The Mercer Island School Board approved a draft plan to put a single $196,275,000 construction bond issue to a public vote on the April ballot at a Jan. 26 public hearing at the Mercer Island School District board room.
The board passed the single bond measure on a 4-1 vote to rebuild larger elementary and middle schools, modernize Mary Wayte Pool and some MIHS faciliities, design a master plan for the North Mercer campus and set aside money for land intended for a fourth elementary school (more details of the plan can be found by clicking on the PDF image of plans to the right).
The board must bring the plan back in the form of a resolution with accompanying language for the ballot and pass it in order to appear on the April 17, 2012 ballot.
"It's not only a capacity issue. It's not only where the buildings are. These schools are built with teachers in classrooms connected by long narrow hallways," said Director Brian Emanuels, who supported the bond. "The way that you used to teach in those classrooms is not what our teachers are doing anymore. They're being held back and it's really limiting their ability to deliver a '21st Century' education. Think how much better they could do in facility designed for '21st Century' learning."
According to school district officials, planning for the school improvements and rebuilding commenced in 2008 with an engineering study of current buildings and a demographic study of the local student population. The study projected that Mercer Island schools will absorb over 800 students by 2020.
The board effecitvely adopted the recommendations made by the MISD 21st Century Planning Committee (21CPFC), a citizen's panel that reviewed issues of school overcrowding, obsolescence and safety. It had recommended the school board to adopt a larger bond for rebuilding all K-8 schools because the relative annual costs to local taxpayers between rebuilding four or five schools or just one or two could be as small as $0.20 per $1,000 of property assessed value. But a minority on the committee also felt the board should buy land and build a fourth elementary school instead of rebuilding three larger elementary schools.
Director Dave Myerson voted against the plan, citing his opposition to enlarging the capacity of individual elementary schools and his preference for four smaller schools.
"A lot of studies out there suggest smaller schools are better, and I think a fourth elementary school property should be purchased." he said. "This requires a much longer conversation ... We are giving the public an 'unbaked cake'."
MISD Executive Director Dean Mack estimated the bond would cost an average local homeowner, based on an assesed value of $1 million, an additional $900-$950 per year for the life of the bonds — expected to be about 25 years.
Local Bond Project Proposals
The proposed bond is intended to pay for the following combination of projects:
- Acquire a site for School #6, which will allow for flexibility as we rebuild schools and house students
- Rebuild a new Islander Middle School on the south campus
- Rebuild three (3) new elementary schools
- Expand classroom spaces at the high school, including the addition of additional science labs (6-12 classroom expansion)
- Islander Stadium renovations (new pressbox; concession area; bathrooms; roof overhang; seating)
- Invest in extending the life of Mary Wayte Pool 10-15 more years
- Complete master planning of the mega-block (MIHS campus; Administration and Crest; bus lot; and north mercer buildings)
Final authorization of projects to be build with bond funds must be passed by the school board after the bond is approved.
The school district also announced it was abandoning plans for the purchase of a new bus lot near Mercer Island City Hall.
"The site was too small and required the acquisition of more land," said MISD superintendent Gary Plano. "Consequently, the cost of moving busses no longer fit into a sound business model."
(Ed. Note: This story was updated to clarify that the school board must pass a formal resolution to place the measure on the ballot at a subsequent meeting.)
I do have a question to about where the funds will come from for the teaching staff that will be needed to meet the demands of 800 more children on the island in the renovated schools? Thanks.
As for green design, the 21st Century Facilities Planning Committee recommended inclusion of green features, and the School Board has signaled its interest in this. After the bond is passed, the process of developing specifications for each school, given its siting, will begin. There will be plenty of opportunities for public input about what features are important. The Board was careful not to budget for "gold-plated" schools, so underground parking will probably be excluded. But in terms of light and energy use and building materials and permeable surfaces, I believe that everything that can cost-effectively be green will be.
We have had some of the best schools in the region for the last 50 years and it is now our turn to ensure that we continue to have the best schools for the next 50 years!!!!
I am surprised that you can be heavily involved in your PTA and not have learned the background of the issue and the research that has gone into this recommendation. The common spaces can’t handle the number of students in the building. We do not have art rooms, space for science, quiet rooms for learning support or spaces for personalized small group learning. I am sure you have seen the groups sitting in the halls to have reading time with volunteers. That is a terrible atmosphere for learning – trying to stay focused while a class files by to get to music. I will leave it at that, but please get more information and listen to all the reasons this is being considered. Portables are the least of our problems, in many cases.
Let’s not twist the facts to scare people, please. We all know it is incorporated into our monthly, for most of us, payments and would be over the course of 25 + years or closer to $1,000 per year or approximately $85 per month.
Three thoughts on this: 1) I haven't actually seen a document or the advice from the securities broker the MISD is working with, so the "$900-$950 increase for the MI home valued at $1 million" is so far coming extemporaneously from MISD Exec. Dir. Dean Mack. I'm waiting for an actual document that outlines this in writing. 2) What if assessed home values continue to drop (as they most certainly will as the county assessor will take only post-peak sales data into account for 2012)? 3) That's $900-$950 increase above the current levy the school district assesses. Taxes were scheduled to drop next year through 2015 as all the 1990s remodeling bonds were paid off. Food for thought.
Furthermore, I have heard that this option will take 8 years to complete. So replacement solution will mean that the overcrowding will continue and worsen for the next 8 years, while adding the inconvenience of on-site construction and demolition. Conceivably, a child in kindergarten today will endure overcrowding, construction and demolition for his or her entire elementary and middle school years. As a homeowner, I do not think it is too much to ask to see the top two or three alternatives, how they were evaluated, the pros and cons of each, costs, timelines and why replacement is the best option. I don't see any of that. It appears that the proposal is a solution to a different problem.
There are a couple of key reasons why the proposed plan will take upwards of 8 years to complete. One is the staging of the rebuild of the schools. Most likely one a year after a year of planning and permitting. The other is a desire to keep citizens tax rates level by issuing the bonds incrementally as the moneny is needed, not all up front. Finally, as a member of the 21CFPC, I would be happy to meet with you over coffee and answer your questions about the top two or three alternatives we examined, the process we used, the pros and cons for each, etc. Please contact me. 20 citizens spent a year studying the issue in developing the recommendation made to the school board. The board spent another 4 months examining the recommendation. This clearly is the best solution to the problem of overcrowed, aging schools.
On the Feasible Construction Options sheet, it states the "Rebuild with Expansion" is probable for all the schools, whereas you say that there is no more or little more ground surface available. Additionally, it seems like the only option, then, are two story schools, in which the dynamic of the functions of the school would be completely different. One must consider the impact of a two story large establishment near smaller residential houses. Besides the prohibitive costs, the 21st CFPC has no building designs, preliminary blueprints, or estimates for each individual school. Also, as an earlier comment designated, the construction for 8 years would negatively effect students learning, perhaps even more so than simple overcrowding (although I do agree this is a problem). The North Mercer Campus should have been thought of more thoroughly, and rather than rebuild schools, a more cost-effective way would be to build a fourth elementary school on one of the multitude of plots available.
The "rebuild with expansion" option in the documents refers to rebuilding the schools as two story structures, the same approach that has been taken with most rebuilt schools on the Eastside in recent years. The 8 years that keeps greeting referred to is the total length of time it will take to replace all three elementaries and the middle school as they will be done sequentially. Each school will only be affected for the one year that the new school is being built on site. The North Mercer campus was thoroughly vetted by the 21CFPC during the year we studied the multitude of options available. The overwhelming majority of the committee concluded that placing a fourth elementary there would severely limit future options there, including rebuilding the high school at some future date. There are no other plots available on the island.
Also, why should the high school be thought of being rebuilt when it is just getting a 2 million dollar upgrade to the end of the 500 hall? If they are don sequentially, then the capacity won't be solved like a more expedient renovation. Extra costs should be removed from the bond, so that the taxpayers are not strained should it pass. Additionally, proponents claim that other districts have passed bonds and levies, but the Seattle Times article yesterday says otherwise-- that schools like Renton and Federal Way have been rejected for bond measures. You also did not respond to the two story schools concern.
You're right, that's a draft plan that I've put up there, but it's widely expected (and the 21 CFPC recommended) that the 6th school would be an elementary school. I think a number of your questions could be answered if you took a look at the 21 CFPC subpage at the school district website, here: http://www.misd.k12.wa.us/departments/facilities/facilitiesQ&A.html Some members have kids in the district, some have kids in the district now but they'll be long-gone by the time the proposed schools are built and some have kids young enough that they might spend a year or two in the new schools (if memory serves, that's a tiny minority of the members). If you're talking about the demography of the students, the district has done a couple of these studies now, in 2008 and 2010, and current enrollment projections show that these studies were on the conservative side. I believe the district said they had a 95% confidence interval for projecting enrollment figures for 2015, which when they say the first new school wold be built by the scope of this bond. The district also said the open enrollment kids are already baked in to the models. I don't think this bond is intended to "rebuild" the high school. I think the MISD has used the phrase "modernize" for MIHS. The other school districts the MISD constantly compares themselves to re: bonds are Lake Washington, Issaquah and Bellevue — all passed significant bonds for new schools recently (and LWSD voters rejected one, too).
I’m not sure where the issue of remodeling the school comes into the picture. Remodeling would not solve the problem of school overcrowding nor does it seem to be a necessary part of other options. However, you do give a clue to the purpose of a remodel when referring to the classroom standards for natural daylight and ventilation and the Washington School district remodel vs. rebuild analysis. This appears to be an environmental upgrade, which of course would be extremely expensive as re-orienting the building is required. I don’t believe an environmental upgrade solves the overcrowding problem. To solve overcrowding, additional space is needed. Space can be added with an addition, which does not need a remodel.
The good news is that school districts around us are showing us how to build some awesome schools. Look here for some examples: http://mischoolsyes.org/category/did-you-know/ Information about WSSP can be found here: http://www.k12.wa.us/SchFacilities/Programs/HighPerformanceSchoolBuildings.aspx Just to clarify, I wasn't a member of the 21st Century Facilities Planning Committee, I'm just a father and citizen. My three kids likely wouldn't benefit much from the new schools -- my youngest is now in 2nd grade. But my property value will certainly benefit if we maintain the top school reputation we have. I fear that will become increasingly difficult as Bellevue, Lake Washington, Issaquah and Renton continue to build stellar facilities and attract teachers to go with them!
I'll publish this as soon as I'm able — I've been trying to get something on this online for the past week but something else seems to always come up!!!!!!
Milford Walker
I think you're using US Census numbers there, if I'm not mistaken. We did several stories on the numbers as they were released — here's the most relevant one: http://patch.com/A-h6dT From 2000 to 2010, the population of kids 0-4 incresed by 12; 5-9 was down by 79; 10-14 was down by 142; and 15-19 increased by 115. Also, there were 9,109 "households" on Mercer Island on April 1, 2010 (Census Day) — not 8,500. The school district is saying it will cost the homeowner who has an assessed property value of $1 million in 2012 will pay an additional $950 above taxes they're already paying. Hope that helps.
Also, the Facilities Master plan says a sixth school, although undecided grade levels. Why would anyone support a bond if they don't even know whether that school would be an elementary, middle, or junior high school? Additionally, in what order would the schools be built? I don't believe that ALL other options were thoroughly looked into. Some ideas that perhaps the 21 CFPC did not come up with (who made the 21 CFPC?) include creating another wing/building at IMS on the area of portables, like the 300 building. The elementary schools have a lot of land, too, and so near the back of a school like Lakeridge, the portable could be replace with another large wing. I also take issue with the fact that a 21 CFPC member replied saying there are no other plots of land, when in fact it is in the plan on the school district website. A minority of the 21 CFPC as well as at least one School Board Director supports a 4th elementary school. Building a fourth elementary school by itself would solve the immediate short term problem, while also not causing disruptions to learning. It is still too early to consider a remodel of the high school.