Public Sounds Off on Failed School Bond Pricetag; Board Plans to Explain Story and "Soft Costs"

Corrections made Feb. 26 at 6:30 p.m.

The Orcas Island School District (OISD) Board debated the timing and message for a new bond campaign upon the failure of the Feb. 9 Capital Bond election.

At their meeting on Feb. 25, the Board heard from members of the public who had been vocal in their opposition to the bond. However, many in the audience spoke last night in the interest of supporting a new bond vote. The failed election asked for a bond of $35 million to be collected over 25 years, to create new construction of a middle school, a career and technical education building, library and district offices, and to repair and renovate elements is existing construction such as heating, plumbing, roofing, earthquake retro-fitting and siding, on the elementary and high school and the old gym.

Perhaps Andrea Hendrick spoke the strongest about lowering the bond costs. She asked that the board remove all but the repair and renovation costs of the bond. “Bring the bond down and it will pass — and bring it down drastically.”

Board Member Keith Whitaker addressed the separate costs for repairs ($9 million) and for new, replacement, construction ($25 million).  “Drawing that distinction misses the fact that the middle school buildings, and the annex where the shop is, are in the worst shape of all buildings. They would be at the top of the list as far as priorities go. For just one thing, they’re not earthquake safe… and the board would be liable for negligence in not doing something for that.”

OISD Board Member Janet Brownell mentioned that the bond that paid for the existing middle school, library, district office and tech ed building, was passed following the failure of a lower amount, and “We got less and now we’re having to do it again.”

Brownell clarified that the school doesn’t intend to build a separate Community Center, but a Career and Technical Education building that the public could benefit from in job retraining and public classes. “Whether we allow community access — it’s for career tech ed, it is educational. We still need career tech replacement space for that vocational, educational program.”

Members of the public continually brought up their criticism of the $10.7 million “soft costs,” the term used to include such expenses as taxes, construction management and set-aside contingency amounts for change orders and cost overruns.

Hugh Hendrick, a former construction project manager for corporations such as Bechtel and Boeing, wrote that the Board needed to “provide confidence to the voters that the $10.7 million “soft costs” are neither a slush fund for the Board to add to the project nor a provision to cover up poor planning and construction management.”

Gary Abood said that he had been publicly critical of the bond, but was now in favor of it and “said my act of contrition to you guys .”

He addressed the “soft cost” issues, saying, “You’re just locked in by [state laws] — the soft costs are locked in.”

Abood said he realized that the bond was “a good well-thought-out plan, a professional plan,” but urged the board to reframe what he described as “a bad political story. The data is there, the information is there, all the data is very good; but you have to take it to people.

“The time has come to teach adults.”

Local contractor Justin Paulsen also said, “An explanation of soft costs is imperative.  The board can be creative in eliminating soft costs; there are ways to do this and rally the community to save money.” He also urged the board to drop the term “soft costs” in describing this construction element.

The Board agreed that it needs to break down the components of the “soft costs” and explain them to the public.

Hugh Hendrick laid out specific steps the school board should take to pass a bond:

• Increase bond tranches to four, timed to schedule cash needs;
• Convene a Development Advisory Committee of retirees and island professionals … to advise the Board on all contracts for bonds, management and construction and to oversee construction contracts and a … construction project manager
• Set use of computerized critical path project management as a prime qualification for the construction manager
• Select the architectural firm competitively …
• Select the bond underwriter through bid and negotiation
• Reduce the cost of bonds … by reducing the duration to 20 years
• Limit board involvement to costs and schedules approval and refrain from active project management
• Set limits on the dollar amount and scope of change orders

Board member Tony Ghazel said, “The board had no intent of managing the project; we always planned to go forward [with a project manager]. It is up to the Board to decide to spend [the bond] money wisely; so maybe that story didn’t go out very well.”

Ghazel also said regarding the maintenance of the school buildings: “If you see these buildings now, there is no way to come up with a maintenance plan – there’s not enough money. We still have engineering, walls, heating, earthquake issue…the construction was such that it had to be replaced.”

Paulsen spoke to the replacement of a Career and Technical Education (CTE) building: “As a contractor, I think it’s vital to train kids that aren’t going to college — it would be nice to hire local kids.

“The CTE space not just new space, It’s replacing space. The applied physics space is a classroom, a reutilization of space.”

Paulsen explained that a General Contractor Construction Manager (GCCM) would “allow the school district to work with a construction management group to resolve architectural and design issues and find value, durability and the best possible uses.”

Through the GCCM process, up to 30% of the bond budget can be spent on local, small-works contracts.

Paulsen reminded the group, “The GCCM Process in implicit in limiting change orders,”  and that “Finding the cheapest bidder doesn’t usually work out – the design-bid-build process is a competition to the bottom.”

Abood said he didn’t think people realized that there was more to the bond costs than maintenance, repair and renovation. “The buildings need replacement, and they have to be 50 year buildings.

“I don’t think people realized the complexity of it.”

Teacher Pam Jenkins expressed some teachers’ concerns that the April 27 election date would be to soon, in part because property taxes are due that month.

Mary and John Poletti wrote to the OISD Board, “We respectfully request you schedule [a bond vote] for Nov. 2010 ballot… to diffuse the perception that the Board tried to pass a very large bond when the school population is firmly planted on the island but another segment of the taxpaying population is not, … and to allow time for further exploration of options and open debate.”

Gary Abood urged the OISD Board to go out for the April election, saying “What is needed now is leadership,

“You’ve got a plan, you still have old buildings that have higher maintenance demands… Now you have this thing in front of people, I think the board needs to recognize they didn’t tell a very good story. Frankly, I’m sorry I worked against it, but I’ve been rehabilitated.”

Newest OISD Board Member Chris Sutton said, “I’m going to do everything I can to bring cost down, but I don’t want to ask for less because something happens and we can’t do what’s necessary.”

With March 12 being the deadline for the Board to pass a resolution if they decide to go out for a bond election on April 27, the Board scheduled a special meeting on  Thursday, March 4 at 5:30 in the school library to discuss the best election date. They will also decide on a new Facilities Manager at that meeting.

The Board also set March 10 for a Community Potluck gathering to hear the community’s concerns in an open forum. The event will be held in the High School Commons at 6 p.m., and the public is urged by the Board to attend this potluck, following the PTSA Math and Science Night event in the school cafeteria from 5 to 6:30 p.m.

The next day, March 11, the OISD Board will meet to make a final decision on whether to go out for the bond in the April election, and on the size of the bond.

Ghazel said, “I think the bond is passable, the story has to be vigorously put out. At the end of the day, we need the stuff replaced, it’s not my word, it’s the engineers that have told us.

“The question is, ‘Can this board to the job or not do the job as promised?’ We are going to make sure these buildings are going to be built to withstand 50 plus years.”