2-24-04 By Mark Distaso Resident of Acton
Since the time that the school board decided to place on the ballot the latest high school construction bond, I have attempted to address members of the school board, both as a governing body as well as on an individual basis. I have done the same with school district staff. My purpose has been to communicate the number of pitfalls this district is heading for, both in it's attempt to reform its annual operating budget and to provide some guidance on how to properly go about conducting a “Needs Assessment” for the proposed high school.
Unfortunately, my effort has been a frustrating one - exactly what many members of the community told me I would experience. I have a career in local government that has spanned some 28 years now. I currently serve at an executive management level and deal with annual budgets in my department that exceed 36 million dollars in a city general fund operation that exceeds 200 million annually. I have also managed and coordinated a number of municipal construction projects that exceed the size and scope of the proposed high school.
At no time in my professional experience or training have I seen a proposed construction project with as many serious flaws as the proposed high school project. Unfortunately, my attempts to share my concerns and point out flaws in the proposed project (that were correctable if acted upon earlier) met with indifference. I was told both directly and with innuendo that I did not care enough about the kids in our community.
I currently have two children attending school in the Acton/Agua Dulce School District. The idea of a permanent high school for them to attend one day was appealing - but no proposed project, regardless of how emotionally drawn to it some might be, is worth constructing if it is conceptualized, designed, funded and built in a way which is outside normally accepted industry standards.
To place the residents of Acton and Agua Dulce in a position of debt to span over three decades, and not to receive the anticipated benefit and reward is unconscionable. Here is where our problems currently stand:
Although asked for repeatedly, the district will not release the Needs Assessment study that is needed to determine size and scope of the high school. Although the district officials recognize the fact that this needs assessment should be a public document they are not willing to release it. (Apparently Dr. Banderas used the bond company to conduct the study - and since they have not been paid - the bond company represents that the document is theirs, not the community's). Thus, we are being asked to increase our taxes without full disclosure.
· I suspect, based on my conversations with district officials and members of the community, that a true Needs Assessment has either never been done, or was done poorly and not up to par with standard government practices. Prior to his departure, Dr. Banderas, at various study session and board meetings, would share future student body population projections in five to seven year windows. I suspect that these same projections were used for the high school. THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. The construction of any government building, school or otherwise, should never be undertaken without using a 20 year projection study to determine future needs.
Not only did the school district use the bond company to conduct a needs study, but also used them as the district's financial advisor (per Dr. Banderas in the December 2003 study session). The use of the bond company for these purposes is a conflict of interest since the bond company has financial interests in the passing of the bond and this financial interest is competing with the local educational and financial interests of the community.
· Since no one is being allowed to review the Needs Assessment study, assuming one was even conducted, I cannot be sure, but it appears very apparent that the proposed high school is severely undersized as it is currently laid out in the architectural drawings. The proposed project is designed to hold approximately 670 students. Today, we already have approximately 550 students attending Vasquez. If parents living within the district's political subdivision that currently have teenagers attending home schooling, or schools out of the district (regardless of their child's current grade), decided to bring their children back to the district, the proposed high school could not house them.
Some members of the community have indicated that you cannot build more than you can afford and therefore it is of little consequence that the school is under designed because the district cannot afford to make the structure any larger. Proper planning and design does not mean you must build all of it now. Simply stated, if a project is not properly “master planned” with the requisite site planning, design, and engineering needed to expand the building in the future - then the entire project and the anticipated benefits of it are in jeopardy.
· The Southern California Association of Government has projected, using industry standard projection studies (that this school district has failed to do), that the fastest growing regions in all of southern California in the next 25 years will be San Bernardino County and the Palmdale/Antelope Valley area. Because of our community standards and current zoning status, Acton/Agua Dulce will not grow at the rate of Antelope Valley, but it most definitely is going to feel the pressure of population growth, and will certainly realize significant growth that will outstrip the size of the proposed high school when students begin to attend district schools.
It is common practice in the business of government building construction, schools or otherwise, that you project population needs to at least the “half life” of a proposed building. Since any school will last up to 75-100 years (barring acts of man or God), the “half life” of a school is somewhere around 40 years. It is industry wisdom that you not design, master plan, or build a government building that will reach its capacity to house people BEFORE the “half life” is reached.
However, if the bond passes and significant changes are not made to the current plans, that is what we are going to do. If we proceed down this current path, using the current construction plan, this school district and this community risk the potential of outstripping it's ability to house high students before the next 5-10 years are up - leaving the district with an insufficient, thus dysfunctional high school, and a tremendous amount of anger, frustration, and debt that will rival if not exceed the anger and frustration that the community is experiencing now over it's school district.
The only difference between then and now is that this community will be in 27 million dollars worth of debt (considering the cost of the debt service).
In summary,
I am not opposed to the idea of a high school or having a unified school district, but I am opposed to bad business practices that lead us into fiscal debt and poor business practices that place us outside the norm of the public construction industry - that runs the risk of leading us into more unnecessary debt that we may never recover from.
In my research into this issue, I have consulted with financial and construction officials in other school districts. I have also consulted with an architect that has been building schools in California for more than 40 years.
All have indicated that this district has used and is using bad business practices that will lead to less than desired outcomes and bitter disappointment in this community. Although it may be too late, there still may be time to correct the deficiencies in the proposed high school and in resolving our fiscal crisis.
But we must act, and we must do it now. I would hope that community concern could lead to a community wide forum that could address these issues as a whole and bring all groups together, whether opposed or supportive of the bond, along with all community committees that have been working on these issues.
Unless and until this happens, I will have to urge those who ask me to vote no on the bond and start over again. Despite what many say, state funds for school construction have been available and on going since 1947, and will continue to be available, despite the state's financial woes.
If we all truly believe in our children and really want only the best for them, then we must insure that our district officials and our school board operate within and not outside good government practices. In this case, we need to take a step back and re-assess what we are doing - so that we do it right, not only for our current generation of children but also for generations to come.
For further information, you may e-mail me at mdistaso@ci.glendale.ca.us Please provide a phone number in your e-mail.
Mark Distaso Resident of Acton
Bond index
Acton Agua Dulce School District
Vanguard News Home page