given time utilizing every field available. The addition of the proposed track replaces 3 of those fields with a single field, cuts in half the available Spring Baseball and Softball capacity and places further strain on the existing fields sustainability.
Finally, with the addition of a new track and field comes added maintenance. As it is, the district is already unable to budget to meet the ongoing needs of the current grounds and facilities. An analysis of district finances will reveal that the District has never been able to fully reinstate many of the cuts that were made in the past that eliminated funds for maintenance and custodial expenses. Many of the necessary items considered for the proposed bond are there because, quite simply, the district has not been able to afford proper upkeep. They have weathered to the point that they are no longer maintenance items and are now capital repairs. This point would argue against ANY expansion of the physical plant without parallel additions to the maintenance and upkeep budget.
There are dramatic and important needs to be addressed at the school to keep it a healthy and functioning place for our children. Without question, many projects need to be accomplished in order for our Teachers and our Students to maximize their ability to thrive. I urge OISD to focus on allocating our community tax resources towards meeting the base requirements of those needs before embarking on added projects. I encourage them, in making their decisions, to step back and fully analyze both the positive and negative the impact that a single project may have on our community’s ability to serve its population.
Justin, not only does this make sense, but it would be grand if the current and future boards could build on the momentum that has been started. Chris mentions this in the analogy of the boards success, I echo Chris’s concept, but caution.. (careful for what you wish for).
Disciplines of finance includes good stewardship. As in maintenance, which includes health and wellness of structured and scheduled maintenance programs. Which I’m sure the appropriate staff are doing..
Good questions to ponder for all concerned.
I look forward to the board to continue by leading by example.
Thank you Justin for your well thought out comments. I echo them completely.Unfortunately I missed the last School Board meeting. I was surprised to see the track still on the bond . The prior community meeting results indicated very litte priority given to the track. Only 1 out of the 7 round tables in the last meeting were for it.Where as the music and weight room additions were favored by 3 or 4 of the 7 round table groups. At least with the addition of these rooms there is space made that is needed for the Elementary and High School.
Which makes me wonder if the School Board is really listenimg to the community.I echo your comment that the donation has created the need. I do not see any detriment to education itself. I may be too simple in my opinoin but I fail to see how a gift of a million that will cost 1.3 milion is a value or a prudent use of public funds. Just because it was offered does not mean we have to use it.I see no lives or educational danger if we continued with out this facility.
I also strongly agree with your comments on lack of maintenance. Until we take care of what we have why should we invest in other new projects.
As it is proposed now I don’t think I can support it .
Justin – Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. There is indeed a lot to consider – it is refreshing that we have people (like you) that contribute so positively to the dialog.
Hang on there, fella’s.
Not sure why you are framing this issue as one vs the other. The bond proposal includes both because our school board sees that both would benefit our students and our community greatly.
The football field and the upper baseball fields are in need of repairs and upgrades. This bond will fund those repairs and upgrades.
The track will be paid for by a donation. Going forward, the school will be responsible for maintenance. The donor family has ALREADY contributed over a $1 M endowed fund to benefit the school. This is additional to the $1 M promised for the track. While the school board has full discretion over where the funds are spent, the annual distribution from the endowment will certainly be more than the annual upkeep and maintenance for the track and will provide an offset in the overall budget.
I would hope that as a member of the Parks and Rec Board, whose mission is to increase access to activities for all of our community, you would welcome the renovations and improvements.
As a community and with great thanks to the MAG group, we have invested in building a strong and vibrant music program. Continuing to build that program makes sense.
Let’s move beyond us vs them, me vs we and think about what we want for our community. I for one would like a track AND a music room. Working for the best solutions for all of our community is a win for all.
A cogent analysis Justin…thank you.
I’m hoping that the School Board will reconsider their reasoning behind inclusion of the track within the bond proposal to be put before the voters. There was zero support for it at the table I sat at during the community outreach meetings.
IMO the gift horse of $1M towards the $2.3M cost will only result in a white elephant requiring significant resources to equip, maintain, and to provide the coaching and programming for its use. What is proposed, appears to me to be suitable for a high school of perhaps 2000 students…all this for a small rural school which struggles to field competitive teams for basic sports…it truly boggles my mind.
And while I can understand how such a facility would generate some degree of community use in an urban setting w/ limited public adult recreation opportunities, I really don’t see non-student use of any significance here on Orcas Island.
Please set aside considerations related to the $1M gift…listen to the voters, explore other options…surely the track could be shown as a separate line item in the measure which will be on the ballot…including the track threatens the passage of the bond.
As a relative newcomer to the island, I want to express my appreciation for Justin’s effort and the subsequent commentators, who in the aggregate provide a newbie the multiple perspectives necessary to understand the issue. Cudos also to Justin, Brian and Fred for political courage. One question for Hilary, am I incorrect in understanding that taxpayers are funding about 55% of the cost of the track? Your comment suggests another donation of $1.3M in addition to the specific bequest is paying for the track and not the proceeds of the bond? Thanks for your clarification.
I have received the most recent published materials that that are included in the board review packet. Contrary to earlier versions of the Track proposal, the new proposal includes re establishing the displaced baseball fields.
I maintain many of my earlier concerns, but thank the board for recognizing that losing those spaces would indeed be detrimental to the community.
I echo completely the points mentioned by Justin, Brian and Fred . . .
One area not mentioned, with regard to the addition of the track, is how will the addition of another sport impact the sports we already have? I simply do not believe we have the numbers of students to warrant the addition of another sport. There seems to be (and it’s my understanding that this has been true for some time) that there is a group of students in each grade that choose to play sports. The numbers are small and stretching those out to cover another sport will potentially decrease the number of athletes needed to make up other teams. I believe it will jeopardize team spring sports such as baseball, softball and soccer.
As written, I cannot support the bond issue. It is unfortunate because I believe a bond is needed and I would support if it addressed only current needs. It is a lesson that I have tried to teach my own children: if you are not responsible with what you have then why should you get more?