Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« NCLB forces local schools to improve | Main | Is "My Space" in your place? »
February 19, 2006
Forget C4 (maybe we can do C2?)
Higher costs could force school bond project cuts
By Angie Valencia-Martinez, Daily News Staff Writer
SIMI VALLEY - School officials are considering scaling back bond-related projects because of soaring construction costs that have put plans as much as $60 million over budget, school officials said.
Voters approved a $145 million school bond measure in 2004, but because of cost overruns officials now estimate that the price tag to complete the laundry list of proposed projects is about $243 million.
From the Daily News...
Higher costs could force school bond project cuts
By Angie Valencia-Martinez, Staff Writer
SIMI VALLEY - School officials are considering scaling back bond-related projects because of soaring construction costs that have put plans as much as $60 million over budget, school officials said.
Voters approved a $145 million school bond measure in 2004, but because of cost overruns officials now estimate that the price tag to complete the laundry list of proposed projects is about $243 million.
"About 80 percent of the projects should be done," said Lowell Schultze, associate superintendent of business and facilities.
To limit rising costs, construction will be compressed from a 10-year schedule to six, with completion by 2010. To be on the safe side, officials are now using an annual inflation rate of 14 percent, up from 4 percent.
The projects planned at each of the district's 29 campuses were estimated to cost $186 million before the bond measure was approved, and the district relied on receiving an additional $41 million from the state. Since then, the cost has skyrocketed.
"We need to prioritize," school board member Greg Stratton said. "Changes have to be looked at unless we can cough up more money. ... The board has to get to the nitty-gritty of what needs to be done at every school."
To make up the difference, school officials are considering selling off surplus property, although some support the idea more than others. Last year, the district requested appraisals on three parcels: the Wood Ranch conference center, an equestrian center south of Long Canyon and Walnut Grove Elementary School.
The combined value is more than $10 million, with the closed campus alone worth about $6 million, Schultze said.
Last week, the school board agreed only to pursue the idea of possibly selling the equestrian center and Wood Ranch conference center. Before anything can happen, an advisory committee must be formed to declare the assets as surplus.
With the available funds, officials will first concentrate on priority projects, including fire safety, electrical and technology upgrades, as well as making sure all buildings are handicapped accessible, Schultze said. Other projects likely will have to be dropped from the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction list.
"Whatever funding is left, we will work with the schools themselves to set up a priority list," he said. "We'll get a good handle on that as we go along."
So far, the district has spent about $17 million of the $145 million bond authorized by voters. Much of the work performed has been design-related. Modernization of Royal and Simi Valley high schools is now complete, and the expansion at Atherwood Elementary School will continue, including a new administration building, library and classrooms.
Among the issues the district now faces is the Simi Valley High School stadium project. An all-weather track and artificial turf should be in place by September, but there isn't enough money for more seats and a press box, as originally planned.
Also, plans for Santa Susana High School have come in $1 million over budget; they include modernization of the campus, a multipurpose auditorium and more library space.
School board member Carla Kurachi, who has been pushing for the sale of unused property, said now is the time to get rid of some of the district's holdings.
"We're not in the real estate business," she said. "Our job is to educate today's children, and hanging on to property that costs us a bit of money every year is not very prudent."
Mike McCaffrey, chairman of the district's bond oversight committee, said the group will continue to monitor how the money is spent.
"We want to aid the district in stretching the dollars as far as we can," he said. "The best way we can do that is to make sure they are spent in the most efficient manner possible."
Comments
Hi Chris:
You raise an interesting point about the performing arts center. I believe it has gone from over 900 seats to 400 sum odd seats.
One of the justifications I'd like to see made in favor of the performing arts center and upgrades to the Simi high stadium for that matter, is what is the long term revenue stream this capital improvement would bring to our district?
Nicer stadiums/performing arts center means more students/people will go to the games/events raising funds, hopefully for the district.
I'm not sure who gets the revenue from sports events. I would think it's the district, but am interested if I'm mistaken.
One of the bigger issues at Santa Susana is the parking situation. I sat on neighborhood council when we discussed parking at Santa Susana. The neighbors are extremely angry because students are parking in the neighborhoods. I've even seen pictures of students parking in people's driveways and parents doing the drop off/pick up in the neighborhoods.
Also, students tend to be left unattended in this area and conglomerate on corners within the neighborhood. I have seen pictures of students smoking and hanging out front people's houses.
This is a quality of life question for the residents.
A real high school parking lot is long overdue. This is also taxing the the city's police resources throughout during these peak times in the area around the school.
At the meeting last week, there was discussion of speeding up the issuance of bonds to increase cash flow to complete these projects.
My concern is more for the long term, particualrly in light of selling one time real estate assets.
A school district in the future that is real estate poor cannot make up the difference in a time of real need. Of course, one could argue this is a real time of need.
We should ask what are the justifications for doing this and what is the long term effects on the district financial health...
I welcome your thoughts as always.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at February 22, 2006 10:31 AMI think things like Arts Centers and Stadiums should be done with revenue bonds (which I get the impression is what you were talking about Scott) instead of general obligation bonds. See, as it is right now, the general fund will be on the hook to pay these off with interest, not from revenue.
From an investment standpoint, things like classrooms, technology and other infrastructure improvements are capital investments. The same can be said of arts centers, ball fields and stadiums. But stadiums and performing arts centers can be rented out, tickets & refreshments can be sold. All of that money can then go towards the paying off of the bond used to build the facility.
I think if school districts came to the public and said we need X $ in general obligation bonds, and X$ in revenue bonds, and this is how they will pay for themselves (tghe revenue bonds) they would get the money, and the kids would get the facilities.
Right now, on the Simi PAC, they are running out of both money and time, and the question remains - Is this a good use of money when so much needs to be done in the way of infrastructure improvements?
Tim


After being involved rather deeply in the bond project for a few years I will make one prediction and ask two questions that will likely not be answered honestly by the District (aka Arleigh).
Posted by: Chris Hamilton at February 20, 2006 02:06 PMPrediction - The percentage of projects completed at the end of the day will be closer to 50% than 80%
Question - How can the District justify spending extraordinary amounts of bond money on a performing arts center when they have no way of funding the operations of the PAC or even furnishing it?
Question - How much of the expected/predicted state funding is lost and how much is in jeopardy of being lost?