Letter: Tearing down and replacing LWSD schools should be reconsidered: 2014 Bond Issue

This letter was mailed to Redmond and Kirkland City Councils and  LWSD Superintendent Dr. Pierce by Paul Hall

You recently met with our Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Pierce.  She promised to get back to you on some unanswered questions about state funding assistance to defray construction costs, and replacing portables with permanent housing for kids and teachers.  I assume that she will explain that the bond resolution stipulates that no state support is expected and that there is no mention of new construction to replace portables.

 

She may or not explain why no state support is expected.  The state would normally pay for about 25% of the construction cost to house new students or modernize existing buildings. However, based on the size of our schools, the state assumes we can house more students than the district needs.  Therefor, while we still qualify for state assistance in modernization, we don’t qualify for that assistance for new construction.

 

This problem has been exacerbated by the district policy of replacing schools, rather than modernizing them.  These new buildings are built larger than allowed by state standards.  For example, Lake Washington High School was recently rebuilt over 19,000 SF larger than state standards.  That’s enough area to house almost 150 high school students.  The state assumes that it now  houses those students.  Modernization would not have affected the original lower housing capacity.

 

We spent around $65 million more local money to rebuild LWHS than would have been required to modernize it to the highest level of state standards.  That’s enough money to build 6 new elementary schools or 3 junior high schools to those standards.  And likewise in varying degrees for all the other schools rebuilt instead of being modernized.

 

We’ve spent over $600 million dollars the last 14 years to tear down and replace over half of our substantially sound school buildings instead of modernizing them. Almost half our schools are still not modernized.  They could all be modernized at this time with 25% of the costs borne by the state.  We’re being asked for another $755 million (2014 bond) a major portion of which is earmarked to replace just 6 schools with 100% local money, not because they need it, but because it’s their turn.   The kids and teachers in the rest of the schools will wait years more for a new school instead of having modernized facilities ASAP.

 

I believe that it’s time that the district conducted an outside independent expert comprehensive value engineering review of their facilities plan for modernization.  It now assumes replacement of all of our schools on 30-40 year cycle instead of keeping them all modernized on an as needed basis.  Then present the voters with a proposal to keep all our kids and teachers in modernized buildings all the time, handle growth, and provide more effective stewardship of our limited physical and monetary resources.

 

Paul P. Hall, Architect, AIA, Emeritus