Lake Washington School District March 10, 2014
School Board
PO Box 97039
Redmond, WA 98073-9739
Re: February 2014 Bond measure
Dr. Pierce and School Board Members:
Recently the LWSD put up for a vote two Levy and one Bond measures requesting more money for the District. The Levy measures passed, however the Bond measure failed. Per your email and information on the District webpage, a survey was conducted of 400 residents in the District to ascertain why the Bond measure failed. As I was not one of the residents contacted, I thought I would explain my particular reasons for voting “NO” on the Bond measure.
I have lived in Redmond for over 30 years and 3 of my 4 children have graduated from Redmond High School; my fourth child is a freshman this year at Redmond. My husband is also a graduate of Redmond High School. Over the past 10-plus years I have watched as the District has repeatedly asked for more and more money to fund building projects to “modernize” aging buildings and build new schools. My belief is that the District has used these funds in less than effectual ways and with dreadful results.
• Horace Mann Elementary was demolished and rebuilt in 2003 with two fewer classrooms than the original building. This fall it will house 4 portables.
• Redmond Junior High (now Middle School) was demolished and rebuilt in 2002 with the same number of classrooms as the original building. It now houses 3 portables.
• Redmond High School has been rebuilt several times; in 1985 and in 2003. A gym and additional classroom building was added in 2012 along with two portables. An additional two portables were added in the summer of 2013.
• Lake Washington High School was modernized in 2011. The failed Bond measure requested funds to add more classroom space for projected student population of 2000 students by 2021.
The above are just four examples of how the District has failed to project the need for classrooms and plan for student growth within a 10 year span; let alone the 30 to 40 years that school buildings are expected to last.
Lake Washington School District receives many awards for their academic proficiency, it stands to reason that many families will want to move within the district to take advantage of these programs. In addition, Redmond and other areas within the district are still experiencing tremendous housing growth, including multi- and single family houses in most areas. Older residents are moving out and their residences filled with families – many with more than one child.
I voted “NO” on the Bond measure because I believe the District has used previous funds in a negligent and wasteful manner. I will vote “NO” again in April because I do not believe the district’s plans for the new bond funds are any different.
Sincerely,
Paige A. Norman
16714 NE 97th Street
Redmond, Washington
paigenor@outlook.com
2 comments:
Paige:
There is additional information you should consider concerning your examples.
The Mann Elementary portables are being added so Mann can accommodate overflow students from Rockwell and Einstein Elementary Schools. Those schools are being affected by all the new development along 116th street, over which the district has no control. The district asked for a new elementary school to house these students in 2010 and again in February.
Redmond Middle School is being affected by the same new development. We add up to four portables normally per school to provide flexibility. You would not want us to spend the money to build a new school that would only have four classrooms occupied, I suspect. However, we do expect more middle school students coming to Redmond Middle and Evergreen, so a new middle school is on the ballot.
Redmond High School has accepted many variance applications from Redmond Middle School Quest students who live in the Eastlake High School attendance area. Eastlake has now developed an accelerated pathway to serve these students. Redmond High variances are now being limited. These changes will enable Redmond High to accommodate the students living in their attendance area.
Lake Washington High School was funded on the 2006 ballot, when the district had three-year high schools. Planning began immediately. In 2009, when changing to four-year high schools was first suggested, construction for the new LWHS was well underway. In other words, LWHS was planned and built as a three-grade high school, to accommodate one grade, or about 450 students, fewer. The change to four-year high schools saved the district from having to build four new elementary schools. And the design for the new LWHS included plans for a later addition, which will save us money now.
Thanks for the opportunity to provide more information on the district's planning.
Kathryn M. Reith
Communications Director
Lake Washington School District
Kathryn, thanks for your comment. I appreciate your viewpoint. I tried to keep the letter to the school board to one page as I’m sure they’ll get quite a few. The point of the letter was to qualify just a few of the reasons I voted NO on the Bond and will continue to do so until I feel the District is looking forward the 30-40 years they intend buildings to last.
Part of the issue is that I feel the District fails to project far enough for variations in student population. They have access (as does anyone that asks) to all building projects through the city – the city has a 20 year plan and has made no secret of their intent to put 20,000 more residents in our city in the next 10 years. Even if one-fifth of those residents are school-age children, that would be an additional 1,000 children in our community with no schools to attend.
I personally wouldn’t mind having a school with a few additional, un-used classrooms sitting empty over 5 years of a 40 year school life span. Many of my friends feel the same way. If you do the math for portables, which only house two classrooms vs. an addition the size of the RHS brick building that houses 14 classrooms. One portable costs approximately $380,000 for two classrooms vs. about $730,000 for 14 classrooms. Four portables is 8 classrooms at almost twice the cost of one addition. If the plans for RHS had doubled the addition instead of placing four portables on the premises, it’s possible that maybe 5 of those classrooms might sit empty for maybe a couple of years. It’s also possible that the district could hire more teachers, lower the class sizes (which they’ve promised to do FOR YEARS) and use those rooms. For twice the cost, we have half as many classrooms.
I also don’t believe that the District didn’t foresee the change to four year high schools. I know the District has made public the change only a few years ago, but it’s been in the planning stages for many years. That should have been incorporated into existing plans to account for student growth potential and grade adjustments. After all, the District tells us these schools are supposed to last for 30 to 40 years.
I am not asking for no portables ever. I understand that projection is susceptible to error. In my catering business, I know to automatically add 5-10% increase to any numbers of attendees at an event. Most taxpayers that I’ve spoken with would be more than happy to pay a bit more in taxes if they felt the schools were being built to last and if we felt that at every turn, we weren’t being asked for more money to cover the District’s errors.
Again, I appreciate your viewpoint and I appreciate your answers to my questions. I wanted to voice my opinion to the board as I’m usually unable to attend meetings as they conflict with other events in my schedule.
Sincerely,
Paige
Post a Comment