|
A commentary by Gary Fish Redenbacher in Scotts Valley
Lately, some have wondered whether the school facilities bond, Measure Q, is ready for prime time. As a public member of the school facilities committee the past 1½ years, I say, “Absolutely. Let’s roll!”
First, however, you may be curious about the committee that developed the facilities proposal. The committee was open to anyone who wanted to participate. This, of course, includes those who would now belatedly cast stones. The district advertised for members about 1½ years ago, and about a dozen residents responded, with a very broad level and depth of expertise.
Among the community members, there were three general contractors (one who builds pre-engineered schools), an attorney with expertise in education and public works construction, the city manager, a member of the planning commission, engineers, the president of Santa Cruz County Bank and parent leaders. A majority of the fact finding and discussion was led by the community members.
It is understandable that those who were not on the committee or have not attended the public meetings would have some questions. Here are responses to several concerns I have heard and which we discussed (sometimes to utter exhaustion).
‘I’m worried about declining enrollment.’
It is not an answer to house our children and teachers in obsolete facilities simply because there may be fewer of them. All children and teachers deserve a comfortable environment that is conducive to learning. Who in our community wants to subject our children to drafty rat traps where the roofs leak and the heaters cannot control temperatures in the buildings? The answer is to plan according to present needs, but build in contingencies.
‘Do we have enough time to educate everyone about how bad the schools are?’
We had a bond measure to remedy inadequate facilities five years ago that garnered a 66 percent “yes” vote. (For that bond, 66.7 percent was required to pass. Only 55 percent is required for Measure Q.) Even the naysayers admit that the middle school could qualify as an archeological dig.
The community might have heard less about our elementary schools, but it makes the need no less vital. Did you know that our elementary schools have no multipurpose rooms? There is no place for children to play or gather for lunch on rainy days. There is no decent facility where elementary school children can do something as simple as put on a school play. And did you know that our high school doesn’t have a library?
‘Isn’t it expensive?’
Of course, but if we fool ourselves into thinking that things will be cheaper down the road, it will be even more expensive. For nearly all people, the real question is cash flow; how much does it cost each homeowner per year? A 40-year bond makes the rate far more affordable, significantly less than a Starbucks coffee a day for the average homeowner.
‘With budget cuts looming, shouldn’t we focus on operating costs?’
A Proposition 39 bond cannot be used for operating funds. Bond monies are strictly for facilities. In contrast, operating funds, which come from the state, are not used to build facilities. The proposed budget cuts will have zero effect on a bond for local school construction. The bond money is strictly to benefit our community, regardless of what the state does.
But, as it happens, passage of Measure Q will increase discretionary funds for operations. This is because a modern facility doesn’t require nearly as much energy, water or maintenance. Plus, replacement of the portables means saving tens of thousands of dollars in rent every year. Every dollar saved through less rent, less water, less electricity, etc., is a dollar that can be used for instruction.
‘Do we know what is most needed?’
Reasonable minds can differ, but this was the single most researched and discussed topic during our committee’s 1½ year tenure. Even something as obvious as a new middle school didn’t receive just a simple stamp of approval. It underwent intensive scrutiny on where it should be located and what the design should include.
‘Can’t we get some input from the community?’
I’ve met the community, and we are it. The vast majority of input on this project came from the community members. Nor were our discussions strictly within the committee. I was constantly talking to other parents regarding their thoughts on the needs of our schools during the 1½ year process.
‘I’ve got concerns, what with the high school problems.’
Yeah, we’re all aware of the high school problems. But just about everyone involved in that fiasco is gone, from the superintendent to the trustees. More importantly, a new law has passed since the building of the high school that significantly curtails the risk of going over budget.
To understand the significance of the new law, one has to first understand how the old process works. The high school was built under the traditional model, where an architect designs the school and contractors bid on that design. If the architects missed anything, which they always do, the builder asks for a change order and the price goes up and up. Plus, state law required the trustees to accept the lowest bid. As all of us know, the lowest bidder’s major incentive is to cut costs.
The new law allows many school projects, including the building of our spanking-new middle school, to be built using a process called “design-build.” This process shifts a significant portion of the risk to the builder. This is so because the builder is responsible for the design.
So, if the builder doesn’t very carefully design the school, he has to bear the cost of any oversights. “Bye bye” to most change orders and “hello” to giving an incentive to the builder to get it right. And, design-build does not require the trustees to accept the lowest bidder. They can choose based upon reputation and quality of work.
Another method of curtailing risk is to specify pre-engineered buildings. These buildings are time-tested. They’ve already worked out the kinks, so the chance of cost overruns and defects are, again, reduced. Are all risks eliminated? Of course not, but these measures significantly reduce our risk.
Finally, I’ve read accounts that the committee operated in secret. It is true that at least one committee member wanted our discussions to remain secret, but that position was strongly opposed by other committee members.
As a result, a number of us just blabbed away when the subject came up. Our schools are, after all, public institutions subject to scrutiny by the public. And, for 1½ years, your fellow community members have spent countless hours researching and giving an earful of public input to the school officials on what your and my public schools should look like.
Gary Fish Redenbacher is a member of the Scotts Valley Unified School District school facilities committee.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed