Letter: 'Verify, But Trust' Committee on School Bond Recommendation

Editor:

I am writing to ask for your support and ‘YES’ vote for the Mercer Island School Bond Measure. I believe this is the right proposal and best for our students, our schools, and our Island.

All island residents will undoubtedly have noticed the multiple ‘pro’ and ‘con’ signs dotting the landscape. It is terrific to be part of an engaged community where so many are taking the time to understand the proposal in detail, and it’s natural and fair for there to be public questions and debate.

Concerning, though, is that within this debate there have been aspersions cast on the transparency, accuracy and rigor of the planning process that led to this proposal. Here is where I’d like to reverse Ronald Reagan’s famous quote and ask my fellow residents to ‘verify, but trust’. We’re not in the middle of a cold war; we are a small island community that shares common goals, albeit with occasional differences in how to achieve those goals.

So ‘Verify’ – ask questions, research and learn about the bond measure. It is a major community initiative and warrants the time. A lot has been written about this bond measure. Facts and answers to commonly asked questions are highlighted below my signature, with links to specific pages within the www.mischoolsyes.org website. This website is created by the Citizens for Mercer Island Public Schools organization, of which I am a part.

But also ‘Trust’ - in the positive intent and competence of the many who have invested, collectively, thousands of hours to researching alternatives, working with subject matter experts, visiting surrounding districts, exploring best practice approaches, and debating which facility choices would enable Mercer Island to maintain its deserved reputation for educational excellence. Those involved include school administration including our superintendent and CFO, school board members, me and my fellow volunteers on the 21^st Century Schools Planning Committee (21 CPC), and other community members who have contributed input or specific expertise to the topic.

In the ‘verify’ vein, I’d like to address a few of the concerns/ claims that have been erroneously raised about elements of the bond proposal. My hope is that by addressing these, it will build confidence in the entire process.

· Insufficient planning detail: There have been assertions that the bond measure lacks sufficient planning detail. One piece of ‘evidence’ cited is that the 21 CPC recommended that further planning be done before finalizing the bond measure. This work was done, by District CFO Dean Mack. Mack hired The Robinson Company to estimate construction costs, as it does for most of the school districts in our region. Robinson’s engineers and estimators discussed design specifications with district representatives, inspected school sites, reviewed actual costs of similar local projects, added contingencies, adjusted for inflation and arrived at their estimates. It is true that detailed architectural plans and construction drawings are not complete. This is work that will, and should, happen after the bond measure is passed, as it carries a significant price tag. The appropriate pre-Bond level of detail and rigor has absolutely happened.

· Bond language not specific enough: Concern has been expressed that the bond language does not ‘require’ the District to complete the planned 4 schools. This is true – it doesn’t. The bond measure is written in standard bond measure language used throughout the state. The reason for this language is that the District would be putting citizens at risk if they didn’t have a clause that allowed for modification should things like permitting and costs change the plans. The budget and entire program are overseen by our elected officials on the School Board.

This is where trust in our elected officials and School leaders is needed. The district CFO, Dean Mack, who will oversee this program has advised thirty districts on writing bond resolutions. Every district built what it said it was going to build in its bond resolution. In Dean’s 30+ year career in public finance, he has overseen building 20 new schools, and all 20 were on time and on budget, and delivered what was promised in the bond resolution. Our district is led by highly competent, experienced individuals. We need to trust them to do their jobs well, as they have consistently done over time.

· Site availability for a fourth elementary school: There have been multiple assertions that there are non-park, non-school sites for a fourth elementary school located on the North End of Mercer Island. The 21CPC devoted significant time to searching for options, and did not find options of needed size – 6+ acres – to support a school. The only option is North Mercer which immediately displaces tenants, including Youth Theater Northwest, interferes with future siting of a new high school and further compounds traffic issues in the “megablock” neighborhood. There has been no site identified of sufficient size to support a school.

· Incremental operating cost of a fourth school: The $450,000 additional operating expense per year to support a fourth school is just that – the true incremental cost. This cost was calculated by computing the total cost of educating the expected number of students in 4 schools, vs. educating the same number of students in 5. Expenses such as counselors that are funded outside the school district budget were not included, and the anticipated number and arrangements of staff principals to janitorial staff were included for each scenario. Transportation costs, and savings from eliminating portables were also incorporated in these calculations. Despite what naysayers may hope, this is a well-researched and documented estimate. In a state where funding for school operating expenses can come only from capped levies, state funding, or private fundraising, the $450,000 incremental cost would undoubtedly result in larger class sizes.

In the end, you may disagree with the proposal or some elements of it. That is absolutely each individual’s right. But please trust that the needed ‘homework’ has been done, the data presented is accurate, and that the individuals who have invested so many volunteer hours have done so with a single minded focus on what is best for our students, teachers, and island.

Thank you for your support!

Best regards,

Bruce Bassett

Additional Information on the Bond Measure:

Get up to speed quickly with facts from the School District

MISD Newsletter (pdf)

If you need to learn more about overcrowding, go to:

Video: Overcrowding in Mercer Island Schools

If you wonder whether the capacity crisis is due to open enrollment, visit:

The real reason for the rise in school enrollment

If you’re wondering why we don’t just remodel, go to:

Why not remodel?

If you’re hearing that we need to rebuild schools to stay competitive, but wonder why?

Surrounding school districts are rebuilding at a blistering pace

Video: Linus Toy, Carol Gullstad, Tana Senn and Susan Blake on property values

If you wish we’d add a fourth elementary school, read and then watch Principal Fred Rundle:

Video: Fred Rundle on not building a fourth school

If you have another idea about how to solve the capacity problem and stay competitive, and wonder if it was considered, review:

Alternative strategies considered
The response to a ‘better bond solution’

If you’re concerned about what this will cost you, look at:

How much will this cost us?
The school bond measure will cost less than cable TV

If you’re wondering why the School Board proposed a single bond authorization instead of multiple bonds over time:

Primer on property taxes (look specifically at the funding timeline and you’ll notice that we are selling bonds over a 5-7 year period)

If you think this bond is too big, look at:

Alternative strategies considered  (and look at cost of the first strategy and negative impacts of single school strategies)