.
Feedback

New Schools, Please: Mercer Island Citizens Speak in Support of Rebuilding Campaign

Local citizens on the Mercer Island School District's 21st Century Facility Planning Committee discuss their findings with the school board.

Mercer Island needs new schools, say a group of community members, and the time to build them is now.

At a Sept. 29 Mercer Island School Board meeting, the 21st Century Facilities Planning Committee (21CFPC) for a phased "3-1-1" appoach: building three new two-story elementary schools and one middle school on their current properties to address school overcrowding and outdated buildings that don't support the district's vision.  could then be rebuilt in a later phase.

"Our teachers are doing an incredible job … despite the facilities they are in," said 21CFPC facilitator Kris Kelsay, who led the 21CFPC process.

Thanking the panel for their work, Superintendent Dr. Gary Plano and school board members offered a standing ovation and formal certificates of gratitude for their work.

"You are an amazing model," Plano said. "This is how community action should follow."

The so-called Great Recession has taken it's toll as voters across the Puget Sound and occasionally have refused to fund new school construction. But a majority of the 21CFPC panel believe the time is right for Mercer Island to rebuild schools first built in the 1950s and 1960s. Based on the recommendation to rebuild all four schools in the first phase, a bond could cost anywhere between $157 million to $177 million.

Mercer Island's current school levy-rate in 2011 is $2.52 per $1,000 of assessed value, which works out annually to around $2,416 for the median single-family home (worth $958,800, ). The recommendation could, if paired with a bond described above, raise the school levy-rate to $3.42 per $1,000.

Ultimately, a decision on a final bond will be left to the school board to decide.

"The kinds of things we're taking into account is, it's predicted that our recovery is going to be very slow," said MISD Business Services Executive Director Dean Mack. "We can take advantage over 3-5 years of depressed construction prices and flexible interest rates." 

While the panel produced a recommendation to school board on how to move forward, it also offered a number of alternate ideas for consideration. Directors Dave Myerson and Adair Dingle asked about a preferred a fourth elementary that was ruled out of the process because the panel recommended against using the North Mercer property — and shied away from serious consideration of swapping ownership of for the P-Patch area of or .

"We aren't elected," said 21CFPC member Morrison. "That would raise a lot of questions. That's the main issue between the 3-1-1 vs 4-1-1 (configuration): You use your existing properties or short of using eminent domain, or you buy land from someone else. I support this report I'm willing to go to the stump for it and willing to go to the voters for it but you have to decide what will fit voters best."

Director Brian Emanuels, who served as a 21CPFC member before he was , echoed the panel's concern that public input be actively sought.

"I think we need ample opportunity for the public to add to the process," he said.

Here are a selection of comments from individual members that highlight the work and diversity of opinion on planning for MISD's future schools. 

Kris Kelsay (on the 21CPFC's diversity of community interests): "This group is a very diverse group. We have had some intense discussion. I think we've forged new relationships with people."

Carol Gullstad (on 21CPFC's diversity of community interests): "We do have different groups of people. We have volunteer groups of people who we asked 'what things that seem to stand out most?' (They said) overcrowding, property values, and safety."

Walt Ritchie (on balancing short-term and long-term requirements for school buildings) "The buildings meet the code of he 1950s and 1960s. But what has happened since then is we've had events that have changed the code. The 1995 code, for example, is very outdated ... The code tries to judge relative "seismicity" of Puget Sound. There is now a significant increase in the expectations."

Carrie George (on school facilities on Mercer Island): "It's important that the public understand that, within 20-30 years, all five of our schools will have to be rebuilt."

Frank Morrison (on school facility capacity targets): "If our committee has discomfort, it's the enforceability of the future. if you do have growth, that's where you should worry."

Einar Handeland (on raising facility capacity targets): "We need to think about the effects of other projects, such as when light rail comes on to I-90, and how they will affect our schools. We also need to consider how I-90 tolling, when it comes."

Bert Loosmore (on the question of whether to build three or four elementary schools): "The minority of the committee who want '4-1-1' (four elementary schools, one middle school and one high school) want (the choice of configuration) to come out of community process. It can't come from school board, we think."

Hilary Benson (on configuring larger elementary schools): "With the larger schools, it would probably be pretty important to divide schools — like the Bush School has done with an "Upper" and "Lower" school — into two different schools on the same property."

Amanda Clark (on redesigning school configuration): "I think the idea of flexibility is important. Cement block walls just can't be moved. One of the things for me, not having kids in schools, flexibility was something told to us over and over again that we need to have."

Megan Hand (on building "Best Practice" school facilities): "I see it first hand at Lakeridge (Elementary) because there isn't an art classroom. In 21st Century classrooms, we should have this. We see other school districts, like Bellevue building new schools with these facilities. We've got to stay competitive for these issues. Our home values are dependent on keeping up those schools."

Michael Finn (on advantages of using a "swing school" — representing a minority view and not a 21CPFC recommendation): "There's three advantages: You can develop the site the way you want without trying to shoehorn them in; You save money from lower construction costs; and there's less construction noise. Take a look at the (Aviara/Old Safeways) project in the Town Center. You notice the noise. I'd hate to be in school there."

Toby Suhm (on costs and bonding): "During our last meeting, I was actually surprised at the amount of support we were hearing. Elderly attendees were much more supportive than I has assumed … The (residents without kids) at the school that attended the last (Sept. 6) session were largely supportive. A lot of the concerns we heard were coming from younger adults."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mercer Island Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Ira B. Appelman October 4, 2011 at 09:14 pm
Board President Pat Braman learned something from previous 21CFPC presentations; she announced at the beginning that public comment wouldn’t be allowed. The committee unanimously recommends the demolition and rebuild of all Island schools for about $150 million plus the undetermined cost of a new high school. Committee members acknowledged that Islanders they had discussed this with opposed the demolition proposal. But as one member reminded the Board, the committee isn’t representative of Islanders since the committee cares about the schools more than the average Islander. The Committee, with the Board’s help, trotted out the usual suspects for why this poorly thought-out proposal should be supported -- property value protection, needed earthquake proofing (again!), and it’s only multi-millions of dollars for “replacement” bonds.
Through the fog it emerged that, unbeknownst to most Islanders, the elementary schools may be badly overcrowded. The reasonable solution is to build an additional elementary school, probably on the high school mega-block. One committee member, a former school director, urged the Board to adjust its “education” program so this simpler and less expensive solution will not occur to Islanders. The presentation concluded with the mutual back-patting and self-congratulations that has become the norm at our disfunctional city council.
Charon Gooding October 5, 2011 at 12:35 pm
The current levy rate for 2011 is $2.52 per $1,000 assessed value. If paired with the recommended bond, it would raise the school levy rate to 3.42% per $1,000 of assessed value. This is a 35% increase. I can't imagine that the committee is recommending this scenario. Charon Gooding
jean majury October 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Carrie George states: "It's important that the public understand that, within 20-30 years, all five of our schools will have to be rebuilt." Then why rebuild them now? In 20 to 30 years, construction and environmental advances and code changes will render anything built now obsolete.
Jean Majury 4544 - 88th Avenue SE Mercer Island, WA jeamaj@msn.com
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 01:32 pm
This is the citizen panel's answer (found in the second paragraph of our story — I've also now attached the official recommendation document as a .pdf below the photos):
"to address school overcrowding and outdated buildings that don't support the district's vision."
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 01:40 pm
If looking at the school levy IN EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER TAXES (not to mention all of the other assumptions made — which are many and outlined in the 21CFPC recommendation document now attached to this story), then, yes, the .9 percent increase would work out to a 28 percent increase. Of course, no one get their taxes separately like that, you simply get a property tax bill with all the levies combined. So looking at it in this fashion I found somewhat unhelpful.
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 01:41 pm
In other words, I found what I consider a better way to put that information into it's "proper" context.
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 02:18 pm
Ira, a few observations from my perch:
1) According to Kelsay at that meeting on the 4-school rebuild bond, "The majority favors you going for it." She also said "There is a minority that feels that the tolerance of the community wouldn't be there." So I would dispute your characterization that it was "unanimous". 2) It's important to note that the panel has held at least 6 presentations directly either to the school board or the public, in addition to numerous meetings that were all open to the public (although I admit I sometimes had a hard time finding their meeting schedule — for which I blame myself). Haven't seen you at any of them until the Sept. 29 school board meeting. 3) I'm not sure your "Islanders they had discussed this with opposed the demolition proposal" statement is accurate. I heard the panel members say (specifically Toby Suhm and Michael Finn) they heard reservations and "surprise" but not categorically that they were "opposed" as you state (Michael Finn: "I hang out with older folks and they're a little shocked that we want all new older schools.") 4) The 21CFPC unanimously opposed using the North Mercer site and said the "primary" reason was planning for a new MIHS in a "phase 2" bond 20 years or so down the road. Again, Kris Kelsay: "They (the 21CFPC) really want you (school board) to think about the 'mega-block' high school as a jewel of a high school and partner in the redevelopment of it with this process."
Ira B. Appelman October 5, 2011 at 04:27 pm
Hi Kendall. I liked your article; here I respond to your observations:
(1) If any on the committee are against this demolition/rebuild plan then why didn't you mention them in your article and why weren't they identified at the meeting? The only disagreement ever mentioned was about details like timing, 3 vs. 4, etc. (2) With all due respect, I don't think you or anyone on the Island has earned the right to criticize me for not attending meetings. If you cover the Island for another ten years maybe you'll attend the number of meetings I have. I also read documents and articles like yours to stay informed. Public comment should have not only been allowed; it should have been ENCOURAGED, if the Board is sincere. (3) I heard the committee member you identified say he presented the proposal to a group of 50 and "to a person" they opposed it. (4) The opponents of PEAK said the Board should wait until a mega-block master plan was created, but the Board refused. Some of us believe that Big Sports wags that dog and future plans for the stadium will drive the mega-block master plan as the huge sports facility drove PEAK. I believe it is a mistake to simply accept at face value what MISD hires like Kelsay say. There is a long history on these issues that many of us know. Much of the meeting was about SELLING the plan to Islanders, like Carrie George's "education" comment you didn't quote, and I think that should have been more prominent in your otherwise very good article.
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 05:33 pm
Thanks Ira. My responses in order below:
1) Fair criticism. Bert Loosmore and Michael Finn seemed to be two of the three, but I couldn't be 100 % sure. The minority reportedly favored a bond now for one or three elementary schools, not all four at once. However, can't find anywhere in the report where this group doesn't support rebuilding all of these schools in the next 10-15 years, just in a different phase. 2) Well, it wasn't meant as criticism. I have reported and observed that the school district has ID'ed overcrowding as an issue, for example, when Patch launched a year ago and has held public fora in that time. I thought that, since I didn't see you, perhaps you didn't know about the meetings for some reason. I do agree with you that public comment should be allowed whenever elected officials meet as a body, regardless of whether or not "actionable" items are on an agenda — frankly, the public needs to speak up more, in my humble opinion. 3) I did not hear that and it wasn't in my normally-meticulous notes. I must assume I missed it. Dang it. 4) Argh! Another goof by me. "All but three" said no new elem. school at N. Mercer, not "unanimously" according to the official recommendation. I didn't have a quote on Carrie George suggesting to the board members on how to "educate" the public on rebuilding schools, other than the part where she said the most important thing was to remember all of the schools needed to be rebuilt fairly soon (see quote above).
Kendall Watson (Editor) October 5, 2011 at 07:08 pm
Er... 90-cent increase per $1,000 assessed value, that is. Sigh. Too much coffee.
Jerry Gropp Architect AIA October 5, 2011 at 07:14 pm
How time flies! Seems like we just redid our schools.
I was on the Citizens' Panel last time around and we came up with a lot of ideas that resulted in better Mercer Island schools.
Ira B. Appelman October 5, 2011 at 08:51 pm
Thanks, Kendall for your comments and responses. I don't think there is a significant difference between what we each heard for (3). I appreciate MI Patch serving as a forum for this back-and-forth -- you heard one thing, I heard something slightly different, someone else has a different interpretation, etc. I was taught that it is in the back-and-forth that citizens learn what is really going on. There is no other forum for this activity on the Island, including the School Board meeting, the City Council meeting, and the MI Distorter. At City Council, which I know best, I remember former Mayor Judy Clibborn complaining that she didn't want any "back-and-forth"; the current City Council sits silent and expressionless when citizens arrive to speak. I hope in the future MI Patch can attract lively discussions on important Island issues to explicate and augment the carefully worked pronouncements of the Board or Council.
Ray Burt October 5, 2011 at 09:21 pm
Not sure about the rest of you, but I saw plenty of opportunities to attend sessions prior to the recommendation -- so much so that I sort of lost interest (figuring with all the publicity and all the public input meetings, my voice would get lost).
Carla Mead Barokas October 5, 2011 at 11:44 pm
In the end, there are far more students than the schools can accommodate. And the population is growing. Go to West Mercer elementary and take a look at all of the portables. We live in an affluent city, yes. Yet my daughter didn't have access to a bathroom without putting on her coat and walking across the campus to the main building. In the beginning of the school year one of the children told me the A/C was out in a portable. Naturally it was the only hot week of the year. We can do better than this. Something has to happen.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Live into the next act of your life
Paul Zohav M.Ed. May 30, 2013 at 01:10 pm
Mercerwood Shore Club Address: 4150 E Mercer Way, Mercer Island, WA 98040 Phone:(206) 232-1622
Connie Carson May 30, 2013 at 02:33 pm
Thank you, that was not clear in the initial article. CC
Connie Carson May 30, 2013 at 03:18 pm
Sorry, that phone number rings forever. Guess I will be missing this.