Letter | Why I can’t vote for the Lake Washington School District Bond

By on February 1, 2010 in Archived, Opinion
By Paul Hall

I understand from the Lake Washington School District’s web site that their proposed Bond Issue includes 134 million dollars for the  ”modernization” of Juanita High School.  That web site also describes “modernization” as the complete upgrading of a facility by either renovation or tear-down and replacement.


Although there is no information in the voter’s pamphlet or web site regarding the scope of work planned for Juanita High School, their director of communications has informed me that the school district hasn’t yet decided how they will “modernize” the school.  She says that the full study to make this decision has not been done, but that the money asked for in the Bond Issue is for the worst-case scenario, a tear down and full replacement.

There could be arguably somewhere around 100 million dollars difference between the complete renovation of this easily modernized building and a tear-down and replacement. Whereas there are many complex issues regarding Juanita High School, I believe that

  1. they should have been thoroughly vetted and resolved;
  2. a complete analysis of options for modernization completed; and
  3. an openly justified decision made on how to proceed with this project before the school district asked us for the approval to spend such a large sum of money.

I can’t justify my vote of approval for this Bond Issue absent such process.

About Paul Hall

View all posts by Paul Hall →

,

  • Michael McDaniel

    I can understand the fear that they’ll spend it if they’ve got it, and I also understand the distrust many feel towards our public institutions vis-a-vis spending frugally. That said, I know our schools are underfunded, many are in poor repair, and getting further behind will only mean larger bond requests or even poorer facilities. I hope the district will spend money wisely on Juanita High, and roll over any unneeded funds to other projects badly needed.

    Having to “get all the details right” before the funding request goes to the public wastes an awful lot of effort if the measure is defeated, and I’m not at all sure the citizenry are well-placed to analyze in depth the results of the district’s process. Of course, it’s really easy to justify an already-made decision not to support our schools based on an “I’m not sure they will spend it wisely” kind of argument. I trust that’s not the case here. But if it is not, why do you want a detailed breakdown of how this money will be spent when you don’t get detailed breakdowns on each of the highway projects going on? Did you vote down the latest request from the fire department because they don’t account for every dollar?

    We have to trust our public servants to do the right thing (or we vote them out). At the end of the day, the question at hand is: Do you want schools to improve their facilities or not? For me, that’s an easy thing to get behind.

  • Michael McDaniel

    I can understand the fear that they’ll spend it if they’ve got it, and I also understand the distrust many feel towards our public institutions vis-a-vis spending frugally. That said, I know our schools are underfunded, many are in poor repair, and getting further behind will only mean larger bond requests or even poorer facilities. I hope the district will spend money wisely on Juanita High, and roll over any unneeded funds to other projects badly needed.

    Having to “get all the details right” before the funding request goes to the public wastes an awful lot of effort if the measure is defeated, and I’m not at all sure the citizenry are well-placed to analyze in depth the results of the district’s process. Of course, it’s really easy to justify an already-made decision not to support our schools based on an “I’m not sure they will spend it wisely” kind of argument. I trust that’s not the case here. But if it is not, why do you want a detailed breakdown of how this money will be spent when you don’t get detailed breakdowns on each of the highway projects going on? Did you vote down the latest request from the fire department because they don’t account for every dollar?

    We have to trust our public servants to do the right thing (or we vote them out). At the end of the day, the question at hand is: Do you want schools to improve their facilities or not? For me, that’s an easy thing to get behind.

  • David

    I too am voting no due to the lack of information available…..in this day in age, it is an unacceptable practice.

  • David

    I too am voting no due to the lack of information available…..in this day in age, it is an unacceptable practice.

  • PJ

    There is a huge difference between renovating and tearing down and rebuilding. I resent McDaniel’s coment about the citizen’s not being “well placed” enough to be able to tell the difference. While agree that there will always be unknowns and that that is the time to trust our elected officials, it is plain that there could be better research done to discern which it’ll be; renovate or tear down… Mr. McDaniel, I’d rather waste a little “time” than money.
    This is NOT to say I am against doing what has to be done…let us just do the best we can to find out what that is…

  • http://pjnadalin@prodigy.net PJ

    There is a huge difference between renovating and tearing down and rebuilding. I resent McDaniel’s coment about the citizen’s not being “well placed” enough to be able to tell the difference. While agree that there will always be unknowns and that that is the time to trust our elected officials, it is plain that there could be better research done to discern which it’ll be; renovate or tear down… Mr. McDaniel, I’d rather waste a little “time” than money.
    This is NOT to say I am against doing what has to be done…let us just do the best we can to find out what that is…

  • michelle goerdel

    My husband and I had several of the same issues in whether or not to vote for the bond issue. Generally there is some statement of financial impact for all issues voted on for the state and county listed in the voters pamphlet- this time there wasn’t any information at all published which we found rather disconcerting. We spent much more time waffling on the issue due to the lack of information and we were not reassured by the research that we had time to do. I think their decision to not publish any information in the pamphlet will significantly decrease the likelihood of passage (at least for those of us who actually read the info and don’t just automatically vote for schools no matter what!)

  • michelle goerdel

    My husband and I had several of the same issues in whether or not to vote for the bond issue. Generally there is some statement of financial impact for all issues voted on for the state and county listed in the voters pamphlet- this time there wasn’t any information at all published which we found rather disconcerting. We spent much more time waffling on the issue due to the lack of information and we were not reassured by the research that we had time to do. I think their decision to not publish any information in the pamphlet will significantly decrease the likelihood of passage (at least for those of us who actually read the info and don’t just automatically vote for schools no matter what!)

  • David Stenberg

    1) the bond is for general maintenance of schools and a number of building and remodeling projects.
    2) that the school district is accelerating the “modernization” of Juanita (it was scheduled for 2014) to take advantage of the current low interest rates.

    As a result the school district is trying to create jobs AND provide a safe learning environment for their students. That they haven’t worked out all the details is on one portion of this undertaking is a pretty minor point. The foresight in taking advantage of the current economic situation demonstrates that they intend to spend our money wisely.

    Join me in voting YES!

    • Scott Brady

      It seems to have passed. A question though; if the district has no plans to begin work or any plans in place to make a decision on how to proceed, how will they secure building loans? How will they cash in on low interest rates that are going to evaporate in the next two years?

      The logic in your post is sound. But last I checked you can’t get loans without a plan so it doesn’t seem to jibe with financial reality.

      • Johanna Palmer

        The two levies are passing, as they need a simple majority to pass. The bond measure needs 60% to pass. The school district does not get loans like commercial properties or residental properties. The district sells bonds to finance building projects. The bond was also going to pay for 2 new elementary schools and additonal capacity at two high schools.
        The students will still arrive. If we don’t build it, they will still come. Expect larger class sizes (but not larger classrooms) and more portable classrooms in the next few years.

        Sorry about the repeat post, but the question was asked in two places.

        • Scott Brady

          Thanks for the response. Hopefully next year the school board will reduce the scope and take a more targeted approach to school replacement. $234M is a lot to swallow all at once.

  • David Stenberg

    1) the bond is for general maintenance of schools and a number of building and remodeling projects.
    2) that the school district is accelerating the “modernization” of Juanita (it was scheduled for 2014) to take advantage of the current low interest rates.

    As a result the school district is trying to create jobs AND provide a safe learning environment for their students. That they haven’t worked out all the details is on one portion of this undertaking is a pretty minor point. The foresight in taking advantage of the current economic situation demonstrates that they intend to spend our money wisely.

    Join me in voting YES!

    • Scott Brady

      It seems to have passed. A question though; if the district has no plans to begin work or any plans in place to make a decision on how to proceed, how will they secure building loans? How will they cash in on low interest rates that are going to evaporate in the next two years?

      The logic in your post is sound. But last I checked you can’t get loans without a plan so it doesn’t seem to jibe with financial reality.

      • Johanna Palmer

        The two levies are passing, as they need a simple majority to pass. The bond measure needs 60% to pass. The school district does not get loans like commercial properties or residental properties. The district sells bonds to finance building projects. The bond was also going to pay for 2 new elementary schools and additonal capacity at two high schools.
        The students will still arrive. If we don’t build it, they will still come. Expect larger class sizes (but not larger classrooms) and more portable classrooms in the next few years.

        Sorry about the repeat post, but the question was asked in two places.

        • Scott Brady

          Thanks for the response. Hopefully next year the school board will reduce the scope and take a more targeted approach to school replacement. $234M is a lot to swallow all at once.

  • Larry Mallory

    I would like to have a better understanding of what I am being asked to pay for before I vote yes. I think that is the prudent thing to do, and I have faith in my fellow voters to make good decisions when presented with the facts.

    • Johanna Palmer

      The description of the measures was not in the Voter’s Pamphlet because the expense to do that is large; the district has to pay King County to do that. Instead the district mailed all households a postcard with the information.
      The bond is for more than just Juanita High school. It includes 2 new elementary schools in the Redmond area. It also includes increased classrooms at Redmond and Eastlake High Schools to change them into 4 year high schools. Most high schools in our state are 4 years schools.
      Moving the ninth graders to the high school will allow advanced students access to more challenging classes.
      Juanita High School’s current design is unusual to say the least, and will be a challenge to modernize.
      A big reason to approve the bonds now and move forward on these projects is the current bond market is favorable to the issuers of bonds. Lake Washington School District saved 8.5 million dollars on its last bond issue. That savings will decrease the property rate for property owners in the district.
      Another reason is the favorable construction market for building projects. Many contractors are looking for work and will bid aggressively. The cost for construction will most likely rise every year the projects are delayed. If the bond is approved now, construction on these projects will probably begin in 2012/2013, with public input during the design phases.
      This bond is important to making sure we have classroom ready for the students the district expects in the next few years.

      Join me in voting YES!

      • Bob Style

        When it comes to taxes, Ms. Palmer has created many hardships. Her opinions are speculation, not facts. Instead of talking about tax rates, she should be talking about dollars and cents. A question she avoids and taxpayers should ask is, will our taxes go up?

        She supported annexation saying the economy of scale would make it economically feasible. Instead, it will cost Kirkland taxpayers dearly, some $40 million more over 10 years and for what, fewer services that are now being eroded? Now she wants to increase taxpayer debt when we are already strapped for cash, losing jobs, and forcing some to take out reverse mortgages just to have money to live on. They have to take out mortgages on homes already paid for. It makes what is now an affordable home unaffordable.

        Our quality of life is decreasing. It’s getting harder and harder for us to pay for health insurance. We don’t need another tax increase that jeopardizes our ability to take care of ourselves.

        What the district is asking us to do does not promote frugality at a time when we need it. There are many questions about when, how, and where the money will be spent. They have proven they could absorb a $7 million dollar shortfall without firing any teachers. In fact, they hired more. The quality of education remains high.

        Ms. Palmer is not someone to listen to when talking taxes. She’s already cost us a lot of money and now she wants more. The reasons she states are not based on need, they are based on desires, desires that may be realistic at some time in the future, but not now. Yes we want new facilities, equipment, and supplies. All it takes is good management. The district has proven they can manage their resources with what they have. It doesn’t need to change. They can and should do it without adding to our tax burden.

        • Johanna Palmer

          Mr. Style,

          Please don’t let your sour grapes over annexation hurt the students of the school district.
          The facts on the levies and bonds can be found on the school districts’ website at:
          http://www.lwsd.org/News/Levy-and-Bond-Information/Pages/FastFacts-2010-Levy-and-Bond-Measures.aspx
          The information clearly states the amounts being asked for and the estimated rates. School districts can only ask for fixed amounts from voters and the rates are estimated based on the current assessed value of all the property located within the school district boundaries.
          There is more information on the district’s website than I could repeat here. Try reading it.
          The district has been a good steward of the taxpayer’s money. It has had to cut its budget and has managed to retain teachers.
          The first measure on the ballot is a renewal request for the expiring Educational Programs and Operations levy. It provides about 20% of the district’s general operating budget. The amount is equivalent to the cost of 612 teachers.
          The second measure is the renewal of the expiring Capital Projects levy. This provides for the maintenance needs of the existing buildings in the district. It protects the taxpayer’s previous investments.
          The third measure is the Construction and Modernization Bond. This adds new schools and modernizes existing ones. The district projects an additional 1,300 students by the 2014 school year. Without building new schools and adding capacity to existing ones, where would you put them?
          Classrooms are a need not just a “desire”. The planning and the building must occur before the students arrive. The district cannot make classrooms magically appear.
          I stand by the facts on this issue; they are not just my opinion.

        • Jim Hitter

          It’s pretty hard to take Mr. Style’s call for “facts” seriously. He’s the master when it comes to putting out pure speculation as “facts.” Mr. Style often refers to the folks who—

          “are already strapped for cash, losing jobs, and forcing some to take out reverse mortgages just to have money to live on. They have to take out mortgages on homes already paid for. It makes what is now an affordable home unaffordable.”

          –and I wonder whether he has some inside knowledge about how many Kirklanders are actually in this situation? Is Mr. Style in danger of losing his waterfront home? We all know that these are tough economic times: costs rise, salaries go away or stagnate, and taxes certainly go up. We all must take “defensive” action.

          But surely, one of those defensive actions is NOT to shortchange our educational future!! Mr. Style doesn’t want to “jeopardize(s) our ability to take care of ourselves.” But, to me, the word “ourselves” applies to our community as well as to me personally. (And, no I don’t have children in school, and yes, I’m on a fixed amount pension.)

          Of course I want the District management to operate efficiently (and pinch every penny), but in the interests of the greater community good I’ll vote for the LWSD levies and hope that you do too!!

          • Bill Henkens

            Jim,
            I don’t understand your continued personal attack on Mr. Styles. He has a right to his opinion as much as you have, but in order to have a balanced argument, the personal attacks must stop. Argue the facts. If he is so off base, it seems to me like it would be easy to pick apart his points. But instead you attack him on a personal level. Very poor form.

          • Jim Hitter

            Mr. Henkens,

            So, you’re saying that if Mr. Styles doesn’t back up his statements with facts we should just laugh it off? If his premises (say, that Kirklanders are losing their homes due to LWSD property tax increases) are just his imagination run wild that he shouldn’t be called on it?

            Sorry, I don’t consider that I am an “attack(ing) him on a personal level” when he’s called to account for his “facts.”

          • Bill Henkens

            You must be kidding; here is what you said
            “It’s pretty hard to take Mr. Style’s call for “facts” seriously. He’s the master when it comes to putting out pure speculation as “facts.”
            If that is not a personal attack on his character, I don’t know what else to call it.
            My point is simple, argue the facts and leave the name calling out of the discussion.

      • Scott Brady

        It seems to have passed. A question though; if the district has no plans to begin work or any plans in place to make a decision on how to proceed, how will they secure building loans? How will they cash in on low interest rates that are going to evaporate in the next two years?

        The logic in your post is sound. But last I checked you can’t get loans without a plan so it doesn’t seem to jibe with financial reality. It will take at least two years to come up with a plan if they go for a full replacement.

        • Johanna Palmer

          The two levies are passing, as they need a simple majority to pass. The bond measure needs 60% to pass. The school district does not get loans like commercial properties or residental properties. The district sells bonds to finance building projects. The bond was also going to pay for 2 new elementary schools and additonal capacity at two high schools.
          The students will still arrive. If we don’t build it, they will still come. Expect larger class sizes (but not larger classrooms) and portable classrooms in the next few years.

  • Larry Mallory

    I would like to have a better understanding of what I am being asked to pay for before I vote yes. I think that is the prudent thing to do, and I have faith in my fellow voters to make good decisions when presented with the facts.

    • Johanna Palmer

      The description of the measures was not in the Voter’s Pamphlet because the expense to do that is large; the district has to pay King County to do that. Instead the district mailed all households a postcard with the information.
      The bond is for more than just Juanita High school. It includes 2 new elementary schools in the Redmond area. It also includes increased classrooms at Redmond and Eastlake High Schools to change them into 4 year high schools. Most high schools in our state are 4 years schools.
      Moving the ninth graders to the high school will allow advanced students access to more challenging classes.
      Juanita High School’s current design is unusual to say the least, and will be a challenge to modernize.
      A big reason to approve the bonds now and move forward on these projects is the current bond market is favorable to the issuers of bonds. Lake Washington School District saved 8.5 million dollars on its last bond issue. That savings will decrease the property rate for property owners in the district.
      Another reason is the favorable construction market for building projects. Many contractors are looking for work and will bid aggressively. The cost for construction will most likely rise every year the projects are delayed. If the bond is approved now, construction on these projects will probably begin in 2012/2013, with public input during the design phases.
      This bond is important to making sure we have classroom ready for the students the district expects in the next few years.

      Join me in voting YES!

      • Bob Style

        When it comes to taxes, Ms. Palmer has created many hardships. Her opinions are speculation, not facts. Instead of talking about tax rates, she should be talking about dollars and cents. A question she avoids and taxpayers should ask is, will our taxes go up?

        She supported annexation saying the economy of scale would make it economically feasible. Instead, it will cost Kirkland taxpayers dearly, some $40 million more over 10 years and for what, fewer services that are now being eroded? Now she wants to increase taxpayer debt when we are already strapped for cash, losing jobs, and forcing some to take out reverse mortgages just to have money to live on. They have to take out mortgages on homes already paid for. It makes what is now an affordable home unaffordable.

        Our quality of life is decreasing. It’s getting harder and harder for us to pay for health insurance. We don’t need another tax increase that jeopardizes our ability to take care of ourselves.

        What the district is asking us to do does not promote frugality at a time when we need it. There are many questions about when, how, and where the money will be spent. They have proven they could absorb a $7 million dollar shortfall without firing any teachers. In fact, they hired more. The quality of education remains high.

        Ms. Palmer is not someone to listen to when talking taxes. She’s already cost us a lot of money and now she wants more. The reasons she states are not based on need, they are based on desires, desires that may be realistic at some time in the future, but not now. Yes we want new facilities, equipment, and supplies. All it takes is good management. The district has proven they can manage their resources with what they have. It doesn’t need to change. They can and should do it without adding to our tax burden.

        • Johanna Palmer

          Mr. Style,

          Please don’t let your sour grapes over annexation hurt the students of the school district.
          The facts on the levies and bonds can be found on the school districts’ website at:
          http://www.lwsd.org/News/Levy-and-Bond-Information/Pages/FastFacts-2010-Levy-and-Bond-Measures.aspx
          The information clearly states the amounts being asked for and the estimated rates. School districts can only ask for fixed amounts from voters and the rates are estimated based on the current assessed value of all the property located within the school district boundaries.
          There is more information on the district’s website than I could repeat here. Try reading it.
          The district has been a good steward of the taxpayer’s money. It has had to cut its budget and has managed to retain teachers.
          The first measure on the ballot is a renewal request for the expiring Educational Programs and Operations levy. It provides about 20% of the district’s general operating budget. The amount is equivalent to the cost of 612 teachers.
          The second measure is the renewal of the expiring Capital Projects levy. This provides for the maintenance needs of the existing buildings in the district. It protects the taxpayer’s previous investments.
          The third measure is the Construction and Modernization Bond. This adds new schools and modernizes existing ones. The district projects an additional 1,300 students by the 2014 school year. Without building new schools and adding capacity to existing ones, where would you put them?
          Classrooms are a need not just a “desire”. The planning and the building must occur before the students arrive. The district cannot make classrooms magically appear.
          I stand by the facts on this issue; they are not just my opinion.

        • Jim Hitter

          It’s pretty hard to take Mr. Style’s call for “facts” seriously. He’s the master when it comes to putting out pure speculation as “facts.” Mr. Style often refers to the folks who—

          “are already strapped for cash, losing jobs, and forcing some to take out reverse mortgages just to have money to live on. They have to take out mortgages on homes already paid for. It makes what is now an affordable home unaffordable.”

          –and I wonder whether he has some inside knowledge about how many Kirklanders are actually in this situation? Is Mr. Style in danger of losing his waterfront home? We all know that these are tough economic times: costs rise, salaries go away or stagnate, and taxes certainly go up. We all must take “defensive” action.

          But surely, one of those defensive actions is NOT to shortchange our educational future!! Mr. Style doesn’t want to “jeopardize(s) our ability to take care of ourselves.” But, to me, the word “ourselves” applies to our community as well as to me personally. (And, no I don’t have children in school, and yes, I’m on a fixed amount pension.)

          Of course I want the District management to operate efficiently (and pinch every penny), but in the interests of the greater community good I’ll vote for the LWSD levies and hope that you do too!!

          • Bill Henkens

            Jim,
            I don’t understand your continued personal attack on Mr. Styles. He has a right to his opinion as much as you have, but in order to have a balanced argument, the personal attacks must stop. Argue the facts. If he is so off base, it seems to me like it would be easy to pick apart his points. But instead you attack him on a personal level. Very poor form.

          • Jim Hitter

            Mr. Henkens,

            So, you’re saying that if Mr. Styles doesn’t back up his statements with facts we should just laugh it off? If his premises (say, that Kirklanders are losing their homes due to LWSD property tax increases) are just his imagination run wild that he shouldn’t be called on it?

            Sorry, I don’t consider that I am an “attack(ing) him on a personal level” when he’s called to account for his “facts.”

          • Bill Henkens

            You must be kidding; here is what you said
            “It’s pretty hard to take Mr. Style’s call for “facts” seriously. He’s the master when it comes to putting out pure speculation as “facts.”
            If that is not a personal attack on his character, I don’t know what else to call it.
            My point is simple, argue the facts and leave the name calling out of the discussion.

      • Scott Brady

        It seems to have passed. A question though; if the district has no plans to begin work or any plans in place to make a decision on how to proceed, how will they secure building loans? How will they cash in on low interest rates that are going to evaporate in the next two years?

        The logic in your post is sound. But last I checked you can’t get loans without a plan so it doesn’t seem to jibe with financial reality. It will take at least two years to come up with a plan if they go for a full replacement.

        • Johanna Palmer

          The two levies are passing, as they need a simple majority to pass. The bond measure needs 60% to pass. The school district does not get loans like commercial properties or residental properties. The district sells bonds to finance building projects. The bond was also going to pay for 2 new elementary schools and additonal capacity at two high schools.
          The students will still arrive. If we don’t build it, they will still come. Expect larger class sizes (but not larger classrooms) and portable classrooms in the next few years.

  • Ron Hutchinson

    As a very long time fan of Paul Hall’s work and his spirit, artistry and commitment to Kirkland’s vitality I wish he would turn those talents and gifts away from fiscal nitpicking and towards the creation of a new Juanita High School equal in appearance and use to the other high school projects in the District. Juanita HS was designed by Paul Kirk forty years ago as a curious combination of “New Brutalism”, Northwest theming and a set of soon discredited Educational Specs (the infamous “Open Concept”) The school’s entire history has been one of attempting to make the structure work. Principals and facultys have done incredible things in delivering excellent education against some tough architectural obstancles not encountered in other Secondary structures. Paul, instead of beating up on the District’s PR shortcomings, a fruitless task at best, please use your architectural genius and your gracious personality to convince School Administrators, and community skeptics, as well as loyal constituents that the time has come for Juanita to get its share of the best we have to provide.
    Blessings, Ron Hutchinson

    • Paul Hall

      Thank you for the kind words, Ron. I return a deep respect for your many talents and good works. However, I don’t consider insisting on proper stewardship of public funds through proper planning, before requesting a sum arguably as much as 100 million dollars ,”nitpicking”. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Peace be with you.
      Paul

      • Ron Hutchinson

        I love mutual respect, Paul. At our stage of citizenship, it’s a comfort. A while ago I exiled myself to the wilds of Canyon Park 30 years of fighting the “good fight” put too many blisters on my Kirkland soul. My tax dollars now fund the marvelous educational institutions at Inglewood, Woodinville and the first rate remodel at Bothel.

        From a distance I’ve watched the LWSD create some architectural/educational gems. i.e. Robert Frost and Herny D Thoreau elementarys are both great teaching/learning spaces, but they also carry forward the spiritual legacy of their poet namesakes. Take a look at the “fences” around Frost, or the Butterflies” at the main entrance. The central interior of Thoreau resonates the experience of Walden.

        But Juanita High School remains….architecturally a relic of styles and theories long abandoned. Nevertheless, educationally still turning out first class graduates: four of them are my grandchildren, another three are on that track The Juanita constituency has waited patiently for its turn at an upgrade of facility equal to the rest of the District’s High Schools.

        My position (and request for ithe involvement of your vision) is not against responsible fiscal stewardship. It’s the order of things I’m arguing for. First we support the efforts of the Juanita constituency to create a first class institution…get the whole district to take pride in all of its schools, including the one’s in the NW corner. The LWSD Board, administration and supporters have invested in this Bond levy to achieve that goal. Once there is a consensus that a renewed Juanita is important to the health of the whole eastside, then we can demand that the dollars rrsponsibly achieve that end. Peace, old neighbor.

  • Ron Hutchinson

    As a very long time fan of Paul Hall’s work and his spirit, artistry and commitment to Kirkland’s vitality I wish he would turn those talents and gifts away from fiscal nitpicking and towards the creation of a new Juanita High School equal in appearance and use to the other high school projects in the District. Juanita HS was designed by Paul Kirk forty years ago as a curious combination of “New Brutalism”, Northwest theming and a set of soon discredited Educational Specs (the infamous “Open Concept”) The school’s entire history has been one of attempting to make the structure work. Principals and facultys have done incredible things in delivering excellent education against some tough architectural obstancles not encountered in other Secondary structures. Paul, instead of beating up on the District’s PR shortcomings, a fruitless task at best, please use your architectural genius and your gracious personality to convince School Administrators, and community skeptics, as well as loyal constituents that the time has come for Juanita to get its share of the best we have to provide.
    Blessings, Ron Hutchinson

    • Paul Hall

      Thank you for the kind words, Ron. I return a deep respect for your many talents and good works. However, I don’t consider insisting on proper stewardship of public funds through proper planning, before requesting a sum arguably as much as 100 million dollars ,”nitpicking”. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Peace be with you.
      Paul

      • Ron Hutchinson

        I love mutual respect, Paul. At our stage of citizenship, it’s a comfort. A while ago I exiled myself to the wilds of Canyon Park 30 years of fighting the “good fight” put too many blisters on my Kirkland soul. My tax dollars now fund the marvelous educational institutions at Inglewood, Woodinville and the first rate remodel at Bothel.

        From a distance I’ve watched the LWSD create some architectural/educational gems. i.e. Robert Frost and Herny D Thoreau elementarys are both great teaching/learning spaces, but they also carry forward the spiritual legacy of their poet namesakes. Take a look at the “fences” around Frost, or the Butterflies” at the main entrance. The central interior of Thoreau resonates the experience of Walden.

        But Juanita High School remains….architecturally a relic of styles and theories long abandoned. Nevertheless, educationally still turning out first class graduates: four of them are my grandchildren, another three are on that track The Juanita constituency has waited patiently for its turn at an upgrade of facility equal to the rest of the District’s High Schools.

        My position (and request for ithe involvement of your vision) is not against responsible fiscal stewardship. It’s the order of things I’m arguing for. First we support the efforts of the Juanita constituency to create a first class institution…get the whole district to take pride in all of its schools, including the one’s in the NW corner. The LWSD Board, administration and supporters have invested in this Bond levy to achieve that goal. Once there is a consensus that a renewed Juanita is important to the health of the whole eastside, then we can demand that the dollars rrsponsibly achieve that end. Peace, old neighbor.

  • Johanna Palmer

    I want to add a bit more information on the bond dollars. The evaluation and design of the Juanita High School building would be paid out of the bond dollars. Otherwise, the expense would have to come out of operating funds and could have an impact on classrooms.
    Any money that is not spent on the projects listed for the bonds cannot be used on other projects. It would be “refunded” to taxpayers through a lower property tax rate. The bonds are not immediately issued, but are issued as the projects need the funding. Recent bond issues (the one that cost 8.5 million less than expected) pay for projects approved by voters 4 years ago.
    The district must use the money for the projects specified. All school districts are audited by the State Auditor to ensure comliance.

    • Paul Hall

      Please carefully read the proposition title, Johanna. It specifically names certain projects and further states “and make other capital improvements”. If this bond issue passes the district can spend any unspecified amount, up to the limit of the authorized bond amount, on the named projects plus any “capital improvement”. This is common wording specifically inserted for that purpose. There is no legal obligation to return unused money to the taxpayers by any means. It’s hard to imagine the district not finding a “pressing” need for all of these funds. Approval of this proposal also clearly gives them authority to either renovate or tear down and rebuild Juanita high School under their unique definition of “modernization”, at their discretion, rather than with the advance approval of the taxpayers.

  • Johanna Palmer

    I want to add a bit more information on the bond dollars. The evaluation and design of the Juanita High School building would be paid out of the bond dollars. Otherwise, the expense would have to come out of operating funds and could have an impact on classrooms.
    Any money that is not spent on the projects listed for the bonds cannot be used on other projects. It would be “refunded” to taxpayers through a lower property tax rate. The bonds are not immediately issued, but are issued as the projects need the funding. Recent bond issues (the one that cost 8.5 million less than expected) pay for projects approved by voters 4 years ago.
    The district must use the money for the projects specified. All school districts are audited by the State Auditor to ensure comliance.

    • Paul Hall

      Please carefully read the proposition title, Johanna. It specifically names certain projects and further states “and make other capital improvements”. If this bond issue passes the district can spend any unspecified amount, up to the limit of the authorized bond amount, on the named projects plus any “capital improvement”. This is common wording specifically inserted for that purpose. There is no legal obligation to return unused money to the taxpayers by any means. It’s hard to imagine the district not finding a “pressing” need for all of these funds. Approval of this proposal also clearly gives them authority to either renovate or tear down and rebuild Juanita high School under their unique definition of “modernization”, at their discretion, rather than with the advance approval of the taxpayers.

  • Kathryn Reith

    As the Lake Washington School District communications director, I would like to add more background to clarify some of the issues raised here.

    The scope of the proposed Juanita High modernization is in line with the District’s modernization program, which began in 1998. When that program was developed, the district asked the community what the scope should be, ranging from not much more than replacement of major systems like roof and heating to a complete modernization that ensures all spaces meet the current educational specifications. The community verified that it wanted the full modernization. The first phase of modernization, with those educational specifications developed, was passed in 1998. Eleven schools were modernized in eight years, as promised and within the budget set.

    In 2006, the district validated that community preference for full modernization once again and a bond was passed to pay for the second phase of modernization, encompassing the building of one new school and modernizing 10 more. Two schools have been completed so far in that phase, on time and on budget. Several others are in progress.

    The scope of the Juanita High School remodel, should the bond pass, will be to the same educational specifications that have been used for the rest of the modernization program. Those specifications are very detailed.

    The facilities department developed an estimate for the Juanita High project based on its knowledge of the building and what past projects have cost. It has also found that with the full modernization specifications, building a new building has often been the cheaper option, not the more costly. We can build a new building while the old one continues to operate, as we are currently doing at Lake Washington High School. With a project that renovates the old building, that building cannot be used as a school while the construction takes place: moving and housing an entire school worth of students for the time it takes to rebuild the school is very costly.

    Given the facilities staff’s experience with modernization construction estimates and final costs for 13 school buildings in the last 12 years, it is unlikely that the estimate that was built into the bond measure, is very far off the mark. Even if a remodel did turn out to be cheaper, the likelihood of it being much lower is very small. Should the total cost of the project turn out to be less than estimated, the property tax rate would be lowered.

    If anyone has other questions concerning this any of the other school district measures on the ballot, please feel free to contact me at gro.dswlnull@htierk or call 425-702-3342 during business hours. There is also information posted on the district’s Web site at http://www.lwsd.org.

    Kathryn Reith
    Communications Director, Lake Washington School District

  • Kathryn Reith

    As the Lake Washington School District communications director, I would like to add more background to clarify some of the issues raised here.

    The scope of the proposed Juanita High modernization is in line with the District’s modernization program, which began in 1998. When that program was developed, the district asked the community what the scope should be, ranging from not much more than replacement of major systems like roof and heating to a complete modernization that ensures all spaces meet the current educational specifications. The community verified that it wanted the full modernization. The first phase of modernization, with those educational specifications developed, was passed in 1998. Eleven schools were modernized in eight years, as promised and within the budget set.

    In 2006, the district validated that community preference for full modernization once again and a bond was passed to pay for the second phase of modernization, encompassing the building of one new school and modernizing 10 more. Two schools have been completed so far in that phase, on time and on budget. Several others are in progress.

    The scope of the Juanita High School remodel, should the bond pass, will be to the same educational specifications that have been used for the rest of the modernization program. Those specifications are very detailed.

    The facilities department developed an estimate for the Juanita High project based on its knowledge of the building and what past projects have cost. It has also found that with the full modernization specifications, building a new building has often been the cheaper option, not the more costly. We can build a new building while the old one continues to operate, as we are currently doing at Lake Washington High School. With a project that renovates the old building, that building cannot be used as a school while the construction takes place: moving and housing an entire school worth of students for the time it takes to rebuild the school is very costly.

    Given the facilities staff’s experience with modernization construction estimates and final costs for 13 school buildings in the last 12 years, it is unlikely that the estimate that was built into the bond measure, is very far off the mark. Even if a remodel did turn out to be cheaper, the likelihood of it being much lower is very small. Should the total cost of the project turn out to be less than estimated, the property tax rate would be lowered.

    If anyone has other questions concerning this any of the other school district measures on the ballot, please feel free to contact me at gro.dswlnull@htierk or call 425-702-3342 during business hours. There is also information posted on the district’s Web site at http://www.lwsd.org.

    Kathryn Reith
    Communications Director, Lake Washington School District

  • http://www.onekirkland.org/ Johanna Palmer

    Thank you to all the voters that supported our schools. The Educational Programs and Operations levy and the Capital Projects levy are currently passing. It appears both will end up passing. The Bond measure does not appear it will get a super majority approval.
    For complete election results, go to http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201002/results.aspx

    • The Ghost of Peter Kirk

      So does the Bond measure need a 60% supermajority to pass?

      • Bill Henkens

        Yes, they need 60%. Here is the most current data:

        LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 414

        Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: * 28101 / 97716 28.76%
        Proposition No. 1 Replacement of Existing Educational Programs and Operations Levy

        YES 16720 59.91%

        NO 11190 40.09%
        Proposition No. 2 Replacement of Existing Capital Projects Levies

        YES 15149 57.61%

        NO 11149 42.39%
        Proposition No. 3 General Obligation Bonds – $234,000,000

        APPROVED 14204 54.38%

        REJECTED 11918 45.62%

  • http://www.onekirkland.org Johanna Palmer

    Thank you to all the voters that supported our schools. The Educational Programs and Operations levy and the Capital Projects levy are currently passing. It appears both will end up passing. The Bond measure does not appear it will get a super majority approval.
    For complete election results, go to http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/elections/201002/results.aspx

    • The Ghost of Peter Kirk

      So does the Bond measure need a 60% supermajority to pass?

      • Bill Henkens

        Yes, they need 60%. Here is the most current data:

        LAKE WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 414

        Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: * 28101 / 97716 28.76%
        Proposition No. 1 Replacement of Existing Educational Programs and Operations Levy

        YES 16720 59.91%

        NO 11190 40.09%
        Proposition No. 2 Replacement of Existing Capital Projects Levies

        YES 15149 57.61%

        NO 11149 42.39%
        Proposition No. 3 General Obligation Bonds – $234,000,000

        APPROVED 14204 54.38%

        REJECTED 11918 45.62%