Update: here is a link to all the updated BTA IV documents. There is now a line:
Capital and Technology Financing Obligations principal payments - $8.1M
Where did this money come from (did they add dollars or rearrange?) They rearranged but I'm not sure what projects lost what.
Now I did ask if this is all just to pay off JSCEE. The answer was...not sure. I really would love a full accounting of all that has been paid into JSCEE, how much remains, when payments are due and when there is an end in sight. This is patently ridiculous at this point. While I realize there is virtually NO one at JSCEE who helped enact this nonsense, the fact of the matter is a lot of people there - both on the Board and in management - have kicked this can down the road for a very long time.
end of update
In advance of Wednesday's public comment meeting for BTA IV levy and the Operations levy, I have uploaded the handout from the community meetings labelled, "Seattle Schools BTA IV Proposed Project, September 30, 2015. The district's calendar and the Board page have no links for this information.
I am hearing conflicting things about whether this includes money to go to pay off the bonds purchased in order to buy the JSCEE. I don't see it included and I was told it would be added.
I will again state that BTA has NEVER been for building renovation. It was always sold to voters as mostly maintenance levy with tech/athletics/academics. (I have the old handouts.) But with capacity issues, it has morphed into BEX Jr.
I won't go over everything but some thoughts.
- once again, Ingraham is keeping its record of being on every single BEX and BTA since their inception. I don't think piecemeal work is good for any building but especially not a high school. I also note that Bagley seems to becoming the elementary school version of Ingraham as they have several projects on this list (not counting the addition being built under BEX IV). By my count, there will be over $19M poured into Bagley.
- $3M for both planning and the election for BEX V? Seems high to me. And $11M for management and staffing? Also high and calls into question whether all projects need outside contractors.
- $8.3M for "program placement" with no explanation. And yes, I asked at a community meeting.
- Under "Capacity Projects," there's nearly $27M for Webster to be renovated and reopened. Ballard folks, help me out - there's that much crunch. I am a little appalled that they are (not) sinking this kind of money into Cedar Park. Between the underwhelming lack of attention to CP's building AND gerrymandering out most of the low-income kids from Olympic Hills to CP, it almost looks like someone has a purpose in opening CP in the most difficult of conditions.
- Here's a surprise to me (and I must have missed it): I didn't realize that the Robert Eagle Staff fields were to have exterior lighting. And I thought Jane Addams already had exterior lights but there's near $2M for that purpose.