BEX and BTA

I've been asked several times to explain the capital programs at SPS.  This is going to be a first posting and a short one just as a basics about the programs.  (I'm going to go into finer detail later for anyone who is interested.)  Please help me out if I get anything major wrong.

The district has several different pots of money but basically for us there are two; the operating budget and the capital budget.  The operations budget covers just about everything day-to-day including buildings except for the following ( big maintenance, renovations and what's in them that's non-human).   That is covered by the capital budget.

The state (and to some degree, the fed) covers the operations budget except for about 23% that we go to voters every 3 years and beg for.  As you can probably surmise, losing 23% of our budget would be catastrophic so the operations levy is vital.  (But is this any way to run a district?  Again, I say to the Legislature; shame on you.  It should not be this way.)  

Now, according to OSPI, the operating budget should contain money for preventative/basic maintenance.  They think it should be set at about 4% of your operating budget.  SPS used to do 2% and has been at about 1% for at least 3 years.  

Okay, show of hands.  How many of you own a home?  Good for you and now, how many of you know the joys of home ownership i.e. upkeep?  Right, nothing like spending money on non-sexy items like insulation, roofing, plumbing.  But it has to be done, right?  Because as we all know, if you do not take care of a house, it will only get worse AND cost more the longer repairs are put off.

So do the math and you can probably guess where we are today in terms of backlogged maintenance in SPS (number to be revealed at the end).

Okay, so the capital budget.  Before 1995, major renovation/major repairs were done in a low-key piecemeal kind of way.  But then they created BEX (Building Excellence).  From SPS:

"More than a third of the 100 buildings in the Seattle School District's current inventory are more than 50 years old. Seattle voters approved Building Excellence I in 1995 and Building Excellence II in 2001. Together, these levies replaced or renovated 35 schools."

BEX is the major renovations/remodels where the mega-bucks get spent.  And folks, that's a lot of buildings that they have gotten done.  It is pretty amazing that that many buildings have seen the kind of renovations that they have.    However, this program is rife with money getting moved from place to place, no real public accounting for where all the money goes (and believe me, I've tried), cost overruns, etc.   I also believe we overspend on design.  Look, I think we have some beautiful buildings and my kid is sitting in one.  But I feel we could spend far less on good, solid, safe basic buildings and be doing more with the money.  (Go look at Garfield and South Shore and tell me those are "basic" buildings.)

Then there's BTA:

"BTA I Levy - Building Renovations, Technology & Athletic Fields.  BTA I levy focused on updating or replacing existing systems in facilities to provide students with safe and secure buildings. Voters approved the $150 million dollar capital levy in February 1998. The six-year levy financed more than 465 small and large facility improvement projects at every school in the District and runs through 2004. "

BTA has changed its name somewhat for the "A" to be Academics/Athletics. (And here's where it got off the track somewhat.)

BTA funds the big stuff: roofs, HVAC, windows, exterior renovation, interior finishes, life safety/ADA, playgrounds, seismic, waterlines.  That's under the "B" (and yes, it does seem odd that playgrounds wouldn't be under athletic.)

The "T" is for technology.  That's data management, school services, district, classroom services, IT infrastructure and business operations.  

The "A" covers a real lollapalozza of items; classroom renovation for specific uses, computer/science labs/athletic field replacements (those non-grass fields get worn down mighty fast from constant use), program placement (odd, I know), you name it, it gets tossed in here.  

So basically, BTA went from doing large/small facility improvements to throwing everything except the kitchen sink in.   And that's because people in the district are desperate for money and try to find it where they may.

The problem is that we are backlogged on large and small facility maintenance to the tune of $535,210,000 and the initial priority costs (this is PRIORITY) are $431,794,000 (plus seismic at $119,427,095.  Takes your breath away.  

So basically, the district has been robbing Peter (basic maintenance) to pay Paul (operations).  I'm sure they'd say that they wanted to keep the money in the classroom except that if the classroom is hot/cold with crumbling tile and dirty water in the fountains, it isn't a safe nor decent place for learning.  

Okay, to recap:

BEX - major renovations/remodels.  There have been 3 BEX rounds (2 levies and a bond measure) with each escalating in cost.  The first one I can't find a real figure but I'm guessing around $300 with the second at $398M with BEX III at $490M and as you can guess, BEX IV will likely be around...$600M.  

BTA - large/small facility improvements but with a whole lotta other stuff thrown in.  Again, the reduction of basic maintenance from the operating budget has made this list grow and grow plus the addition of other wants and needs from other departments.   (Interestingly, the Legislature passed a bill, ESHB 1619 so that preventative maintenance and painting can come out of capital funds.  However the money goes out of the capital fund into the general fund which worries me somewhat.  But, maybe more basic maintenance will get done.  Communities love curb appeal.)

We have a levy/bond every 3 years ; each time for the operating levy and then, either BTA or BEX.  So, this Feb., it's the operating levy plus BTA III and we are in year 3 of BEX III.

So lastly, why does this matter to you?  It's all fixing buildings that need it, right?

Sure, except, what if they are overdesigning buildings and if they scaled back, BEX could do 6 instead of 5 buildings?  What if they actually did basic maintenance so that we aren't paying double to fix problems in buildings?  What if we got rid of half our closed/interim properties so we are not paying for upkeep on them?  

And what if they DON'T fix the buildings with the worst safety, building condition and capacity needs?  How is this district going to get ahead if we don't cover those buildings first?

Example, I knew before BEX III that Mann (Nova) and Genesee Hill (Pathfinder) were two of the worst buildings in the district and I told everyone I could when they weren't on the list.  And, they were never even discussed at the preliminary meetings about BEX III.  Well, now we know why.  The district was planning on closing them.   I knew that the South Shore building (New School) was nowhere near the worst building and yet, there they were on the list.  

So it passes and again, I knew AAA was in danger.  The district could have moved New School there and either closed AAA or moved them to another, smaller building thereby freeing up the South Shore money for another program (like Pathfinder).  If Pathfinder's building had been rebuilt, Cooper wouldn't be closing.

Or, given that they knew that there were looming NE/N capacity issues, they could have put an addition or heck, renovated all of Laurelhurst or John Rodgers and had it done and on-line by this fall.  And how do I know it could have been done that quick?  Because South Shore's (New School) project was put on the fast track (which I have never seen before) and from teardown to total rebuild - 16 months using overtime.  It could have been done and you wouldn't see parents in the NE/N as worried about where their kids would go to school.  (Would have solved the entire problem? No, but it would have gone a long way.)

Also, if your school experiences building problems, consistently and long-term, if you or your principal, don't speak up, the district won't worry about it.  You really do have to advocate for your school's project on the BTA list.  

Here's the latest updates from facilities on our buildings from the Meng analysis.  Go down the page to "Planning for the BTA III levy".  There's a link for "2009 Building Condition Summary", 2006 and 2009 Building Condition Scores" and even a "Potential BEX IV schools" list.

I said this would be short; I was wrong.

Comments

Sahila said…
The Potential Bex IV list is interesting...

Is this where one goes to find out what the District REALLY has in mind for our schools and our kids?

Where did these plans and intentions come from?
ParentofThree said…
Couple of questions:

Is BEX IV the next levy for voter approval? When is that slated for vote? If this is not correct, then what is the next levy?

Also, when they say "Replace and Modernize as a MS." Does that mean tearing a building down and rebuilding?
Charlie Mas said…
The next capital levy will be BTA III, with the vote coming in February 2010.

BEX IV doesn't go to voters until February 2013.

Money doesn't start coming into the District from these levies until several months after the vote.
Yes, this really is where all the ideas come from. I have rarely heard of Board members advocating for any capital issues (except for Center School which came from a Board member). The plans and intentions come from staff in whom I have little confidence (and I mean Facilities, not all staff). They present the ideas to the Board and explain their thinking. The problem is that the Board, like most people, don't know much about the issue and tend to go with what staff says. I hope that doesn't happen next BEX.

Facilities uses different phrases for things but yes, I think "replace and modernize" means tearing down and rebuilding. Remodeling generally means they keep some part of the old structure.
kellie said…
It looks like almost every NE school is on this list, (except Bryant, which is the only NE building that has already been re-built.) Additionally, several NW and N building are listed because of potential capacity issues.

If I read this correctly, the earliest any of this happens is 2014 - a minimum of 5 full school years into the capacity crunch. Things could get interesting.

Pinehurst is also on this list. Hopefully this means a commitment to the AS1 program @ Pinehurst. At least that means it is unlikely that the Pinehurst building is on the next closure round. It was just bizarre that Pinehurst was on the "closure" list and now it is on the "rebulid" list.

Mel, do the same facilities people make these lists? Both closure and BEX?
Sahila said…
So, around 2013, given Charlie's timetable for levy voting, AS#1 according to this plan will be torn down and rebuilt to expand capacity as a modern K-8 ... cant see this programme remaining alternative, given the restructuring that's going on now...

And it says the building's capacity (2006 figures)is 244, which means that when we were fully enrolled 4 or 5 years ago, with a waiting list, we were over capacity for the building...

Funny that the functional/planning capacity figures the District came out with in December, when they were trying to close us partly because of our 'low enrolment', has AS#1 with a capacity of 305....

I am just sickened by the games these people play with the numbers....

And we have the closure guillotine still hanging over our heads at next school year, if we cant get our numbers up to an (unconfirmed) District-imposed level ... this coming year we'll have around 210 students, up from 191... which isnt a bad result given we lost about a third of our families with the withdrawal of all city draw and transportation reduced only to the N and NE clusters...
Sahila said…
If you add the 60+ kids we lost at the end of this year to the 210 enrolled for next year, and if the District had left us alone, we'd have 270+ kids in the building - way over actual building capacity and within cooee of that smooshy 305 functional capacity figure conjured out of the air in December.
Closure is a very different thing than BEX. Closure involves other departments' data input as well as public hearings (I think BEX only requires one public hearing). But Facilities has a lot of information that is used in either case and they have shown a willingness to tweak the numbers to support their case.
h2o girl said…
Melissa, thank you for this. The potential BEX IV list is fascinating indeed. I noticed that Lincoln, McDonald and Sand Point are all on the list (has someone finally been listening to Charlie, perhaps?) and also the Wilson bldg is listed as "replace with modern middle school." Yowza.
From the voter's pamphlet re: BEX III

Section 2. Authorization of Construction and Modernization Improvements. The District shall modernize and expand its school facilities through the following programs:
(1) Middle /K-8 school improvements including full renovation of Hamilton, and replacement of South Shore and Denny.
(2) High School improvements including renovation of Chief Sealth and Nathan Hale, addition at Ingraham and modernization of Rainier Beach Career and Technology facilities

Yeah, not exactly what we ended up with here in West Seattle with Denny/Sealth co-location. Who would have ever guessed that the renovation would be loss of space for Sealth and the replacement of Denny would be on this lost Sealth territory? It is impossible to figure out WHAT the real intention of facilities is from the information they put out there. I will never trust the district again.
sorry, I meant BEX II, not BEX III
Yes, the district had many vague phrases for what was going on at Denny/Sealth. I'm not sure that the joint campus was ever real until the final presentation but they may have realized their error.

My focus in writing this was NOT to say "don't trust the district", it was to say question and verify. Don't accept the status quo.

It's our money, they are our schools, we owe it to ourselves and our friends and neighbors who vote in these levies and bonds.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Why the Majority of the Board Needs to be Filled with New Faces

Who Is A. J. Crabill (and why should you care)?