Superintendent Traci Pierce offered a rebuttal in the Nov. 15 Reporter to my previously published letter (Oct. 11, Reporter) criticizing the Lake Washington School District’s policy of tearing down and replacing our schools instead of modernizing them as promised.
My letter also objected to spending hundreds of millions of dollars more to do so, using money that could have been better used to modernize the rest of our schools and provide for growth.
We spent more than $65 million more to rebuild Lake Washington High School than to modernize it. I asserted that we could have built six new elementary or three new junior high schools to handle growth with that money by state standards (allowable area and cost allocations). Read More >>
Pierce argued that wasn’t possible because the district spends up to twice as much money for new construction and requires much more space than the state allows. She didn’t point out, however, that it would still have been possible to build two new elementary schools or most of a new junior high to handle growth with that $65 million, even at twice the state standards and with all the extra space the district requires.
Or that the money could have been used instead to modernize several other of our buildings still waiting their turn to be replaced.
Pierce stated that “new in lieu” studies were made to estimate the cost of remodeling versus the cost of new schools. Actually, these estimates were required by the state to support the district’s applications for state assistance to build new schools instead of modernizing them.
State support for modernization is restricted by state law to major remodeling of existing structures. In order to qualify for new construction instead of modernizing an existing building, the district must show that remodeling would cost more than a new building.
A review of several of those estimates for remodeling shows that they were loaded with several millions of dollars for non-remodeling items. Included were such items as additions, site development, site utilities, off-site work, demolition of the existing structure and so on.
The estimate for remodeling Rose Hill Junior High included, among other non remodeling items, a cost of $12.8 million for additions, $4.1 million for site development and $1.7 million for demolition of the existing structure.
Given the age and condition of all the buildings replaced, complete remodeling should have cost millions less than new construction. These estimates all showed remodeling would cost millions more than new construction.
There was no independent analysis of the design team’s conclusions. Pierce claims that value engineering was conducted on each project. This study is required by state law “at the appropriate time in the design process” on all large projects receiving state funding assistance for construction. It’s intended to provide an independent expert analysis of the work of the design team to “identify unnecessary high costs or functions.”
The district studies were done long after the conceptual (schematic) design phase where the most costly decision of all was made, new versus remodel. The opportunity for independent expert opinions on the design team’s assumptions and conclusions regarding replacement rather than modernization was long gone by then.
Pierce contends that a “modernization only” approach would not provide “the level of equity of school facilities that the current program provides.” However, she doesn’t explain “the level of equity” provided by having almost half of our kids and teachers struggling in aging and out of date buildings, while the rest are housed in new ones.
Pierce provides no information showing that the educational process works better in a new building than a properly modernized one. I’m sure that she could provide plenty of data to show that the process does work better in modernized facilities that are comfortable and accommodate program needs, instead of buildings that are uncomfortable and don’t accommodate those needs.
The $460 million we approved for modernization is gone. Sixteen years have passed. Over half our buildings have been destroyed and replaced instead of being modernized as promised. Almost half our kids and teachers are still struggling with aging and unmodernized facilities.
No state money is available for new construction because the state has determined that we have more than enough space districtwide to handle the current bulge of students moving through the grades.
The state will still provide around 25 percent of the construction cost for modernization. The district is instead asking us for another $755 million, the major portion of which is to needlessly replace six more relatively new and well constructed buildings, with 100 percent local funds, instead of modernizing them with 25 percent state support. Still using the word “modernize” in the bond title. Twelve buildings will still go years more without modernization, waiting to be replaced instead.
The kids, teachers and constituents of a first class school district deserve better consideration. We should demand better stewardship of our limited physical and monetary resources. This extravagant and wasteful bond proposal should be rejected. We should then be presented with a reasonable proposal to keep all of our buildings modernized all of the time and also to properly handle growth.
Paul Hall, Kirkland
My letter also objected to spending hundreds of millions of dollars more to do so, using money that could have been better used to modernize the rest of our schools and provide for growth.
We spent more than $65 million more to rebuild Lake Washington High School than to modernize it. I asserted that we could have built six new elementary or three new junior high schools to handle growth with that money by state standards (allowable area and cost allocations). Read More >>
Pierce argued that wasn’t possible because the district spends up to twice as much money for new construction and requires much more space than the state allows. She didn’t point out, however, that it would still have been possible to build two new elementary schools or most of a new junior high to handle growth with that $65 million, even at twice the state standards and with all the extra space the district requires.
Or that the money could have been used instead to modernize several other of our buildings still waiting their turn to be replaced.
Pierce stated that “new in lieu” studies were made to estimate the cost of remodeling versus the cost of new schools. Actually, these estimates were required by the state to support the district’s applications for state assistance to build new schools instead of modernizing them.
State support for modernization is restricted by state law to major remodeling of existing structures. In order to qualify for new construction instead of modernizing an existing building, the district must show that remodeling would cost more than a new building.
A review of several of those estimates for remodeling shows that they were loaded with several millions of dollars for non-remodeling items. Included were such items as additions, site development, site utilities, off-site work, demolition of the existing structure and so on.
The estimate for remodeling Rose Hill Junior High included, among other non remodeling items, a cost of $12.8 million for additions, $4.1 million for site development and $1.7 million for demolition of the existing structure.
Given the age and condition of all the buildings replaced, complete remodeling should have cost millions less than new construction. These estimates all showed remodeling would cost millions more than new construction.
There was no independent analysis of the design team’s conclusions. Pierce claims that value engineering was conducted on each project. This study is required by state law “at the appropriate time in the design process” on all large projects receiving state funding assistance for construction. It’s intended to provide an independent expert analysis of the work of the design team to “identify unnecessary high costs or functions.”
The district studies were done long after the conceptual (schematic) design phase where the most costly decision of all was made, new versus remodel. The opportunity for independent expert opinions on the design team’s assumptions and conclusions regarding replacement rather than modernization was long gone by then.
Pierce contends that a “modernization only” approach would not provide “the level of equity of school facilities that the current program provides.” However, she doesn’t explain “the level of equity” provided by having almost half of our kids and teachers struggling in aging and out of date buildings, while the rest are housed in new ones.
Pierce provides no information showing that the educational process works better in a new building than a properly modernized one. I’m sure that she could provide plenty of data to show that the process does work better in modernized facilities that are comfortable and accommodate program needs, instead of buildings that are uncomfortable and don’t accommodate those needs.
The $460 million we approved for modernization is gone. Sixteen years have passed. Over half our buildings have been destroyed and replaced instead of being modernized as promised. Almost half our kids and teachers are still struggling with aging and unmodernized facilities.
No state money is available for new construction because the state has determined that we have more than enough space districtwide to handle the current bulge of students moving through the grades.
The state will still provide around 25 percent of the construction cost for modernization. The district is instead asking us for another $755 million, the major portion of which is to needlessly replace six more relatively new and well constructed buildings, with 100 percent local funds, instead of modernizing them with 25 percent state support. Still using the word “modernize” in the bond title. Twelve buildings will still go years more without modernization, waiting to be replaced instead.
The kids, teachers and constituents of a first class school district deserve better consideration. We should demand better stewardship of our limited physical and monetary resources. This extravagant and wasteful bond proposal should be rejected. We should then be presented with a reasonable proposal to keep all of our buildings modernized all of the time and also to properly handle growth.
Paul Hall, Kirkland
No comments:
Post a Comment
COMMENT HERE - COMMENTS ARE MODERATED