The District keeps piling on the misinformation.

I read with interest an article in the Enterprise regarding the recent ribbon-cutting of a project at Edmonds Elementary. There was great fanfare and even the Mayor showed up to help operate the freakishly large pair of scissors.

It surely is a great project that resulted in so many great improvements for the playground, the school and the community as a whole. So why would the District opt out of taking a little bit of credit?

The playground and walking path project was a District-sponsored Capital Partnership project. A sizable chunk of the expense was covered with voter-approved capital funds, though the article was careful to mention that no district funds were used. Why would the media make such a claim? Could it be the District's futile effort to distance itself from any spending that may be deemed as unnecessary during these tight economic times? Why not share in the success of one of its schools? Why lie about the fact that a considerable amount of money came from the Capital Partnership fund?

What is equally surprising is the fact that from a long list of partnership projects, this project was the only one the new Facilities Director took over when he joined the District in 2006. The playground structures were already in place and yet it took more than two years to complete a paved walkway and build a stack of cement eco-blocks. It was the new Facilities Director that presented a crayon sketch to the Architectural Design Board that was instantly dismissed as overly simplistic and underwhelming.

I also recall how the school was unaware of the best way to raise funds when the District was matching, dollar-for-dollar, contributions generated by non-District sources. The parent group wanted to have the District match parent funds first - before they collected money from the City of Edmonds. It didn't take a financial genius to recommend that the school raise all of their money first, before having it matched by Capital Partnership funds.

While I am pleased that Edmonds Elementary finally completed their Capital Partnership project, I am disappointed in the District. They are clearly more concerned with leaving the impression of not spending any money rather than leaving the impression of spending money wisely.

Blog: The Enterprise has altered the article to reflect the District's contribution.

Edmonds levy would buy schools laptops

Laptops, carpet and mobile computer labs in south Snohomish County schools are on the line in the May 20 election. Voters in the Edmonds School District will decide the fate of a technology and capital facilities levy that would replace a levy that expires this year.

The proposed $31.5 million levy is expected to cost residents 28 cents per $1,000 of their property's assessed value. The owner of a $400,000 home would pay $112 each year.

The expiring $44 million levy cost voters 52 cents per $1,000 of the assessed value of their property.

The new levy would help replace outdated computers and buy laptops for classroom use, said Cynthia Nelson, director of technology for the Edmonds School District. The state usually doesn't pay for computers, so most districts buy their computers with levies or grants, she said. Every school in the district has at least one mobile cart of laptop computers that is wheeled into classrooms so students can use computers in their room instead of having to work in a computer lab. Additionally, around 30 percent of the classrooms in the district have a set of seven laptops for classroom use.

Most of the computers were bought in 2004, with funds from the previous technology levy. Nelson said many are having issues and need to be replaced. "We've done a lot of work to pretty much bring the Edmonds School District into the 21st century -- and renewing this levy will allow us to continue that good work at an even lower tax rate than we're currently running," she said. "It is pretty amazing if you talk to a lot of teachers, they're not real sure how they could go back to the old way of doing things."

The levy would also pay for security system improvements, roofing upgrades and changes to make schools more energy efficient.

There is no organized opposition to the levy, but a few people have criticized it online and in letters to newspapers. Although he thinks technology is important, Edmonds resident Mark Zandberg plans to vote against the levy because he doesn't like the district's management style.

"I think the levy is a fantastic thing," said Zandberg, a former planning and property management specialist for the district. "This community needs that levy to pass. However, the manner in which the district manages those funds, I can't tolerate at all. I'd rather take a hit in the short term."

Read the rest of this article by clicking here.

Kaitlin Manry
425-339-3292
kmanry@heraldnet.com

Editorial: Gee, what were they expecting the president of Citizens for Schools to say? She is clearly detached from reality if she thinks the District spends money wisely. But then, if I had three kids attending school in the District I might want lots of everyone else's money paying the way - even if a small fraction actually gets to where it needs to go.

Another reason to vote "NO" on the Tech Levy.

Several months ago, the blog requested any and all information related to the final round of Capital Partnerships. We were provided, as I suspected, a summary of the last round of projects - which were not intended to be the final round. There was $150,000.00 of matchable funds left on the table as of June 2007. These funds would have resulted in $300,000.00 in Capital Partnership project value, but alas, the money was swept under the rug.

The justification for this must be related to a sense of reasonable overhead for the Capital Projects Office, but alas, the projects were managed by Property Management and Athletics - not Capital Projects. When the last round (now final round) of projects were handed off to CPO to monitor, they swept more than $300,000.00 of project value under their administrative rug. Is that right? No, it isn't.

The public passed the last Tech Levy with the understanding that one million dollars would be utilized to enhance our schools through community partnerships. The money was provided and $850,000.00 was directed to projects while $150,000.00 vaporized. In my world, that constitutes a lie. A big fat lie. The 2008 Tech Levy earmarks an additional one million dollars, but a substantial percentage will likely never make it out of the District's accounts - thereby penalizing the public with a doubling effect.

Until June 2007, Capital Partnerships used to be managed by Property Management. This created a situation where the District absorbed the cost of managing projects in return for a huge infusion of public funds. Under the current project management model, CPO will manage the projects and take a cut of the remaining funds for the inconvenience.

We should save these parasites the headache of watching projects flourish and vote "NO" on the 2008 Tech Levy.

Here is the latest scam. Don't be duped by the Supe.

In Capital Facilities, these funds will allow the District to better support district-wide safety and emergency preparedness, district-wide energy efficiency improvements, system upgrades and asset protection, and outdoor facilities/partnerships.

Mentioning "safety", "emergency preparedness", "efficiency", "protection" and "upgrades" is just a feeble attempt to appeal to our community's sensitivities. As one contributor mentioned earlier, these improvements should result in a direct reduction in actual expenditures and therefore pay for themselves. Why ask the public for an infusion of capital funds to subsidize the general fund? Utility bills, losses from theft and staff training are all general fund expenses.

The replacement levy also continues our longstanding practice of the Capital Partnership Program. This is where schools, community groups, and organizations can submit applications to receive matching funds. This practice has resulted in the completion of many projects, including outdoor playground equipment and field work. $1 million is again included in the replacement levy to be available for matching funds and another $500,000 is designated to be part of necessary improvements to the former Woodway High School fields project being pursued cooperatively and jointly with several community organizations.

Scam. Plain and simple. Now that project management has moved away from general fund staff and landed in a capital funded department, expect to pay 15% or more for management services. Of course, this 15% has twice the impact in reducing the total value of projects by 30% since it takes 15% of the funds off the table and out of reach of matchable dollars from the community.

Salt in the wound: Most of the playground projects are totally coordinated and installed by parents and volunteers. Having managed most of the District's past partnership projects, I can readily profess that parents have always stepped up and carried a lot of the weight - from unloading trucks and site preparation to full installation and final completion.

Editorial: Remember that the "engineered playchip" option is not the District standard and therefore would be an unnecessary expense. When your quantities run low, your enclosures will be topped off by the much cheaper, non-engineered playchips.

Our children need playgrounds.

There are a number of schools struggling to raise money for playground projects. Terrace Park for example was built without a playground because district management knew that parents and staff would take pity on their children and build a playground on their own. In fact, deleting a playground from the scope of construction at Terrace Park even improved the chances of passing a bond with a Capital Partnership element to it. District management knows what they are doing and what they are doing is immoral.

Our children need playgrounds.

When I left the District in June of 2007, there was a substantial amount of money left for Capital Partnerships. We had just fully-funded every project that applied for matching money and still had more than $150,000.00 in the fund. When the responsibility of managing those projects was moved to Capital Projects, where they charge management fees and overhead, the $150,000.00 went straight into their budget without any future rounds planned.

It would be far better to have another round of projects and combining forces would result in $300,000.00 in additional investment in scarce or deficient playground features. In fact, rather than just sign over $150,000.00 to the Capital Projects Office, why not just fully-fund all of the projects in the last round. Pay for everything. One hundred percent. Not the best or most equitable option but it is a lot better than just slipping the money to a department already flush with cash.

Our children need playgrounds.

The latest information from the tip line suggests that Westgate Elementary and Meadowdale Elementary are also struggling to raise money for their playground projects. Westgate's playground is sad and embarrassing. Meadowdale is another case where the playground was under-built during the construction of the school. In an earlier round, parents managed to plan, purchase and install an amazing playground with minimal effort from District staff.

Our children need playgrounds.

If you want to see your money used to build the playgrounds your children were promised, call Ed Peters (425-431-7170) and ask him if there will be another round. If you prefer to email, by all means, send him an anonymous message. The voters designated the funds to be used to build partnership projects. It isn't a partnership when the public spends $150,000.00 to lose $300,000.00 in value added to the District. The District needs to play fair and honor their commitments.

Editorial: Thank you to the caller that left this message on the tip line.

Taking the partner out of "Capital Partnerships".

There was a time when the Planning and Property Management Specialist managed the Capital Partnership program. While some may have a problem with a General Fund employee working to support Capital Fund work, the practice made sense and upheld the concept of a true partnership. The District made some sacrifices and the partners normally contributed their personal effort in working to see the project end successfully.

Numerous times, parents and volunteers would surrender their weekends unloading trucks and assembling play structures. Many of these parents and volunteers took time away from their jobs to work on these projects. The motivation was, in part, to keep costs down and transfer funds that would have been expended on labor for Maintenance staff over to the play structure side of the equation and allow for enhancements that would be enjoyed by children for years to come.

Now, with the shift of these partnership programs to the Capital Projects Office, a management fee will be passed along to the project - half of which will have to be picked up by the partner. This directly translates to fewer playground components, smaller play structures, essentially less of a project and more of a subsidy for district processes.

Just so you know, the last round of Capital Partnerships did not expend all of the allocated funds. There was approximately $150,000.00 left on the table. More than enough for another round of projects. My sense, however, is that there will not be another round and that the balance will be folded into the Capital Fund for the management of the last few projects from the previous round. For the schools that were planning to compete in the final round to have their projects funded, I am sorry.

In future, prospective partners should look for the devil in the details. When a levy or bond includes funding for partnership projects, make sure that all of the ear-marked funds are assigned to projects and that hefty "management fees" are rejected.