What are the Priorities? How were the Selections Made?
Since I don't know much about BEX III, I used my few minutes to raise some questions:
- What are the priorities that got these projects on the list? According to district documents, the choices were based on the facilities master plan, but they don't seem to match to me.
- Why is the BEX III proposal not discussed in terms of how well it does (or doesn't) fit with other district efforts (school consolidation and closure, restricting choice and transportation, changes in the weighted student formula)?
- Are the cost estimates for these new buildings accurate?
- What is happening with all the BTA II money that has not yet been spent?
- What oversight will be put in place to make sure that if BEX III bond passes, the money will be spent on what was proposed and will be well-spent, not wasted?
In my testimony, I mentioned that I didn't understand how the New School, an educational program that has been trying to solve its facilities problem for less than 5 years, was getting a new building when Pathfinder, a program that has been trying to solve its facilities problem for 15 years is not considered.
I prefaced that statement with my deep admiration and respect for the New School. I think it is a wonderful school and Seattle needs more, not fewer schools, that serve children as well as the New School does.
Some New School parents, however, heard my testimony as me pitting Pathfinder against New School in a competition for facilities. That was not my intention. I think both programs deserve decent school buildings that are large enough to house their excellent educational programs.
But whether it was the New School or Roxhill or Sacajewea or Broadview-Thompson or any other K-5 or K-8 school in Seattle getting a brand-new building, I would ask the same question:
- How was it decided that X school gets a new building as part of this BEX III bond, and schools A, B, C and D do not?
Maybe there are good reasons behind these selections, but I want to hear them. It should not be a mystery which buildings are included in this BEX III proposal and which ones are not.
Comments
The district staff went over their logic for their proposals at the operations committee meetings this summer. They were interesting, whether you agree with their recommendations or not. I didn't notice if minutes were taken at those, but it's where this very issue was discussed. The facilities people talked specifically about the buildings themselves, and the costs and options of particular issues. The presentation of how the levy recommendations fit with the district's educational goals was discussed at the BEX III work session on August 30.
If you look at the timeline, and the legal requirements, working backwards from the Feb election to the Nov deadline, and required meetings, it is clear that the majority of the analysis was complete last spring and in the early summer.
Speaking as a New School parent, one thing that we have learned, in several years of fighting for existence, is that it can be very difficult to advocate for your own program without unintentionally advocating against someone else.
I'm having a meeting on Monday with Director Soriano and Facilities Director Fred Stephens about many of these issues.
Beth, please let us know what Hale and Ingraham had to say. I think they both might be under the wrong impression about why their schools are on the list. When the Meng Report was made there was seismic analysis of every building. I only received the analysis for Hale and Ingraham which looks very dire indeed. I have a feeling neither school's population realizes how dangerous their building would be in an earthquake. (However, both survived the Nisqually earthquake - 6.8 - without any apparent damage.) However, without seeing all the reports, I have no idea if Hale is the most likely school to be renovated because of safety issues. I have to wonder about schools like NOVA in its very old (and, to me, rickety building) or any of a number of elementary schools.
The staff may have presented their logic but it is only logical to them. There are many issues not addressed or set aside as the staff pushes on to what they believe is best. Well, I would go with their expertise if the list made sense. It doesn't and some of that is lack of information.
I spent much time looking for the minutes from BEX III meetings on the web yesterday, and found an occasional meeting agenda, but no notes. If anyone else locates them, please post the link here so we can all read them.
And, as is the case with many other people, I have come to distrust, not trust, much of the district staff. That makes it harder for me to accept any "we know what we are doing, just trust us" arguments, and puts an increased responsiblity on district staff to communicate, communicate and over-communicate about what is going on. This is particularly crucial when it is an issue like BEX III that needs public support and a public vote.
The Nathan Hale student just talked about how awful some conditions were in his building.
None of what I say should be misinterpreted as a critique of the facilities folks - the truth is that the nature of our local seismic hazard is constantly being revised as new information comes to light. Building codes change frequently (there was a major change in 2004 that I am aware of). And, let's face it, the scale of the problem is so daunting, it is hardly something that can be dealt with at this point.
References: Seattle Fault Scenario: http://seattlescenario.eeri.org/documents.php (Chapter 6 is where the schools info is)
Excerpt:
Following the scenario earthquake, however, many schools will not be immediately functional because of very high ground motions. Schools in King County will be particularly hard hit; more than half will experience at least moderate damage. Damage inspections and repairs will be necessary and some facilities may experience partial collapse. The campuses with the greatest level of damage will be those with unretrofitted, older buildings. Schools on poor soils also will experience higher levels of damage. Table 6-3 shows the expected level of damage to schools by county for the scenario earthquake. Buildings with slight and moderate damage will need inspection and repair but should be useable within a short time following the earthquake. Buildings with unrepairable damage will be demolished and rebuilt.
Looking at projected damage on a neighborhood level may paint a more alarming picture, depending on site-specific construction type and soil characteristics. For example, a recent study by the City of Seattle Emergency Management of six schools in Southwest Seattle using the M6.7 scenario earthquake predicts severe structural damage. Four of the six schools have a 60 percent or greater chance of experiencing extensive or complete damage.1 All six have a low likelihood of being functional immediately after this earthquake.