skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If you have been following my departure from the District, you may recall that Marla Miller and her minions were spewing the concept that I somehow violated the public trust by revealing something confidential about the Old Woodway Elementary transaction.
For those of you who still cling to the statements made by questionably-motivated managers, please review the following, simple facts.
Before the Old Woodway Elementary site was sold, it was advertised in the Herald as being a surplus site and it was marketed to developers in its entirety. That means, it was made available for purchase as a complete site of 11.2 acres. The fact that such a declaration was made in the Herald (albeit just once, not the legally-required twice) and that the site was advertised to developers as 11.2 acres means that no portion of the site was obligated to anyone and certainly not the City of Edmonds. Making such a declaration in a Letter to the Editor was just restating publicly-known facts. If any portion of the site had been committed to anyone else, then the entire site would not have been available to developers.
For those of you who still choose to cling to the statements made by Marla Miller, I advise that you read her own words here in this transcript of her own words and approved by her lawyers. Line 14 on Page 141. The rest of her transcript will be posted later.
So, why would Marla Miller, Nick Brossoit and the Board take action to constructively terminate a highly-praised employee? Clearly they wanted to silence the only voice of reason in a real estate transaction that was far more complicated than it needed to be and that resulted in millions of dollars lost for the District. Remember that the Old Woodway Elementary transaction happened right on the heels of the District's purchase of the contaminated site - a site purchased without the Board-mandated Site Acquisition Committee.
I say again, since I have said it numerous times before, Marla was gravely concerned that the manner in which district funds were being squandered, through poorly-crafted real estate transactions, would deeply upset the community. What she failed to understand is that our community doesn't have the time or energy to study the issues that come before our school board. That is precisely why we elect board members who create and maintain board policies. Our community believes that their elected board members understand the consequences of their decisions. Unfortunately, the current board is not capable of the oversight they have been elected to provide. Susan Phillips may "pledge to do [her] best for our students and District" but, quite frankly, her best is not good enough.
Change is needed on the Board. In electing even one board member that has the intellectual capacity to articulate consequences before they happen, never again can our school board claim to be uninformed or refuse to accurately assess circumstances before they devour us. One voice of reason would be a great start to a total board transformation that must happen sooner rather than later... for the sake of our children.
Blog: Photo acquired through flickr and pfly.
On the Board's agenda this evening was a second action involving the closure of Evergreen Elementary. Unfortunately, the item was dropped from the agenda because, according to Nick, adequate public notice had not been provided through the Everett Herald. It was felt that the District met the notification requirements with all of the discussion provided in the paper, but they had not provided adequate formal notice.
The matter will be taken up in March of 2009.
I find it odd that Nick Brossoit is concerned about the provision of adequate notice when closing an elementary school but not when declaring district property surplus. Old Woodway Elementary was supposed to be declared surplus through a formal notification that was to appear in the Everett Herald. Unfortunately, the formal, District process for notifying the public of the action to declare the site surplus was not followed. Count how many times the notification appeared and compare that number with the actual total required.
Now that Nick has demonstrated that he knows what proper notification entails, perhaps he would be kind enough to inquire as to the process involving Old Woodway Elementary. I would love to be proven wrong.
While I am pleased that Nick is honoring the process regarding the closure of an elementary school, I am saddened that less of a concern was shown to the residents around Old Woodway Elementary.
Blog: Woodway Elementary was closed since adequate notice was provided regarding the closure of that school.
The agenda for the Board meeting scheduled for November 18th includes a first reading for the closure of Woodway and a first reading for the closure of Evergreen. What happened to the "study" being conducted by the CPC? What happened to the deliberation by the Board? The CPC was to study and develop a plan for consolidation. Where is that plan?
Will the Board at least "read" something to the audience during the Board meeting? Normally, they think that reading the agenda item constitutes an actual reading of the action item. The rest of us would like to know what is happening and just because our elected BMs don't care doesn't mean the rest of us don't either.
It must be very troubling to be a parent of students at Woodway or Evergreen. They appear to be rather quiet on this topic. Have they been drinking Nick's Kool-Aid?
In a matter of a few years, the Evergreen site will be grabbed by the City of Mountlake Terrace at some bargain basement price - or perhaps just given away. The City wants to develop the site and has been threatening to do so for years. It wasn't long ago when they attempted to rezone the site, making it impossible for the school to make any meaningful improvements. So why did greater minds seek to confront this change in zoning?
When it all comes down to it, the City will get their zoning, a developer will get the site and Marla will get whatever it is that she wants from this. The only loser in the process will be the taxpayers of the Edmonds School District.
NEW BUSINESS (2 minutes each)
1. Single reading, approve Acceptance of Public Works Contract, District Support Center - early site grading package, Resolution #08-47.
2. First reading, Woodway Elementary School Closure (no action)
3. First reading, Evergreen Elementary School Closure (no action)
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
A year ago, the Port of Seattle's plan to tear down a Burien apartment complex drew the wrath of housing advocates.
Several sued to stop demolition, and Port officials, who had hoped to put a big-box store or a cargo warehouse there, were pressured into selling the apartments to the King County Housing Authority.
On Friday, the housing authority and the Port said the sale was off. Tests showed significant soil contamination, left over from the site's days as an auto-wrecking yard in the 1950s.
The 162 Lora Lake apartments, which had become a political poster child for a countywide effort to end homelessness, will come down.
"We're obviously very sad and disappointed," said Rhonda Rosenberg, spokeswoman for the King County Housing Authority.
She said the fight was still worth it.
"It helped focus regional attention on the unnecessary loss of rental housing."
Public Health — Seattle & King County will spend a month looking at whether previous residents could have been exposed to dangerous levels of dioxins, which could increase risk of cancer.
Charissa Fotinos, medical director with Public Health's clinical services, said it is difficult to assess anyone's risk at this point. "We're certainly concerned," she said.
The apartments have been empty since residents moved out last summer.
The private developer who built the apartments tested and cleaned the site in consultation with the state Department of Ecology in 1987, according to the housing authority.
Read the rest of the story by clicking here.
June 23, 2008
Dear [Anonymous],
Thank you for contacting our Office regarding your concerns about the Edmonds School District. You stated you believe the District was providing non-profit organizations with District space rent-free. You also stated a District Board Member, and his wife a teacher at the District, are violating Board Policy 1260. You also forwarded a concern that the District had violated state bid laws when purchasing land.
Space rental
You stated a non-profit organization working in support of District operations did not pay rent for its use of District space, which violated the agreement between the District and the organization. We determined the non-profit disbanded prior to 2007. Therefore, we focused our review on policies and procedures for rentals and leases and reviewed current leases and rentals.
We found the District does not have adequate policies and internal controls over the rental and lease receipting process. Its policies do not provide guidance on how to determine the type of rental or lease agreement, the rate to charge, or ensure proper monitoring of the agreements. Due to these issues, the District is not applying consistent rental and lease fees and is not obtaining sufficient information about tenants, such as their intended use of District space and whether it benefits the District, prior to deciding to rent to the tenant or draw up a lease. We recommended the District strengthen internal controls in order to decrease the risk of misappropriation, loss of revenue, or the ability to detect errors in a timely manner, and to ensure all rental and lease revenue is received.
Board Policy violation
You stated a School Board Member and his spouse are violating District Board Policy 1260, which bars the spouse or dependant of a member of the Board from being employed by the District. We reviewed Board Policy 1260 which states:
It is the policy of the Edmonds School District that non 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 or have any pecuniary [monetary] interest in any contract to which the District is a party except to the limited extent authorized by law.
RCW 42.23.030 (Interest in contracts prohibited—Exceptions) defines the exceptions allowed under state law and include:
…the letting of any employment contract to the spouse of an officer of a school district if the spouse was under contract as a certificated or classified employee with the school district before the date in which the officer assumes the office and the terms of the contract are commensurate with the pay plan or collective bargaining agreement operating in the district…
We confirmed the Board Member’s spouse began employment with the District on September 12, 1990, prior to her husband’s election to the Board in 2003. We also confirmed the spouse’s compensation was in accordance with the agreement between the District and Edmonds Education Association. The District appears to be in compliance with Board Policy 1260.
We also found that District Board Policy 6810 is inconsistent with the Policy 1260. Policy 6810 states that “No person shall be employed by the district who is the spouse of or dependant child of any member of the Board of Directors or of the superintendent.” We have recommended the District revise its policies to be consistent.
Purchase of land
You stated you believed the District paid more than the asking price for property that will be used for a new bus barn. The District’s original appraisal valued the land at $3.3 million. A subsequent appraisal valued the land at $5.6 million, which the District paid. We reviewed state law (RCW 28A.335.090) which states:
…(2) Any purchase of real property by a school district shall be preceded by a market value appraisal by a professionally designated real estate appraiser as defined in RCW 74.46.020 or by a general real estate appraiser certified under chapter 18.140RCW who was selected by the board of directors.
While the law requires an appraisal, it does not say the purchase must not exceed that appraisal. We reviewed the District’s purchase and discussed the matter with legal counsel and determined the final purchase price was negotiated by the District and the seller and went through the proper approval process.
Thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. If you have any further questions or comments, please call Chris Kapek, Audit Manager at (425) 257-2137.
Sincerely,
BRIAN SONNTAG, CGFM
STATE AUDITOR
From: "Mark Zandberg"
Date: Wed, June 25, 2008
To: publicrecords@sao.wa.gov
Cc: kapekc@sao.wa.gov, cooperj@sao.wa.gov
Please provide;
1. any and all records of communication between the Washington State Auditor (and all designees, employees or consultants) and the Edmonds School District since January 1, 2007,
2. any and all records of communication between the Washington State Auditor (and all designees, employees or consultants) and any other entity regarding the Edmonds School District since January 1, 2007,
3. any and all records of communication regarding consultation with "legal counsel" regarding the Edmonds School District. It is my understanding that such communication is not legally protected or privileged information.
Please provide an estimate of costs for copying prior to generating copies.
Sincerely,
Mark Zandberg
9003 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98026
You can read the opinion by clicking here.
Edmonds' planned purchase of the Old Milltown plaza park has hit a speed bump.
A $282,766 purchase agreement with developer Bob Gregg appeared imminent in April, but environmental concerns have slowed the process.
Even though the lush and leafy 22-foot by 100-foot plaza is now park-like, it has an industrial history that raises real contamination questions, city attorney Scott Snyder said in April.
"This is a property you take a good, close look at," Snyder said. "The city is probably going to cap it -- it'll be a courtyard -- but you want to take a good close look and see what is under there."
Neither Gregg nor the city is anxious to assume those risks. The property was a garage in the early 1900s.
The city tried to build strong language into the contract regarding possible environmental clean up, but Gregg balked. Now, the city wants to know exactly what problems might exist.
This week, the council approved a $6,500 environmental study to examine the property.
The study is expected to take a few weeks, and results could be ready in July, Mayor Gary Haakenson said.
In April, Gregg also expressed concern to the Enterprise about who would be maintaining the park property. The plaza is immediately adjacent to Old Milltown, a commercial development, and so its maintenance is vital, Gregg said.
Read the rest of the article by clicking here.
Chris Fyall
cfyall@heraldnet.com
The Seattle Department of Neighborhoods is seeking members for a committee that will help determine the use of the Martin Luther King Elementary School building.
Seattle Public Schools closed the school, at 3201 E. Republican St., last fall because of declining enrollment. Now the district is considering nonschool uses for the building, and the city's process calls for public meetings before a committee composed of neighborhood, school-district and city representatives.
The city is seeking eight representatives: two who live within 600 feet of the school; one who owns property within 600 feet of the site; two from the general neighborhood; one at-large representative; one from a community organization; and one from the school district.
To apply, write a letter to Thao Tran at the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods stating your interest and affiliation. Include your contact information; letters must be received by Friday. Applicants can fax it to 206-233-5142 or mail it to P.O. Box 94649, Seattle, WA 98124-4649.
Seattle Times
Editorial: What a novel concept for a public agency to seek the input of others when deciding how to use or dispose of publicly-owned property. If only other public agencies were so enlightened.
I have been reading a certain agreement between Cypress Equities and the Edmonds School District for the current Lynnwood High School site across from Alderwood Mall. Unfortunately, I haven't yet made it past page 20.
Section 10. Environmental Contingencies
Notwithstanding Developer's approval of the condition of the Real Property during the Feasibility Study Period, Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement due to either of the environmental issues described in this Section 10.
10.1 Should the Developer discover Hazardous Materials contamination (not caused by Developer) on the Real Property between the Phase II Termination Date and the Closing Date, and, in Developer's reasonable, good faith business judgment such Hazardous Materials contamination cannot be remediated or eliminated in a timely and economically feasible manner by Developer's use of commercially reasonable efforts, then Developer shall deliver written notice of same to Owner ("Developer's HazMat Notice"). Within forty-five (45) days after the date on which Owner receives Developer's HazMat Notice, Owner shall deliver written notice to Developer stating whether or not Owner agrees to remediate or eliminate the Hazardous Materials contamination at issue, at Owner's sole cost and expense ("Owner's HazMat Response Notice"). Should Owner elect to remediate or eliminate the Hazardous Materials contamination at issue and such remediation or elimination will be completed by Owner no later than one hundred eighty (180) days after Owner's HazMat Response Notice, Owner shall promptly proceed to perform such remediation work and Developer shall have no right to terminate this Agreement. If Owner elects to remediate or eliminate the Hazardous Materials contamination at issue but does not complete such remediation or elimination within one hundred eighty (180) days of the HazMat Response Notice, then Developer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice of termination to Owner within sixty (60) days after Developer's receipt of Owner's HazMat Response Notice. If Developer timely exercises its right of termination under this Section 10.1, this Agreement shall terminate on the date on which Owner receives Developer's termination notice, all Earnest Money (including any portion of the Earnest Money previously released to Owner, which portion shall be returned to Developer without interest) shall be returned to Developer, and the Parties shall have no further rights or obligations under this Agreement except for those that expressly survive the termination of this Agreement.
What this means is that if the Developer hits contamination, the District must rush in, correct the problem and cover all of the expense for doing so. They must also remediate the contamination within 180 days - not an easy thing for a public agency to accomplish. Unless District management has a friend waiting in the wings with their engines running.
Two problems surface here.
First, I hope the District does not include such language in their lease for the Maintenance and Transportation site. The problems at that site couldn't possibly be corrected in 180 days. The cost for such remediation would quickly gobble the lease proceeds for a number of years and crossing into the 181st day could dissolve your ground lease.
Second, why wouldn't such a Hazardous Materials clause be included in the purchase of the new Administration site? Afterall, if its good enough for the private sector, why not use it to the advantage of the District? It's almost as if the District wasn't interested in protecting public resources.
Editor's Note: Section 10.2 covers environmental conditions, like an excessively high water table, that could result in a similar termination of the Agreement, release of Earnest Money and departure of the Developer - though without an opportunity for the District to correct the problem. Termination would be at the discretion of the Developer.
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.
When I requested “any and all” environmental reports under a FOIA request for the District’s New Administration site, I expected more than one document. I was emailed by Marla Miller after my initial request because she wanted to dispel “rumors about contamination.” She informed me that the Test Pit on parcel C with elevated levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s) had been remediated. Knowing environmental regulations, I knew they had to coordinate with the Department of Ecology (DOE) to a prescribed process. But why did I not receive a report on the remediation or the two previous assessments of the property conducted in 1991 and 1998?
Then I realized the question was not where were the reports, but why did they not send them to me? The answer is lack of transparency. Marla Miller does not believe that the business operations of the District should be scrutinized. Since when are the operations of a School District “top secret”? After all, they aren’t conducting matters related to our national defense. They are just exercising poor judgment at an astronomical cost.
So I looked to the DOE for answers. At first they were convinced the site I was looking for was Raskin’s property north of the site, called Center 5000. After reviewing the report I sent them they determined it was a new site that had never been reported. Assigned the tracking number ERTS 601404, DOE will investigate as described in the above link. So now I am at the conclusion that the District does not believe in transparency or accountability with regards to state and federal environmental law.
For some reason they do not want to inform us nor be accountable for their poor decisions. Instead they use their time and waste tax dollars to hire law firms like Duncan Fobes to create a show with smoke and mirrors to distract from the issues at hand and wear down those who seek the truth.
It did not work for the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, nor will it here.
There is a civic-minded organization, known internationally, that developed a test to determine if their professional and personal conduct was acceptable. It was, and continues to be called, The Four-Way Test (of the things we think, say or do). What would happen if this Four-Way Test was applied to the real estate transaction involving Michael Raskin and the Edmonds School District? Let's see.
1. Is it the TRUTH?
We have already established that the District lied when they said stories of contamination are just rumors. The District's past decisions refute their current statements. Why buy insurance for contamination if the site is not contaminated? Why hire an environmental consultant to monitor for contamination if the site is not contaminated? Why reject the site twice before only to adjust your standards under pressure from a desperate seller and a revenue-driven City of Lynnwood?
2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
The transaction was certainly not fair to taxpayers, District employees and students. The taxpayers will have to pay for remediating contamination and repairing unanticipated settling. District employees will have to navigate around sinkholes, potholes and risk potential exposure to harmful elements. District students will have to do without whatever these funds could have been used to purchase, like better classrooms, better covered play shelters, better parking lots and better playfields. But if you see the District as its administrators see it - as an extension of their own wallets - the transaction was more than fair to the seller. A hefty scoop of fairness has likely been served to the buyer's agents behind closed doors. Why else would they agree to the terms?
3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
No doubt the buyer and seller are much better friends now. Of course, it is probably the sort of friendship where the seller makes the buyer the butt of every joke. The sort of friendship where the buyer always gets stuck with the bar tab. The sort of friendship that has the buyer loaning his car to the seller only to see it returned with a few more dents and dings. I wouldn't call it a friendship.
4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
The answer to this one is blatantly obvious. No one comes out of this transaction smelling like roses, aside from the seller and his investors.
Nothing drives the price of commodities higher than a buyer feeling desperate. Not unlike walking through Alderwood Mall with a wad of dollars in your pocket and clearance signs hanging in every window. Sadly, when your pocket holds millions in public money, some still give in to personal desires to part with cash. Most of us know that "clearance" is a just a subtle price shift in the direction of "reasonable", but why in the world are we so quick to believe the recipient of our money when they tell us everything is discounted?
I am frequently asked if the District could have paid for the Old Cedar Valley (Former Scriber Lake) site twice. Sure, some may laugh at the suggestion but I would never exclude the current District administration from making such a mistake. Here is the argument - in a nutshell.
The property sold to the District by MJR Development, LLC (Michael Raskin), does have a value. Without debating what that value might have been at the time of sale, let's explore an inflationary concept. How valuable would Raskin's site be without any real street frontage? Sure, it wouldn't normally be a site offering retail opportunities or depend upon customers driving by, but the site was buried behind the District's property with a piddly point of entrance off the end of 204th. Not a major arterial by any means. Would combining the Raskin site with the District's justify a higher price? One could see things that way, but why should Raskin get a windfall because his neighbor sought to expand? If anyone else bought the site, they would have paid a more realistic price for a lack of frontage. If there was an inflationary effect, why wouldn't the District sell their frontage to Raskin, reaping the benefits while continuing the search for uncontaminated land?
The District really should have sold their frontage to Raskin, using his appraiser's valuation of course, and looked for a better location. Better soil conditions, better soil quality and, as will be discussed in future entries, better traffic conditions for their bus fleet.
Not to suggest that I retrieve all of my best information from Wikipedia, but in this case it does offer a shotgun blast of the concept of highest and best use. Click here for their website.
The reason behind a concept like Highest and Best Use is to prevent disorganized and erratic growth. If a city defines an area to become its future downtown core, they attach the necessary zoning that prevents junkyards from moving next to City Hall. The highest and best use for the property next to City Hall may be something akin to a strip mall or office complex - not a junkyard. So, when an appraiser looks at the five acre parcel next to a City Hall, they determine valuation based upon the optimal use of that parcel, like a strip mall or office complex. Any developer interested in building a junkyard must look elsewhere because the highest and best use would not include his business. The cost per square foot would remove him from the equation - as it should be.
Now imagine the situation at the Maintenance and Transportation site. The highest and best use for that piece of land does not include the storage of buses or stockpiling of dirt, wood or building materials. The City of Lynnwood has been trying for years to successfully rezone the site to drum up additional sales tax revenues and force the District to a new home. If the site were vacant today, the District wouldn't be considering its purchase because it would be too expensive. What is the difference with their new site?
If the District's appraiser went about determining a value for the New Administration site knowing what was to be constructed and determined that it was consistent with zoning, why would anyone fault the valuation? If the seller's appraiser claims that it is possible to build a thirty story high rise and generate untold billions in revenue, then the District should have kept looking for a new home. The Raskin site would not have been a reasonable fit given their programming needs.
To put this much more simply, the District was in the market for an automobile. The District only needs to drive between points without a lot of fanfare while remaining focused on their mission statement - educating our children. Why then would they purchase (by the seller's appraisal's own determination) an $85,000 Porsche when a $30,000 Nissan would be as effective? Both parties hired mechanics. The District's mechanic inspected the car and determined that it looks and performs like all of the other $30,000 Nissans in town. The owner of the car called in his brother-in-law, who sold cars part time, to offer an opinion as well. Of course, his figure was considerably higher. A figure that would normally cover the cost of an exotic German import.
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)
The following is another snippet from the District's legal counsel. The entire letter will appear on the Public Records Repository in the near future.
The District believes that during the time you were employed with the Edmonds School District you violated the District's Internet Use Agreement by improperly using the District's resources to conduct personal business [Do you mean a real estate business, personal tasks and activities, or perhaps the infrequent email messages to friends and family?]. The District has recovered more than 6,000 personal documents [or files?] from the computer you used while employed [really?], and is working on obtaining countless more documents that were intentionally encrypted [You have a vivid imagination, Duncan] and then deleted from your [you mean the District's] hard drive shortly before your [yet-to-be-proven] resignation. The District is investigating [at considerable expense, no doubt] whether you destroyed public records necessary to conduct District business [competent employees are necessary to conduct District business], and whether you were using confidential or proprietary District information to benefit your personal business [Dear Mom, Student enrollment is falling]. Such conduct would have resulted in immediate termination from employment.
I find this paragraph to be especially amusing. Notice the use of language. The District "believes" is supposed to make the statement more intimidating. Well, the District also "believes" their new administration site is not contaminated. The District "believes" the Nobles are not violating District policy. The District "believes" Powerful Partners should not have to pay for their use of District resources. The District "believes" many things that everyone else has a hard time accepting.
This legal drivel is not an effective use of District resources. Suggesting that encryption of documents took place shows how seriously incapable District staff must be at retrieving documents. I suspect that when the District eliminated my account nearly a week before my last day, they inadvertently complicated their future detective work. Perhaps what the District stumbled upon was stray files related to all of the domain space I was providing at no charge - back when esd15.org had another purpose.
The "such conduct would have resulted in immediate termination from employment" is also entertaining fiction. The District believes that you may have downloaded plans to build a dirty bomb. The District believes that you may have been planning to detonate this dirty bomb. The District believes that your actions would have harmed many people and would have constituted an illegal act and therefore would have resulted in immediate termination from employment. What the District chooses to believe says more about their tenuous grip on hope and less about the reality of their current circumstance.
Or My Mental Musings While Sitting in Lynnwood Traffic.
Development of a brownfield is not an impossible undertaking; it’s just a costly one. I have been contemplating what economic incentives would compel the current District leadership into purchasing a brownfield, especially since two previous Superintendents and School Boards considered the exact same property in 1991 and in 1998 and rejected the proposal. What has changed?
As I write, the District moves forward with its “early site grading package.” But does that include the installation of sewer line I observed? I have never heard of laying pipe referred to being part of site grading. Maybe it falls under the “other site preparation” activities Marla alluded to in her email.
But what if the District and the City of Lynnwood entered into an Interlocal Agreement to install the sewer? Not unheard of, and not a bad deal. The City’s budget is impacted, not the District’s, and they can recoup the costs from taxing tenants on the District’s ground-leased properties. But does the cost of the sewer line mitigate the increased costs of the purchase price of the property and its subsequent pricey development? Probably not. In the end, City of Lynnwood dollars are still tax dollars, so overall there are no savings for the public.
There is still the issue of the fill on the property. Even if it is within regulatory levels for chemical contamination, building on it will incur added costs. Pin piles can be driven into the ground to support the foundation of the building, but what about the parking lot? Digging out all the debris, testing each load to ensure proper disposal, then backfilling with substantial material to support the load of a 100+ buses rated over 10,000 pounds each is expensive. Maybe that is part of the “other site preparation” activities occurring right now. There is an awful lot of excavated soils stockpiled on the property and staged backfill material.
The District “protected” itself by purchasing additional insurance to pay to mitigate any soil contamination found on the site during construction. But what are their premiums over the next three years and what are the terms of the policy? No insurer would knowingly go into a contract with known contaminated land without a loop hole. After all, they must make money. For most pollution contracts they’ll pay out for one event. Will the insurance company only respond to one claim and restrict it to a specific encounter on the site?
The District has a new funding strategy. It plans to ground-lease the Maintenance and Transportation site along with LHS to fund the remaining phases of the New Administration site. But how many successful ground leases have they executed at this time? None. Not even their most valuable property right next to the mall.
Perhaps prospective tenants realize the ground water problem at LHS is not going to go away. Even if they build on the wooded area, they may not be able to optimally use the site. It is a given that an exceptional drainage system is needed to manage the ground and surface waters where the current buildings sit.
Then there is the cost for the clean up of the Transportation Site so they can vacate and ground-lease it. After all, the whole purpose of the new property is to consolidate District operations and move Transportation and Maintenance to the New Administration site. Who knows what it will cost and how many years it will take to get this old property ready for lease? Just when will all the rent money come rolling in to pay for the rest of the New Administration Site?
None of these observations and speculations bolsters the argument that the purchase of the New Administration site is a wise one. It makes me wonder about the capability of the current Board. Are they so different from the previous leadership? They seem just as bright and articulate as their predecessors.
I think the change may be a cavalier attitude in spending tax money. One has to ask, if the Board members and Marla were going to buy a property for their own business, would they have purchased the property?
I do not think so. I wouldn’t. Would you?
I received the Provisional Phase I Environmental Assessment and Limited Phase II Assessment for the New Administration Site on October 5. I have reviewed it and have taken the time to do some independent records searches with the Department of Ecology (DOE), send correspondence, and talk with appropriate project officers. This is what I have found:
The New Administration Site is comprised of three parcels A, B and C. Parcels A, B and C total of 9.83 acres and are known to contain fill over 30 feet in depth. Parcel C is where Test Pit 15 was sampled and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were found above regulated levels.
DOE databases do not indicate that the contamination on Parcel C had been reported to the department within 90 days of its discovery as required by law. I told the Superintendent and the Board in an email if the report had not been made as required by the WAC, I would report it myself. Ecology was notified and logged in the site on October 16. They will follow up with a formal investigation.
All of the parcels were owned by Michael J Raskin who owns the property directly north of the site, across 204th. This property, known as Center 5000, is listed on the Toxics Voluntary Clean Up List. This indicates Mr. Raskin is well aware of the requirements to report to the DOE. The District is also aware of this requirement since they made their own report in 1993 for the current Transportation Center on Alderwood Mall Parkway.
I did not receive any other documents for the New Administration site even though I asked for “any and all” reports for the property. So I am unable to make any comments on Marla’s email stating TP15 was remediated and that the site has been “monitored” during demolition and grading activities.
Determination whether a site requires “No Further Action” is under the purview of the DOE, not the owner. So Raskin and his consultants, nor Marla, despite her statement otherwise, is capable of making any statement as to the condition of the property since DOE was never notified or had the opportunity to examine any data for the site.
What I find interesting is even if the majority of the contamination on the property turns out to be below regulated levels, the fill is known to be over 30 feet in depth and contain wood. As it decays, voids will be left creating areas of subsidence. I am not a geotechnical expert, but anyone who has cut down a tree that had roots under their driveway knows what happens then.
Based on this report, all I see are increased costs associated with developing the land. I do not understand why the District would take on the added financial burden especially since it already has its own brownfield, the Transportation Center. Furthermore, why would they spend 2.5 million dollars over the original appraisal? If anything, the property should have been discounted instead of marked up in cost.
Do you have any idea what is going on?
The Alderwood Mall generates a lot of sales tax for the City of Lynnwood.
The Edmonds School District does not pay property tax and does not generate a lot of retail business at their Maintenance and Transportation facility.
How important do you think it would be for the City of Lynnwood to ensure that the Edmonds School District left the Alderwood Mall commercial core?
As the local regulator, how aggressive would the City of Lynnwood be to hasten the departure of the District's Maintenance and Transportation facility?
Now, knowing how quickly the City would respond to the District's development applications and how enthusiastically the City would be in helping the District leave the Alderwood Mall area, what sort of administrative obstacles do you think would be thrown in the way?
Wouldn't it seem important to have the City rush the District off to a clean, uncontaminated site? The City has no concern for the cost of cleaning up the new District Support Center - they just want the District somewhere else. District leadership seems to interpret the City's involvement as collaboration and thinks this is what happens on the "high road".
If you have been following my departure from the District, you may recall that Marla Miller and her minions were spewing the concept that I somehow violated the public trust by revealing something confidential about the Old Woodway Elementary transaction.
