Guest Opinion: With Regard to an Email You May Have Received

By the Yes, for Schools Committee

We want to commend the authors of the document entitled “Comments on the Orcas School Levy and Bond Issue” for beginning their statement with support for the school LEVY, which is on the same ballot as the BOND.  Because of massive cuts in state money for education, the levy helps pay for staff, maintenance, and transportation. Without the levy, school programming would undergo dramatic cuts throughout the k-12 spectrum.

The document then goes on to talk about the second proposition on the February ballot having to do with a proposed school bond.  First of all, the document refers to a $36.3 Million dollar bond.  This is incorrect.  The proposition that is before voters is for a $35 Million bond.  Total repair and replacement construction will COST $36.3 Million, of that total, $35 Million will come from the bond; the additional funding will come from money from a previous bond, an energy grant, and state matching funds.  It should be noted that the money leftover from the previous bond was to be used for a new CTE (Careers and Technical Education) building.  As has been the history with previous bond requests, that bond was not enough to build that facility.  The school board has held on to that money to be used for the construction of the CTE building WHEN it has garnered enough money to do the job correctly.

On the first page of the document entitled “Comments on the Orcas School Levy,” the word ‘new construction’ is misleading. Yes, there will be ‘new’ construction, but in every case the ‘new’ construction will be replacing an existing facility. In some cases, such as the library, the new facilities will actually be smaller than the current facilities. Overall, the size of the project, as currently envisioned, represents only an 8% increase from the size of the current campus.

The new construction is necessary, both to provide a safe and comfortable environment for our students, as well as to create facilities that are energy efficient, low maintenance and long lasting.

The current bond rate is $.27 per $1000, but that represents the smallest annual rate in a bond that started much higher ($.52 per $1000), but was structured to decrease annually.  The bond rate, if approved will be $.72 per $1000. The combined rate of the Bond and Levy would be $1.33. Historically, the combined levy and bond rates that Orcas taxpayers paid during much of the 1990’s were higher than the proposed rates for this levy and bond.  In 1996, Orcas taxpayers were paying $1.68 in combined bond and levy taxes.

The document questions the necessity of art, music, culinary, shop and general use spaces, which will be made available to the public.  There is a perception that these are new spaces, and not needed in light of other community facilities already in existence on Orcas.  These are not ‘new.’

They already exist and require replacement, if only for strictly student use. The concept of making them available to the public as a Community Learning Center, simply involves designing those required spaces in such a way as to allow for additional access, thus making better use of the facilities and creating additional education possibilities for the community. This does not, in and of itself, cost more money. It simply requires the intention and design consideration.

The library, as with the other facilities, requires replacement and, in fact, will be significantly smaller than the existing school library. The Public Library is an excellent public library, but it is not and cannot be a school library.  How can a 2nd grade teacher walk her students down to the library and back in a 50 minute time period?  Furthermore, students of all grade levels use the school library on a daily basis and have access to the full attention of a school librarian, specific materials, testing facilities connected to school curriculum and a collection tailored to educational needs and divided into grade level groupings.

The document questions the need for a cohesive OASIS facility.  OASIS is currently the third largest of the district’s five schools in terms of enrollment. The growth in enrollment in the district this year is almost entirely due to the growth of the programs in OASIS. Building appropriate classrooms for this school is essential and makes good financial sense. Even if OASIS were to stop growing right now (we actually anticipate the possibility of significant continued growth) the additional funding that the students in that program generate for the district would total close to $8 Million over the life of this bond.

Then there is a concern about the ‘soft costs’ for the project.  ‘Soft costs’ are, in large part, required. We are not allowed, by the state, to put forth a bond issue based solely on the estimated construction costs. This is an area where the commitment and determination of the Board to provide aggressive cost control can actually reduce the final costs of the project. The Board has chosen to structure the bond as a ‘split issue’, selling a portion of the bonds immediately after passage, then waiting to issue the balance until we are well into the active design phase of the project. This not only saves a significant amount of interest, but also allows for the possibility that the second issue could be reduced, if enough savings in the soft costs have been realized during the design phase.

It is because of the Board’s determination to make this as cost-efficient a project as possible, that we are studying alternatives to the traditional open bid process. Washington State allows certain school projects to be built under what is called the General Contractor/Construction Manager (or GCCM) model. This process would allow us to hire a contractor of our choice, early in the process, so that they could work closely with the architects during the design phase. The goal is to reduce or eliminate costly change orders, schedule conflicts and construction problems. For Orcas, there is the additional prospect of being able to involve more local contractors and workers in the project, thus keeping the bond money circulating in our local economy.

The document contains a comparison to the Orcas Christian School.  It questions how that was built for $11 Million when our bond is asking for $35 Million.  Factually, the $35 Million is for the ENTIRE project – including long-needed, and extensive, repairs throughout the district.  But let’s compare the two:  We are looking to replace the middle school – which IS the size of the Christian School in programmatic needs and student population.  So, the costs contained in the middle school construction are as follows:

• Middle school:                   $3.54 M
• Library                                 $1.12 M
• Food svc/Commons:        $3.02 M
• Music:                                  $1.07 M

TOTAL:  $8.75 Million + (indirect costs) = $12.25 Million

Interestingly, this is where the comparison to the Christian School is actually helpful.  The Christian School serves fewer than 100 students.  The buildings they constructed are almost identical to what is described above for the public school middle school replacement.  (They have a gym — we’ve included the food service/commons building here for comparison.  We are not building a new gym for the middle school — but the food svc/commons is comparable in size, more expensive, and will serve the entire k-12 population — so it seems a fair substitute.)

The Christian School was built for $11 Million.  We are building the SAME thing, ten years later, for $12 Million.

In addition, as a private school, The Christian School does not fall under the stringent design and building requirements that the State of Washington has for its public institutions, nor is it required to add the 41% soft costs that the public school must. In addition, the current Board has determined that the money raised by this bond offering should be invested in creating buildings that will last. We have pushed the standard design framework of 35 to 40 year buildings to a minimum of 50 years and, with the architects of Mahlum, are committed to creating buildings that will, in all likelihood, last much longer than that.

What is sadly true in the  “Comments on the Orcas School Levy and Bond” is that we are living through one of the worst economic times in decades.  We cannot argue with that reality.  However, over the life of this bond issue it is almost certain that property values will rise. The bond rate has been estimated with very conservative growth numbers and could very well decline over the life of bond. In addition, the voters and full-time residents of Orcas enjoy a unique position as minority property owners – over half of the $3 Billion worth of taxable property on our island is owned by individuals or entities that do not live or vote here. For every dollar of tax raised, about $.60 is paid by non-residents.

The conclusion in the “Comments” document needs correction on two critical points.

First, as stated above, the bond issue is for $35 Million not $36.33 Million. The Board consulted with the architects and with local construction experts and determined that we would be able to reduce the amount to $35 Million safely, without compromising the district’s ability to complete the project as proposed.

Secondly, the impression that there are essential requirements and ‘extras’ in what will be included in this bond is simply not accurate. What the bond represents is the distillation of nearly four years of consultation, workshops, public meetings and other input from every possible group of stakeholders, and dozens of extremely qualified professionals. We have had extensive energy and engineering audits done and the administration and the Board worked, at length, to distill that input into a set of Educational Specifications, which describe what the community wants and the schools need.

From those Educational Specifications, the Board has further reduced the size, number and extents of those ‘needs’, in most cases beyond what was ideal to the specific stakeholders in question. We have a Board of varied perspectives that represents a spectrum of beliefs, but we have done the work and arrived at a consensus as to what is needed, what is prudent and how to proceed. I find this remarkable and significant.

Yes, there are changes that could be made, but any significant changes would represent actual reductions to educational programs and community uses. There is no ‘fluff’ in this project and very little of what could be termed ‘visionary elements’ either. We have included an emphasis on environmentally sound design and construction and on energy efficiency, some of which is mandated and some of which only impacts the process of design. What little is left that could said to be ‘extra’ makes perfect sense in the light of how important ‘green’ building, energy efficiency and alternative energy generation are to the current and future economic health of our state and our country. In 2006, green building represented a $3 Billion industry in Washington – 10 years ago it was too small to be measured. Exposing our students to these concepts and principles in a meaningful way makes sense both educationally and economically. If we prepare our students for the ‘new’ economy, perhaps we will have fewer families needing to access the food bank in future years.In addition, the design of these buildings will not only be sound, and energy efficient, but they will provide for easier maintenance.  Imagine new buildings where a custodian doesn’t have to wax the floor every other night because of a thoughtful choice in flooring material. Simplifying maintenance, and energy efficient buildings, will provde savings that can go back into the general fund and allow the district to hire even more maintenance and custodial assistance.

Every member of the school board is acutely aware of the request it is making of the public.  There is a perception that $35 million is a high price tag.  $35 million is indeed a great deal of money, but it is the appropriate amount needed to do the job correctly.  Previous boards have had to cut corners, make changes to design, and not deliver the quality of facilities they had hoped to build.  A sufficient bond, the excellent reputation of Mahlum architects, and the commitment of this school board and school administration to see the project through to completion makes this project different than any that has gone before in the school district.  We are asking for the right amount, with the right design team, to do it right this time.

Yes, for Schools Committee