A Response to Attacks on Measure H1 –
Measure H1, if approved by voters, will provide funds for needed improvements in our school facilities. Anyone who has visited Piedmont High School recently is aware of the need. In recent editions of the Piedmont Post, various writers have raised questions about Measure H1. I’d like to address the matters raised.
First, there are complaints that Measure H1 does not provide sufficient specificity about the specific projects that will be funded. In fact, Measure H1 is quite specific, starting with “Construction of a new Piedmont High School building, focused on Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (“STEAM”) with size, scope and location to be determined following additional public input,” and going on to list expenditures all of which focus on school facilities. See page A-3, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkMFlKS1RpeGNFOGc/view. Further details are found in the Facilities Steering Committee Recommendation, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkSXg2cDVfWTg0dTA/view.
Second, one writer contends that the District has provided “no cost estimates.” Not true. Following the year-long Facilities Master Planning process, a conceptual Master Plan was prepared, and a cost estimate to accomplish what is in that Master Plan is posted here, http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/facilities/pusd-facilities-master-planning/. Because the estimated cost to accomplish everything in the Master Plan is more than the District can afford, the District convened a Facilities Steering Committee, including community experts, to review the Master Plan, consider conceptual designs and priorities, and make recommendations to the Board. The Committee’s recommendation led to Measure H1’s priority list and the desire for community input on how best to meet our priority needs within budget.
Third, a writer suggests the District should have a specific design for voters to review, asserting: “Make the supporters come back with a specific plan and viable cost estimates. The rebuild of Havens Elementary School worked out just fine and within budget.” In fact, what happened with Havens is what would happen here if H1 is approved. Just like with the Seismic Bond program, the District has no money to pay for even conceptual design drawings unless and until a bond measure is approved and bonds sold. Even more to the point, the history of the Havens rebuild is as follows–the voters approved the Seismic Bond, community input was sought, community member Mark Becker stepped forward with a great design, and community member Andy Ball agreed to a maximum guaranteed price that allowed the Board to go forward knowing that sufficient funds would exist for all three elementary schools. It is exactly that kind of community engagement the Board hopes to see. We have a lot of smart, creative and civic-minded people in Piedmont, and we want their participation in developing the facilities to educate our children for the coming decades.
Fourth, FIDES (whoever they are) claims that teachers, students and parents had limited opportunities for input into classroom and facility needs. Not so. Rather, teachers were deeply engaged in the process, see Appendix C of the Educational Specifications Report,http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2.1-Piedmont-Ed-Specs_FINAL-2016.02.10..pdf . The District held eight meetings for parents, students, and the public to provide input, held at each school site, plus two community engagement meetings. In addition, a Board workshop and multiple Board meetings sought input on facility plans. See page 25 of http://www.piedmont.k12.ca.us/aboutpusd/agenda.minutes/15-16/FacilitiesMasterPlanPres2015.10.28%20PUSD_Board.pdf. In short, there were numerous opportunities to provide public comment.
Fifth, FIDES asserts that the “full master plan” is not “cost effective,” based upon on a comparison to construction of unknown facilities in unknown other states. This makes no sense. Detailed design and competitive construction bids will ensure that the District obtains needed facilities with proper quality at the market price. The claim that Measure H1 creates “wasted spending” is incorrect. FIDES asserts that Alan Harvey Theater (AHT) was “made compliant,” but is “slated for demolition in the published plan.” AHT was not “made compliant,” but rather had its seats, stage floor and some equipment improved with donated funds. If AHT is demolished (as yet unknown), the seats and equipment can be re-used. The FIDES assertion that $3 million in “furniture, fixtures and equipment purchased under recent renovations” will be replaced is dubious. Very little of Piedmont High School (PHS) was renovated under the Seismic Bond program, and PHS will be the focus of work under Measure H1 if it passes. Some Internet cabling may be replaced, but routers, servers, etc. can be re-used until obsolete.
Finally, FIDES complains about a lack of “clarity,” asserting that the published plan is “no longer current.” In fact, the published conceptual plan remains exactly that, one conceptual plan. Additional concepts are discussed in the Facilities Steering Committee’s report, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vdk-LUzFEkSXg2cDVfWTg0dTA/view. Further concepts almost certainly will be proposed in the community engagement that would follow a community vote in favor of Measure H1. This should be celebrated, not feared. When this community works together to achieve a goal, it can achieve great things. There was angst regarding Havens Elementary School—whether to renovate or replace, what would a replacement look like, and what would it cost. After a lot of discussion and community involvement, we have a beautiful new Havens Elementary School and beautifully renovated Wildwood and Beach Elementary Schools.
I encourage everyone to vote in favor of Measure H1.
Rick Raushenbush, Member of Piedmont School Board
