Five Facts about Funding New Schools (from the LWSD website)
1. Bonds are the primary source of funds for new schools in Washington.
2. Impact fees do not generate enough money to pay for new schools.
3. State construction assistance amounts are limited.
4. The Eligible Square Feet used in the state funding formula does not reflect how districts really build and use schools.
5. The tax rate for new bonds is connected to when debt from past bonds is paid off.
Points I took from this:
The bottom line is that the district (in 2014) receives:
$6,302 in impact fees for a new single family house
$207 for each unit in a multi-family building.
Most of the money the district has received from impact fees has been used for portables. Space is needed before new schools can be constructed and portable classrooms can provide that space in the meantime.
Read that last part again...MOST OF THE MONEY collected from impact fees has been used for PORTABLES!!! At this time there are 151 portables on site in LWSD with more scheduled -- four to Horace Mann Elementary (to cover the overages at Rockwell) and two at Redmond Elementary. I'm sure there are more, but those are at the two schools local to my area.
Susan Wilkins wrote an excellent piece for the Redmond Neighborhood Blog that details the challenges the District has created for itself by under-building new schools.
A Comparison of Old vs. New:
Horace Mann Elementary (rebuilt in 2003)
Cost to rebuild: $10,000,000
Old: 18 classrooms, 7 portables, 35,000 sq.ft.
New: 18 classrooms, no portables, 51,000 sq.ft.
Frost Elementary (rebuilt in 2009)
Cost to rebuild: $25,600,000
Old: 20 classrooms, 4 portables, 40,000 sq.ft.
New: 20 classrooms, no portables, 59,260 sq.ft.
Currently, the district depends on 91 portables at elementary schools, 45 portables at middle schools and 15 portables at high schools to house over 3000 students. The proposed bond would build enough classroom space for only 3150 students - just barely enough to get the students who are in portables back into regular classrooms. It will not add enough space for future students.
(Susan corrected her math to 3650 for classroom space in the proposed schools)
The district wants $33,000,000 to build each of the 3 new elementary schools ($100 million total). They want $135,000,000 to tear down and rebuild Juanita High School. They want us to approve $80,000,000 for a new middle school but after a year of planning, they still won't tell us where it will be.
One of the problems as I see it is that the District has not planned well enough to take care of the projected 4000 students coming in the next 8 years (their numbers, not mine). Dr. Pierce states in her message :
The following projects are part of the April 22 measure:
3 new elementary schools (two in Redmond and one in Kirkland);
1 new middle school in Redmond;
The re-build and expansion of Juanita High School in Kirkland;
The STEM focused high school on the Juanita High School campus in Kirkland; and,
An addition at Lake Washington High School in Kirkland.
As we haven't seen plans or have any idea how many classrooms the new schools will hold; based on past experience, we can only assume that they will build them at current level of need; not for future growth.
As we've seen from the existing STEM school, the number of students attending STEM did NOT decrease the need for classrooms at Redmond High School. In fact, between the adjustment from 3 to 4 year high schools AND the addition of STEM, the population at RHS increased from approximately 1400 students to over 1900 students.
As I mentioned here in my blog "Redmond High School was originally built in 1964; demolished and rebuilt during the LWSD modernization process (Phase 2) in 2003. The modernization updated the 1964 school from student capacity of 1,375 to the 2003 capacity of between 1431 and 1500 (specialized classes and ELL have different class and population capacities)."
Between 2011 and 2014 four portables were added to house the overflow of students from the 3 to 4 year high school change. That change brought an additional 400-500 students to the building.
The current STEM school has approximately 300 students enrolled with a capacity of roughly 650. Another STEM school built with the new bond funds would likely have a similar capacity of 600 students. Not nearly enough to reduce the need for portables with the District's projected 4000 students (district-wide) in the next 8 years.
However, we have NO IDEA how many classrooms the new schools will hold; nor how many students will be able to attend each of these schools because there are no plans or even construction bids for the proposed schools. We are expected to trust the District with tax money with absolutely no idea where the money will be spent.
WHERE will the new elementary school be built?
How will the boundary lines be affected for Rockwell, Horace Mann and Einstein Elementary schools?
How long will it be before these new schools will need portables?
I also don’t believe that the District didn’t foresee the change to four year high schools. I know the District made the change public in 2010, but it should have been in the planning stages for many years instead of band-aided with portables. 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'm not saying that we should never expect portables to be used; 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.
Is the answer to NEVER ask for funds for modernization and growth? No! But when the District asks the taxpayer for more money every two years and the NEW buildings we have are ALREADY over-capacity; we have to ask ourselves where that money is going and if they are truly using OUR money in the most effective way and with our children in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment