skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Athletic fields
Rhonda Hampson stated she was unhappy the fields are gone. They are not gone.
They moved to 184th and North road in Bothell at the New Lynnwood High School. Please get your facts straight before printing these articles. The school district put exactly what they had at the old site at the new site. Also, I have children who have graduated and two who are still at LHS. This is a wonderful plan and my kids are safe in a new building.
The school district gets money for 50 years for other building sites and we as tax payers don't have to come up with funds
for upkeep and new buildings. Yeah for us all. Get over the change, it's a win, win.
Carrie McAfee
Community Resource Lost
Carrie McAfee's assertion that this community resource was not lost, but rather just relocated is absurd. Sure, she isn't complaining because they moved this community resource to Bothell, just a couple of blocks from her house.
Please enlighten us as to whether the City of Lynnwood will be managing the fields or will that task fall upon the District's Athletic Department - now managed by someone with zero experience in athletics.
The real loss to the community is not in a patch of Field Turf or the adjacent grass but rather the deception inflicted upon the community by Marla Miller and her board of puppets that sold us a University Village and delivered a severely under-utilized plot with yet another "big box".
Marla's legacy will forever be remembered with this new and unexciting development, "Miller's Double Crossing".
Manufactured Demand
Ground lease is for 99 years
Carrie,
Get it right. The ground lease is for 99 years and if you believe the District will ask us for less than you probably believe what flows out of Brossoit's mouth.
The contaminated lot that was purchased for $5.8 million from a shmuck that bought it four years earlier for $900,000 is the site to watch. The District re-graded the site for millions and now it just sits there, waiting for another handout from the taxpayers.
Where is the New Scriber Lake High School? Where is the ground lease for the transportation center next to the mall? What is happening with the site across from the Lynnwood Convention Center? The District is just waiting for the right set of circumstances for their friends and political allies to financially flog us.
We need competent leadership, not a board of like-minded do nothings, easily hypnotized by the rhythmic sway of Marla's kooky hair.
Manufactured Demand
Talking to Manufactured demand
To Manufactured Demand, You are so insecure about your thoughts that you don't even use your own name. I said 50 years because have you ever seen a building last more than 50 years? They build the big box stores cheep. Then we will be watching them change the idea of what to do on that site. I do know that the school district used the 99 year term as an end date to buy it back. The next thing I would like to address is the new LHS is near my house. But it is also near the old LHS site around 3 miles east. That being said you must know me manufactured demand because I did not say where I lived in my article. Lets talk about Marla Miller, she works her butt off for us. Our district is better off than most in our area. So get off your high horse and help out at the citizens planning committee. Where you will see that the Scriber Lake High school is temporarily at the old Woodway Sr. High. Then it will be moved to the building next to Edmonds Community College when the new site for the bus barn is ready and the district offices move to that site at the Old Cedar Valley Elem. It's a great plan to use what we have and to make sure we keep the district in the black. Then you stated the site across from the Convention center... that site was set to be a high rise and the city of Lynnwood held that construction up. The school district does not get the final say in our choice of what goes on to each piece of property we are trying to get rid of. I also want to tell you that the City of Lynnwood has the last say in what they do or do not do with fields they may or may not maintain. Look at their budget and show us where they have money to do these types of things. LHS is gorgeous and the fields are sitting there under the snow waiting for our use. Last you are just negative. Dr. Brossoit is a great asset to our school. If you helped out instead of just bitched you would see that.
Carrie McAfee
Carrie McAfee...
Why would the District "buy back" their own site?
As for a building lasting more than 50 years, have you ever been to Seattle or any urban area for that matter?
The New Lynnwood High School is not even in Lynnwood. It isn't only about distance but also about jurisdiction.
Marla Miller is a criminal and you are blind.
So, Scriber will move from Former Woodway High School to the current Administration site when the Transportation site leaves the Alderwood Mall area and into the contaminated site? Would that be before or after the District seeks another construction bond from the public?
New Lynnwood High School was designed by architects for no other real purpose than to impress simple minds and fatten the resume of the architectural firm. That school should have been more utilitarian. Gee, I wonder if you have even looked at their utility bills.
And as for serving on the CPC, I refuse to be part of the problem. You are obviously blinded by the self-obsessed. The Board is a band of fools, Brossoit is a monkey whose greatest accomplishment to date was to outshine Ken Limon and Ellen Kahan in his interview with the Board (see above).
As for Marla, she has been steering district money to friends for years and has zero business sense. I suggest you read a little more - start with that blog site written by one of Marla's former pawns (esd15.org).
Time will catch up with Marla. Her day is coming.
Manufactured Demand
There was a time, not long ago, when we the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District were told of a magical scheme straight from the lips of Nick Brossoit. We were told that if we passed the construction bond for the new Lynnwood High School (after it failed twice before) the District would use the proceeds from the long-term ground lease of the current Lynnwood High School to fund a lengthy list of other projects. Well, it sounded good at the time... to a few of you, at least.
Now that Cypress Equities is "rethinking" their development and delaying the launch of any real revenue-generating project, one thing is for certain - the trough is empty and the cows are coming home to be milked.
As for Marla's claim that Cypress Equities is "still very interested in developing the site", she is clearly detached from the realities of our economic circumstances. Give me a break. Many of us in our 30s are "still very interested in" retiring, it just won't be happening anytime soon.
I have also been informed that Cypress Equities is just keeping their foot in the door. At the moment, they have no real plan to move forward with the current project and would never back out entirely, in case the economy improves in the next few years. What sense would there be to leave the project when they already have a number of available exit opportunities built into the ground lease? Why would they give up their seat in the first chair when it costs them nothing to sit there? There is no expiration date. There is no meter running. Why not maintain the illusion to your investors that you have yet another iron in the fire? Never mind that the fire is just orange paint.
Just how much money has been spent so far on consultants and lawyers to prepare the ground lease? What about the cost of converting the property from public use? What other magical sources of funds are available to renovate the ESC for Scriber Lake High School or develop the contaminated site for the new administration center? And where is all the money from the Old ESC site and the Maintenance and Transportation site?
The board may be dazzled by the illusion of intelligence in district management, but it is all quite relative, I assure you. Five imbeciles and an idiot are easily out-witted by a moron.
The Herald offered a retraction. How nice of them. But it does open a new topic that might best be explored at this time.
Apparently, Cypress Equities seeks to construct mulit-family housing. This could be apartments or condominiums. Either way, people will be living on the site and paying a portion of their housing expenses toward a periodically-adjusted ground lease. In the current housing market, this may not pencil out very well. Would a bank loan money to a potential condo buyer if their mortgage and associated ground lease payment was variable? What would happen if the condo buyer financed their purchase with a variable interest rate? They might achieve compounded variability.
If the multi-family housing development was an apartment complex, then one developer (Cypress or a designee) would have to construct a rather large and fairly expensive housing structure without owning the dirt upon which it rests. This could create a problem for those interested in determining potential cash flow. Investments usually yield income. Building an apartment complex on leased land can only mean that someone is getting screwed. By default, it is routinely the public sector. The devil is in the details.
If you want to determine just how far we are being led astray, ask the District to provide written assurance - signed by the Board of Directors - that no portion of the Lynnwood High School site will be sold to anyone, at anytime for any price. The Board sought funding through a capital construction bond with the understanding that Lynnwood High School will be ground leased. Now that the bond has passed, the District will quickly roll out the excuses and make claims that they had their fingers crossed.
New Lynnwood High School rises
Construction on the $99.8 million project is about halfway done
LYNNWOOD (Unincorporated Snohomish County) -- Bulldozers hum. Construction workers ready steel framing. A school emerges.
Midway through construction on the new Lynnwood High School, the project is on schedule and on budget, said project manager Debra Born.
The foundation is nearly complete and much of the frame of the $99.8 million school is up. Lights surround the baseball field and the football field is ready for turf. Portions of the roof and concrete brick siding are up, and electricians are in the process of wiring the building. Plumbing is also in the works.
"It's exciting," Born said, looking over drawings of different parts of the new school. "There's a lot of ingredients to this project that make it quite rich and stimulating."
Construction began in June 2007, and the school is scheduled to open to students in September 2009. Furniture and classroom setup is slated to begin next June.
The school, east of I-5 near Mill Creek, will replace the existing Lynnwood High School, which is adjacent to Alderwood mall. A Texas-based development firm, Cypress Equities, plans to purchase the old high school and use the land to house retail space, multifamily residential units and a hotel.
Cypress plans to take control of the land in July 2009, according to Marla Miller, an assistant superintendent with the Edmonds School District. A few months prior to the sale, an appraisal of the site will be done to help determine the purchase price, she said.
Read the rest of this article by clicking here.
By Kaitlin Manry
Herald Writer
I am now really concerned when I read Carrie McAfee's letter of April 11, 2008, indicating that the new Lynnwood High School needs the funding that removing the Lynnwood Athletic Fields would bring. ("Fields will be moved to new site," Enterprise)
What happened to the $140 million that we approved February 2006 for the new school? I support schools, but I now believe that we are not getting good information about their funding.
If the Edmonds School District needs additional schools, why not inform the voters and let us vote. We have always supported schools! Now it is even easier, requiring only a 50 percent vote!
Again, does the district need more than $140 million for a high school? It seems to be an awful lot of money!
K Guedea
Bothell
Editorial: There are a lot of people in "Bothell" commenting about the Edmonds School District. This unincorporated portion of Snohomish County appears to be a hotbed of activism. Bravo. At least some people are paying attention.
The blog is attracting more and more readers these days. This relatively new arrival, Seattle Northwest Securities, is the agency that sells bonds for the Edmonds School District. They have also been very involved in the process of evaluating, selecting and working with the new developers for the current Lynnwood High School. It is Seattle Northwest Securities that will coordinate the funding based upon anticipated revenue from groundleasing the Lynnwood Athletic Complex and adjoining high school.
What is rather interesting is that everything I am reading seems to suggest that the matter has not yet been resolved. What if this hearing in June prevents the Lynnwood Athletic Complex from being eliminated? That might have an impact upon anticipated revenues. I can see why Seattle Northwest Securities might be interested in the blog.
Here is a little bit of free advertising for Seattle Northwest Securities. If you have a public resource you would like to strip away from your community, give them a call.
SNW is an innovator in the world of school finance, both public and private K-12 and higher education. We have created plans to help districts reduce the cost of housing for teachers, implemented plans to reduce districts' pension costs, and shown how districts and developers can work together to finance new classroom space.
Our work with schools is based on the tools we’ve created to help districts borrow funds for capital projects while easing and controlling the impacts on taxpayers. We help districts with long-range tax rate planning, bond ratings, applications for state bond guarantees, and annual reviews of levies for bond payments. We analyze refinancing options, meet districts' financing objectives through innovative structuring, and design and implement borrowings that, in certain situations, do not require voter approval. Financing for public institutions is heavily regulated by state law and influenced by the form and amount of support provided by state government. Private institution financing, on the other hand, is more akin to private finance - a function of financial performance and resources. Elements commonly evaluated for both types of institutions include demand (applications and selectivity), enrollment profile (SAT scores and return rates), comparative tuition and fees, and breadth of programs. SNW has the technical expertise necessary to manage financing for both public and private colleges and universities.
Institutions of higher education come to SNW for our expertise regarding certain developments in higher education finance. The first is stand-alone project financing (evaluated on a "project" basis), which may cause the institution to incur higher borrowing costs but can offer the benefits of more rapid completion and lower construction costs. The second development is the consolidation of an institution’s debt under a "global" general obligation pledge of all legally available funds.
Each state's laws differ as they apply to higher education financing choices and powers. SNW's in-depth experience throughout the Northwest and our unique qualifications give us the ability to assist public and private higher education institutions with all of their financing needs.
The Moving of the Athletic Fields is bad public policy. The best way to expose it is through good research and documentation. The Save Our Fields Committee has done just that.
Rebuttal Evidence Points:
• The District’s relocation initiative has been a closed process without collaboration.
• The District is not legislatively empowered to be a sole Community Recreation Provider.
• The District has failed to clearly identify the Lynnwood Athletic Complex as a separate and independent Project.
• The District has expended funds inappropriately from the February 2006 Capital Bond Levy for a new Lynnwood High School by using monies for a community athletic complex.
• The District has selected a low density and isolated residential area to locate a large community athletic complex.
• The District has failed to provide an environmental impact statement related to the relocation of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex as required by “Manual 7 Policy”.
• The District has not submitted any agreements with the local parks community, (City of Lynnwood, Mill Creek, or Snohomish County) for operations and cost sharing of the new athletic fields.
• The District has failed to notify the surrounding residents of the impacts relating to the current heavy use of the athletic complex (estimated to be greater than 2000 non-school games per year).
• The District has failed to show how the current location, operation and use of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex would have equal or better provision in the new location.
• The District has failed to look at viable alternatives for the Regional Athletic Complex such as to continue to allow the use of the existing complex by the City of Lynnwood.
• The District has failed to provide adequate documentation in their application for conversion that meets the minimum requirements of the Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). (Policies required for conversion)
• The new site will no longer allow the connection to the Interurban Trail System that extends from South Everett to the Snohomish-King County line.
• There is no demonstrated reconciliation of the contractual rights of the City of Lynnwood (nor Snohomish County) under the 1980, 1994, and the 1996 agreements. (exhibits 23, 71, 72, 73, and 74) The City contributed the $344,000 of matching funds in 1980, and an additional $150,000 in 1996. Snohomish County Contributed $211,000 in 1996. These agreements are in effect until 2019. They require the City of Lynnwood and Snohomish County’s approvals to vacate their rights and responsibilities.
• Relocation of Athletic complex is in conflict with Lynnwood’s “Healthy Community Initiative” as well as the “Vision, Mission and Core Values” for Parks. (exhibit 29).
• The ‘Conversion” is in conflict with the intent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. Funds were intended to encourage the healthy activities of the citizens. The citizens of Lynnwood would “lose” in the conversion process. (See exhibit 23).
• City of Lynnwood Council is concerned over the proposal, see Seattle Times article by Lynn Thompson. (exhibit 36)
• The Snohomish County Planning staff was confused over the scope of the Project. They understood that the athletic fields were only for "interscholastic" uses. (exhibit 11).
• Relocation of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex was not discussed at the Conditional Use Plan (CUP) hearing on June 27, 2006. (exhibit 16).
If you want the entire 19 page WORD document - just email Mark Laurence.
Editorial: Thank you to another anonymous contributor.
Dear Mayor Gough,
In reading the latest traffic in the local newspapers, one would draw the conclusion that the Edmonds School District seeks to compel your city to absorb an area that you may not be inclined to incorporate. I thought the City had their own planners. What happened?
Planners for the City of Lynnwood should be looking at the potential loss of the Lynnwood Athletic Complex and making plans to retain the use of so great a resource. Think of all of the traffic pouring onto 184th. It is already difficult to navigate through the area during commercially-endorsed seasons of gift-giving. How much worse will it be with two massive retail developments dumping customers onto the same road?
The City Council is probably torn and mildly conflicted. Part of the Council seeks to protect recreational space and the other seeks to increase sales tax revenue from the new development across from the Alderwood Mall. Why not have your cake and eat it, too? As a City of great wisdom, with it's formative years guided by the likes of Mayors "Herk" Hrdlicka and Tina Roberts-Martinez, why not sharpen your pencils and craft a solution for everyone?
I think it would be a great idea to achieve a compromise. The Edmonds School District clearly believes they have no need for the property across from the Alderwood Mall. They seek to leverage the dirt to subsidize poorly-planned projects elsewhere in the District. If another public agency, like the City of Lynnwood, had a legitimate need for the Athletic Complex, why not take the federally-funded portion of the site through eminent domain? The District can ground lease the remaining portion to Cypress and still generate a bit of money for projects across the district.
The added benefit of such an approach would be the diversion of traffic to the north and the possibility of tying the two sites together with a pedestrian causeway. The Council would then be able to satisfy everyone at their table. Citizens seeking playfields would have what they want. City departments seeking more sales tax revenue would have what they want. The Federal government would even get what they originally spent a fortune to create in the first place.
Then you can choose to incorporate the area around the New Lynnwood High School on your own terms. Don't be bullied by the simple minds at the school district. The City of Lynnwood is far brighter than the rotten scoundrels and bobbleheads running the District at the moment.
I would personally contribute the first $5,000 to get the condemnation process started. No doubt, many others would quickly follow. You only get one chance to do this right. The right thing to do is to satisfy all impacted city residents and retain a regional asset.
Sincerely,
Mark Zandberg
Resident of Edmonds
Speak out against removing ballfields
On Thursday, March 27, the Recreation and Conservation Office Board (RCOB) met in Olympia to discuss the elimination of the Lynnwood Athletic Fields across from Alderwood mall. This was a public hearing and it is scheduled to continue in June.
I testified for our citizens group, Save Our Fields, in opposition to the removal of the athletic fields. From some of the board's comments, I felt that our concerns were being heard.
We feel it is important for the users of the fields and the Lynnwood residents to be brought into the process. The city of Lynnwood has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to make the Alderwood-Lynnwood Fields into one of the premier facilities in the state.
Our group encourages the community to stand up to those who would level the fields in favor of more commercial development.
Please contact your Lynnwood elected officials and let them know how you feel about the loss of recreation and open space in our community!
Mark Laurence
Chair for Save Our Fields
Bothell
Fields will be moved to new site
I was concerned when I read a letter from Mark Laurence, April 4, 2008. ("Speak out against removing ballfields," Enterprise) He stated that the Lynnwood High School athletic fields would be lost to commercial development. I have been the 2006-2007 CPC (Citizens Planning Committee) Chairman for the Edmonds School District. Our job was to discuss and plan the development for the school district for the next 10 years. The "commercial development" is how we can afford to move the Lynnwood High School site to the North Road location. We have been in contact with the Lynnwood Parks Department as a team to move the current fields to the new North Road site. (Under construction right now.) Never were the intentions to dissolve the fields and have no space to play. The school district needs and wants those fields as much as anyone. We as the Citizens Planning Committee never wanted to lose those fields. If you have to fight about this, I wish you would understand that the [C]ity of Lynnwood needs to incorporate the North Road area to be able to spend money over here. That's the fight. The fields will go up for the Edmonds School District and be usable September 2009. There will be no lose [loss?] of recreation and open space. It will just be moved.
Carrie McAfee
Bothell
Planning "for the next ten years" shouldn't involve a 99 year lease. In fact, the District's own planning horizons are six and twenty years in length. Did you even read the Capital Facilities Plan? Is this hodge-podge collection of parents called the "Citizens Planning Committee" suggesting that they have some way of knowing the procreative habits of our future taxpayers - even those that have yet to relocate to the Edmonds School District. Do you have any clue at all as to what student enrollment will look like in 20 years, let alone 50 and 75?
So the District is trying to compel the City of Lynnwood, and its taxpayers to incorporate an area they may have already evaluated, considered and rejected. How does a school district that fails to adequately plan for their own future incur time and energy planning the future needs of the City of Lynnwood? Who at the City of Lynnwood asked the District for help?
A playfield in Bothell is not the same as a playfield in the middle of Lynnwood. This isn't like a cookie in the kitchen is the same as a cookie in the dining room. There are a lot of Lynnwood residents that have incorporated the Lynnwood Athletic Complex into their daily exercise routine. Afterall, the Mall doesn't want people walking around the inside of their building without spending money.
Ms. McAfee is from Bothell and refers to the new high school property as "over here". It sounds like a conflict of interest to have the head of the Citizens Planning Committee involved in moving an athletic complex closer to her own home. It is no surprise that Ms. McAfee would want the District to incur an ungodly expense improving her own neighborhood. I bet she doesn't live right on North Road and won't be negatively impacted by all of the resulting traffic. I would also bet that she lives at least ten blocks away from the New Lynnwood High School. Close enough to make it easily accessible but far enough away to avoid traffic congestion.
And another thing, master planner, how is it that a school district is building a replacement for Lynnwood High School when the field issue hasn't even been resolved yet? What happens if the Federal government decides to prevent the transplantation of a resource they have supported for decades?
I suspect that part of the problem, with the direction the District is now heading, has a lot to do with the calibre of parental oversight. If committees are not competent enough to hold public officials accountable, why would we expect an outcome favorable to the public?
Editorial: Okay, I cheated. Carrie McAfee does live ten blocks north of the New Lynnwood High School just off North Road.
If the City of Lynnwood was asked to funnel millions of taxpayer dollars to a site located in Bothell, Mill Creek or unincorporated Snohomish County, would the City do it? The answer must be a resounding no. So why would the Edmonds School District unilaterally decide to uproot an established athletic complex and transplant it miles away, with the expectation that the City of Lynnwood would be interested in maintaining the site? Being located on the fringe of an area that might, one day be incorporated by the City of Lynnwood does nothing for the City’s taxpaying public. The site will draw far more people from Bothell and Mill Creek and become a resource for their community – but at no direct expense to them [aside from traffic impacts].
If the City and the District were neighbors and the District asked the City to go in on an expensive communal front yard, under what circumstances would the District be able to roll up that yard and move it to another neighborhood? Sure, the District might allow the City to come and sit on it once in a while, but why, after so much public money spent on the maintenance and improvement of the site would the City agree to let their investment go away? This seems like a serious misuse of tax money. The City of Lynnwood is being asked to invest in a communal resource that isn’t in the center of the community and therefore not a convenient resource for the majority of their taxpayers.
The City must have also developed a recreational plan around the Lynnwood Athletic Complex and likely made decisions about property acquisitions knowing they had access and on-going expenses there. How will the City backfill this tremendous void? How will the City accommodate all of the parking they need for their annual fireworks displays? How will the City recover from such a loss of recreational space to its community?
Federal funds were used to improve and enhance the Lynnwood Athletic Complex. These funds came from federal taxes and there is an obligation that such funds be used in a responsible manner. In order to even consider uprooting a federally-supported athletic complex, there must be a similar amount of comparable real estate taking its place. The new Lynnwood High School in Bothell, Mill Creek or unincorporated Snohomish County will hardly fit that bill. The Federal government identified the City of Lynnwood as being in need of infrastructural improvements and recreational opportunities. The District cannot, with a clear conscience, disregard that Federal mandate, roll up their carpet and drag it out of town. This would be no different than removing all of the furniture from Lynnwood City Hall and taking it to Mill Creek. The enhancement earmarked for one community cannot be easily transferred to another - and certainly not at the whim of an agency as small and as unsophisticated as a school district.
This would be the same agency that believes they have the right to sell public property - at any time - to support the pet projects of a flash-in-the-pan Superintendent. Public property must remain public property at all times. Just because one school administrator has a friend in need of property to develop doesn’t warrant the unloading of a public asset. Such an asset will only have to be restored at considerable expense when the children return. Without a doubt, the children will return. It would have been far better to allow another public agency to make use of the property in the interim.
Why is the Edmonds School District ground leasing the Edmonds Civic Playfields to the City of Edmonds for one dollar a year? Would it not have made more sense to sell the Civic Playfields to the City? Would it have made more sense to ground lease the Old Woodway Elementary site to the City of Edmonds for a period of ten years, while the City resolved their funding issues for an eventual purchase? During the ten year ground lease, the City could have demolished the building and improved the site. Of course, one would hope the property would lease for slightly more than a dollar a year.
It is deeply distressing to witness the thoughtless plundering that has gripped district administration. Their lack of wisdom is comparable to a crazy homeowner that removes his roof based upon a single day of sunshine. The District no longer does any real planning and missed their own boat, dock and lake regarding student enrollment forecasting. This same district now believes there will never be an increase in long-term student enrollment that might one day warrant a high school across from the Alderwood Mall AND on North Road.
The future taxpayers in our community will have Hell to pay. I just hope I won’t be around when the bill comes in.
Gary and Kay Noble
While Gary sits on the board, his wife works at Lynnwood High School. This is in clear violation of board policy, despite legal counsel's rendering of the English language.
Pat Shields
Using influence to secure free rent for one of his pet projects, Pat is in violation of board policies and has no apparent ethical issue with taking public resources. Maybe I should ask about the funding for Powerful Partners' employee.
Bruce Williams
Arguably committed election fraud by relocating prior to an election. His violation of board policies prompted his resignation on September 11, 2007.
New Administration Site
Despite claims to the contrary, the new site is contaminated. If it wasn't, the District should have purchased it in 1991 when it was shockingly more affordable.
Appraisals
Many are left to question why the District chose to ignore their own appraisal and pay every penny of the seller's appraisal for a site that will cost a significant amount of money to remediate. At the per square foot Raskin was citing, the District should have sold their site to him.
Capital Partnerships
These widely-popular projects have moved to the Capital Projects Office, where management fees will mean a reduction in scope for every future partnership project.
Seattle Piano Gallery
A questionable deal appears to have left the District paying a lot of money for just four pianos. A request has been made for a copy of the $76,121.10 check that may bring the deal back to reality. Seattle Piano Gallery's owner appears to be filing for bankruptcy.
Letters of Direction
When you get one, and its only a matter of time, they apparently don't mean anything and shouldn't be taken literally. If a few short email messages diffuse the intent of a Letter of Direction, why hand them out in the first place?
Post-Resignation Conduct
Apparently, employees can never get out from under the District's thumb. Once you accept a paycheck, the District views you as owned property and unable to have an independent thought upon departing.
Don't make copies of checks
The District claims they don't retain copies of checks. This would be directly contrary to past practices for more than a decade. The tax-paying public would appreciate the retention of copies, and at ten cents per copy, it makes financial sense.
Cities do not honor Inter-Local Agreements
I have yet to receive any proof that payment has been made to support Terrace Park or Cedar Valley gym expansions. I know the District has asked for payment, but no doubt it was over turned on appeal.
Capital Facilities Plan
The board apparently doesn't read everything it adopts. The 2004-2009 CFP clearly demonstrated that student enrollment was trending downward and yet no one bothered to use the CFP when planning on financial support from the state.
Attendance Incentive Program
This program doesn't mean anything. If you show up for work every day and accumulate vacation at a greater than average rate, expect to lose everything over 30 when you leave.
Superintendent does not accept anonymous comments
And yet endorses the Auditor's use of anonymous comments to help guide the District in becoming a more efficient agency.
There are no cubicle standards in the ESC
Once upon a time, cubicles were kept at a minimum standard for the comfort and operational requirements of their occupants. Now, anyone can move high walls next to windows and cast shadows over their co-workers.
ESD15.org is not a district domain
The District thought if they camped in my yard for a few nights, they could lay claim to my house. I should have charged a tent fee.
Parents and Voters,
Please read the following letter which we sent to the district today. We ask for your support in requesting that the Edmonds School District go back to the drawing board to present us with cost estimates for Proposition #2.
Thank you
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Concerned Parents on Proposition 2
Dear Dr. Robertson,
Recently, a group of concerned parents decided to become informed voters and take a closer look at the upcoming school bond issue aimed at raising funds for the new Lynnwood High School and Scriber Lake High School. We were prompted to enter into this research for two reasons: first being the amount of the bond issue, and secondly a concern we have over many of the design features in recently constructed school buildings in the Edmonds School District which, though attractive, appear to lack functionalism. To aid us in our research, we requested and received a "Cost Comparisons: Proposed New Lynnwood High School and Recent High School Construction" spreadsheet from the district. This confirmed our concern that the proposed cost for Lynnwood High is significantly higher than was the cost for constructing Edmonds Woodway or Meadowdale High, even though the student enrollment and square footage are roughly the same, and taking into account that EWHS and MHS were built three years ago. We have tried to analyze these cost differentials but the information does not appear to be complete. In addition to the financial figures we requested from the district, we arranged to tour many of the most recently constructed buildings including: Chase Lake, Maplewood, Edmonds Woodway, Meadowdale High, Meadowdale Elementary and Cedar Valley. We also requested to tour the sight of the new Terrace Park, but our request was denied due to the project completion deadline. As voters and taxpayers in this district, as well as being parents of school age children, we feel it is valid to ask for and receive an accountable explanation for why such a large amount of construction money is needed.
In addition to our concerns about the amount of the bond issue, we have serious questions about funds allotted in school building projects for innovative, but non-goal oriented design features. Not only have we noticed such things as high ceilings, exposed piping, out of the way ledges and oddly shaped and placed windows, but feedback from support services personnel has confirmed our suspicions that although such features give a dramatic and cutting edge look to some of our buildings, they are very costly to install and replace, as well as very costly, and in some cases, impossible to clean. Specific examples would be the high ledges and exposed piping in Edmonds Woodway; high, angled windows in the open commons of Chase Lake (perhaps these windows were meant to let in natural light, yet they are angled so that the light bounces off a non-reflective wall); the outside, angled windows in the gymnasium at Cedar Valley; and the high, towered atrium in the cafeteria at Meadowdale Elementary. After speaking to teachers and parents, we are also concerned with the lack of storage space in the classrooms, and the noisy environment caused by the lack of acoustical materials, and/or open concept plan between upper and lower stories in the hallways of several buildings. It would appear that architectural artistry is winning out over functionalism and practicality in many of our schools. We are troubled that concerns and input from the people who use and maintain these buildings are not being adequately represented in the design process, creating costly mistakes. To be sure, we did not find all of the new schools to be problematic. Meadowdale High and Meadowdale Elementary and Maplewood seemed to have basically sound designs with good use of light and space, although storage seemed to be a consistent problem in all the schools we visited.
In conclusion, Dr. Robertson, we are not intending to vote in favor of "Proposition 2", nor are we recommending that our friends and colleagues do so either. We are certainly not opposed to the building of new schools, but just as two reasons prompted us to begin this fact finding mission, two reasons prevent us from having a positive outlook on this bond issue. First, we feel that there are two many non-addressed issues in the design process, possibly erring on the side of form rather than function, and secondly, we were dissatisfied with the lack of response as to why the amount for this bond issue was requested. It is our suggestion that the district go back to the drawing board, so to speak, and come up with a better defined plan, be forthcoming as to why the suggested amount is needed, and address the issue of including all pertinent parties in all stages of the design and building process. After all, it is not the amount of money, or the amount of innovative architectural features, but what the finished product will provide – dollar for dollar- for our children.
Respectfully yours,
Sharon Nichols
Laura Riddle
Name Withheld
[Anonymous Comment]
How many years have any of you bloggers spent working inside Lynnwood High School? I have over 20 years being in that building. It was old and dysfunctional when I got there! If you want to complain, complain about how it was originally constructed along with tens of other ESD buildings. The fact we NEED a new building completely escapes you in your efforts to "blame" anybody and everybody that thinks differently than you. After all, your right to free speech is defended by others! Not that you would believe in fighting or defending your country. By the way, what country are you from?
[Claire Olsovsky]
As the District Safety and Loss Control Specialist from July 2000 to January 2005, I inspected every building in the District and watched five schools come on line. The current condition of Lynnwood High School pales in comparison to how run down Esperance and Scriber Lake High (at the old Lynnwood Jr. High) were prior to their demolition yet were both occupied to the last possible moment.
I find it interesting the above blogger thought LHS was old at 16 years, for schools are designed to last 50 years. There is an argument afoot that the new school should be built despite declining enrollment because of rising costs of construction. By the time enrollment does ramp up, the school will be considered outdated and as this blogger states "old and dysfunctional."
The comment on poor construction rings very true to me; but at the heart of it is poor design. The roof at Mountlake Terrace High School has leaked in the auditorium since it was built. The roof drainage at the Maplewood Center caused, and still may for all I know, window leaks. The ventilation system at Meadowdale Elementary needed to be extended within its first year because the architect eliminated part of the mechanical engineer’s original design.
Then there’s the indirect lighting at Terrace Park that tries to use a dark ceiling to reflect light, the rusting metal shelves after 2 years in the science storage area at Edmonds Woodway High School, and the main at Cedar Valley that is being replaced bit by bit by Maintenance as it fails. I could go on and on and talk about expensive European light fixtures at EWH, a fire place that should have never been constructed at Terrace Park K-8, and panes of glass Maintenance cannot replace in house because they are too big, but it’s depressing.
Support staff drafted a document known as the Universal Design Standards to aid the Capital Projects office in constructing new buildings. But as I recall in a meeting, CPO staff at the time dismissed our complaints because we only had "anecdotal data" that the buildings did not meet the standards or the needs of the teachers.
Interestingly enough, prior to the passage of the bond to fund LHS, three parents from Madrona decided to educate themselves about new construction. They came to the conclusion that the bond was not worth passing because of too many non-adressed issues in new construction. Given all of this, why would anyone be in a hurry to build a school or the New Administration building?
For those of you slated to go to the new LHS, don’t worry, that train has already left the station. There will be a new school. But when you finally move in, let me know if you get what you wished for…
Fun Factoid: Claire is a US citizen born on an American military base overseas. She learned about her constitutional rights from her father as he defended them for nearly 30 years in the US Army Air Corps and Air Force.
When the initial flurry of developers submitted their proposals for the Lynnwood High School site, the one developer that out-paced the other candidates was Cypress Equities. Their proposal included a profit-sharing element that would have resulted in unanticipated funds the District could ear-mark for periodic capital enhancements, like perhaps a round of capital partnerships or a few covered play shelters.
While there was at least one person in the room for the District that knew such a proposal would be difficult to monitor, and likely impossible to enforce, everyone else had their horse picked on the way to the starting gate - it was the only horse in the race.
When a company like Cypress Equities wants to come out on top in a competitive process, they can toss in a profit-sharing concept - but no doubt it is just conceptual. By now, every mortal on earth knows that corporations can run with a negligible margin of profit. After they pay all of their "expenses", dividends and annual bonuses to executives, there will be little or nothing left to share with the District.
Another peculiar element to the agreement is that it is initially pegged to an 8% return on the appraised value of the property. For those of you reading the blog on a regular basis, you know that appraisals are just opinions. I would immediately become concerned as to which party hires the appraiser, particularly since the District likes to use the other party's appraisals when parting with money. Also, if property values dip, the 8% return will fall right along with the appraised value of the site.
The local newspapers have also quoted district administration as saying that there will be periodic adjustments over time but they naturally assume the value of the site will only move upward. Traditionally, that has been the case, but a simple modification to the basic assumptions to valuation can radically alter the final appraisal at any time during the next 99 years. The formula for determining actual value of the site will have to be illuminated, otherwise any reasonably crafty appraiser can show a plummeting valuation in adjusted terms.
Like many others, I will be interested to see what materializes.
Fun Factoid: I have requested a legible copy of the 99-year agreement and will share its contents in future entries - or, you can retrieve a copy from the Public Records Repository once it is provided to the blog.
There will be lengthy discussions in the coming weeks and months regarding the manner in which schools are constructed. However, one reader in particular voiced genuine concern about something they read recently. The District recently received a "BetterBricks" award for 2007. At first blush, anyone would be proud to show such an award to their counterparts in other districts but a closer evaluation of the real issue is definitely warranted.
Over the last several years, the District, like many other school districts across the country, has made a habit of building overly-extravagant schools that put elements of form above function. While all of these features and embellishments may look good on paper, the District will no doubt be expending untold millions retro-fitting the building to an operational standard after construction.
While the walls of architectural firms will be adorned with the casualties of public funds like the heads of game in a hunter's lodge, the chattering of teeth inside the new Lynnwood High School may prevent any real education from taking place.
I hope the concepts lauded by the BetterBricks award work out for the District, but perhaps others may claim it constitutes gambling with public money.
Who buys property in a seller's market - especially this one? Real estate is cyclical. The only reason for the District to purchase property is if they have no alternative.
But the District had alternatives. They could have waited for a down turn in the market, which has arrived, or they could have sold the Cedar Valley property to Raskin and taken advantage of inflated prices. He made an outrageous profit, why couldn't the District? After all, the District owned the street frontage.
Scriber Lake High could have been moved to Old Melody Hill. It is leased, but just how much money is the District making from their on-going investment the building's systems?
And what about the old administration site on Alderwood Mall Parkway? It’s been on the market for years and there still isn’t a ground-lease. Why not concentrate on marketing that parcel? Or build a high rise with retail on the bottom floor and District offices on the upper floors? The offices could be leased later when a more suitable property is found.
Why not wait until the Lynnwood High School property is ground-leased and real money starts coming in?
The District seems to have taken the same stance of many government agencies. Spend now and let future tax payers live with the consequences.
Claire Olsovsky, MA (Biology), MS (Environmental and Occupational Health)
Some people still believe that being the spouse of a Board member won't get you anything. In a cursory review of public records, it would appear that such a relationship can yield a tidy supplement to your salary. Maybe all of the "hard work" Gary expends for the District has motivated Kay to burn the candle at both ends.
Kay Noble at Lynnwood High School:
2004-2005, $40,354 + $2,446
2005-2006, $41,268 + $3,136
2006-2007, $43,050 + $4,274
Additional pay as percentage of base:
2004-2005, 6%
2005-2006, 8%
2006-2007, 10%
Fun Factoid:
New diamond ring: $15,000.00
New Lexus LS600h: $95,000.00
New Lynnwood High School: $100,000,000.00
Being married to a board member: Priceless
Well, I nearly spilled my Cheerios when I started reading ESD Policy 6810. Apparently, the Board thought to insert some redundancy in their policies - for the many lawyers and misguided public employees that can rebuke only one policy at a time. The meaningful portion of the policy reads:
No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse or dependent child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent.
If you don't do your homework, you won't pass the test.
The following is an excerpt from the District's legal counsel. They seem to be under the impression that I suggested Gary Noble was violating state law. Gary Noble is serving on the school board for the Edmonds School District and should be held to the standard of school board policies. Unfortunately, these lawyers didn't see a need to cite state law to save Bruce Williams.
Mr. Zandberg questions ESD Board member Gary Noble’s decision to vote in favor of constructing a new Lynnwood High School [That is not true, I question whether he actually deliberated.], and alleges that the vote was cast to “curry favor” [not my quote] with his wife, Kay Noble, a current Lynnwood High School teacher. He further demands that Mr. Noble “step down” from his position “at once” due to this alleged conflict of interest.
ESD’s position on the issue is that Mr. Noble does not sit on the Board in violation of any ESD policy. [Their position on Bruce Williams was also contrary to Board Policy.] Indeed, ESD Policy 1260 specifically exempts the alleged conflict of interest raised by Mr. Zandberg. That policy provides that no spouse of a Board Member shall have any interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law. [Why are you citing the second portion of the sentence? It is irrelevant. The first portion disqualifies him.] Under RCW 42.23.030, which lists exceptions to prohibited interests in municipal contracts, there is no conflict in the situation raised by Mr. Zandberg if the spouse of the school board member was employed by the District before the School Board member took office ["...no member of the Board, or any spouse or dependent relative of such member, shall receive or accept any compensation or reward for services rendered to the District..."], and the compensation received by the spouse is commensurate with the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the EEA and the District. Mrs. Noble was hired by ESD on September 12, 1990, and Mr. Noble was elected to the School Board in November 2003. He took the Oath of Office on December 16, 2003. [Let's not revisit unfortunate events.] Further, Mrs. Noble is compensated pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement pertaining to teachers at Lynnwood High School. Because the relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Noble falls squarely within an exception under Washington State law, ESD Policy 1260 also encompasses the exception [Please revise the policy, so next time you can be right.], and there is no impropriety with Mr. Noble’s continuation as a Board Member [That will be a decision for the voters].
Please feel free to contact me or my associate Sarah Mack with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Duncan Fobes
Like many of my readers, I am left wondering why Gary Noble voted to construct a new Lynnwood High School. Could it be the District's explosive population boom and the huge influx of students pouring into the Lynnwood High School service area? No. Could it be the ever-increasing rate of student retention? No. Could it be that his wife, who works at Lynnwood High School, wants a stylish new classroom? No doubt.
This is precisely why the Board adopted their "Conflicts of Interest" policy. It was intended to prevent a situation like this. We will never know if Gary Noble ever engaged both sides of the debate. We will never know if Gary Noble truly deliberated the pros and cons of relocating Lynnwood High School. We will never know if Gary Noble's vote was tainted by the subjective opinion of a lone voice at Lynnwood High School.
Could I vote against constructing a new high school for my wife? I wouldn't have to pay a dime and it certainly would help the "family dynamic" in other areas. It would be better than any diamond ring or Lexus and wouldn't trigger years of payments (for me, at least). How could I admit to my wife that the numbers just don't make any sense.
Sure, Nick Brossoit can cite all the rules and regulations of other professional associations, like his favorite the "Washington State School Director's Association". They have a link that specifically claims a board member can have a spouse that works for the District, just as long as the spouse was an employee before the Board member was elected.
The Edmonds School District did not adopt such a policy. They specifically elevated the standard and haven't backed away since. It was the Board's choice and that's exactly what Board Policy 1260 states. There is no gray area and no room to negotiate. Gary Noble must step down at once.
Athletic fields
