I interrupt this vacation from blogging just to make people aware of a proposal that’s on the board’s work session agenda for tomorrow night. The proposal would change the district’s facilities plan to greatly accelerate the schedule for the bond-funded construction projects. Instead of completing the projects by 2024, the district would complete them all by 2021, and some projects (such as the Tate and Alexander additions) would move from the end of the list to the beginning. You can see the details of the proposal here and in the other documents attached here.
I don’t immediately have an opinion about whether the acceleration is a good idea. Most of the air-conditioning projects were scheduled in the first three years anyway, so it’s not immediately clear to me that the proposal would get us to full air-conditioning any sooner. On the other hand, an accelerated schedule means building capacity additions even sooner than the district otherwise would, when it’s possible that the passage of time would show that enrollment doesn’t justify some of them. (There were at least some bond proponents who suggested that voters shouldn’t worry so much about the questionable capacity additions because the district had the time and the flexibility to change the plan if it needed to.) There may well be financial advantages and disadvantages to acceleration, though I hope the discussion of them is more careful than some of the discussion during the bond campaign. (See this post.) The acceleration would also mean that the full tax impact of the borrowing will occur sooner, and not on the somewhat more phased-in schedule the district identified during the bond campaign.
Whatever its merits, the proposal certainly does raise one question: Was the administration aware, during the bond campaign, that this change would be proposed just a month after the voters approved the bond? Were any board members or candidates aware? If so, why did they wait until after the election to raise it? Much of the debate around the bond proposal focused (reasonably) on the details of the underlying plan and on the degree to which a favorable vote would commit the district to that plan. Some candidates and bond proponents acted like any change to the facilities master plan would be an unthinkable mistake. Knowing that acceleration was possible (and maybe even in the works?) would have been helpful for voters as they were evaluating whether the $191 million bond proposal was worthy of their support. I’m not saying it would have changed the result—I could see it working either way, or having no effect—but why not be candid about it?
In any event, just one month after it seemed like everyone was talking about the bond proposal, virtually no one seems to be aware of a proposal to make significant changes to the underlying plan. So take a look. If you feel strongly about it one way or the other, let the board know—and post a comment here, too, if you’d like.
UPDATE: There’s an item on the agenda of the main meeting (which happens before the work session) asking the board to approve a “preliminary official statement” related to the bond issuance. By all appearances, this preliminary official statement assumes in advance that the board will vote to accelerate the projects. (I say that because the amount listed on the statement, $58.9 million, roughly matches the total of the figures given in the yellow columns here for the initial series of bonds under the accelerated proposal.) That seems like putting the cart before the horse, if the board intends to do any real deliberation over the acceleration proposal.
One thing seems never to change: When the administration proposes something, it always seems to be presented as so immediately urgent that it can’t wait even another two weeks. It seems unlikely that the board will have fully debated the pros and cons of acceleration when it votes on that resolution, or even after the one work session. Nor will it have gotten virtually any public input on the idea. What is the justification for rushing into such a big decision?
18 comments:
Doubt this means the board will complete all promised projects. The administration still wants maximum flexiblity without real accountability. Some planned projects could get shafted.
What are they afraid of?
What ends in 2020? How long does Steve's contract run?
Lots of changes. Mann got a lot more expensive. Kirkwood lost money. It looks like City High lost money too. Also other changes. What is going on?
Exactly what we said was going to go on.
Yep,just waiting for the yes voters to realize it was a huge mistake.
No accountability, no oversight, no real understanding of how construction contracts work. Yep.
This is the boondoggle I was expecting.
Congratulations to all of Duane's Des Moines construction buddies who will be awarded non-competitive contracts. Let the money flow!
The good news is the 4 newly-elected school board members, - Clausson, Eyestone, Goodwin, Malone -who all full-throatedly supported the bond while campaigning, will still be around when this accelerated bond is bled dry. It will be great to have them be accountable for the waste, fraud and abuse that is already happening under their watch. For once Iowa City citizens will get to hear why they allowed this, with no whining, "The PREVIOUS board did it, not us!" This one is 100% on them.
Perhaps we should praise the IC District for restraint. It only took a week after the School Board election for the Cedar Rapids District to announce a plan to close 8 of 21 elementary schools and to rebuild the remaining 8 school buildings. There will never be enough evidence for many that the IC District will deceive, bait'n'switch, and obfuscate as much as necessary to get its way.
People should keep copies of what the district promised their schools so they know if the district changes the plan.
That looks like a pretty ambitious acceleration. Do we have the resources to manage all of those projects in the proposed time frame? Are the contractors and resources available to complete this many projects simultaneously? Will contractor costs increase due to low availability or will we need to import from outside of our range and familiarity? It looks like the goal is to get everything going by 2020, why chose this date? Is there something that we don't know as to why there is such a hurry to get everything started all at once? Which of the 2020 start projects will get delayed if they are changing the order? In theory we should save money on interest and cost increases, right? I like the idea but I think managing it will be a challenge and I don't understand what we really gain if capacity at some of these accelerated projects is not needed. What about a second elementary in North Liberty that will certainly be needed, I assume that this will get delayed since all of the others move up in time significantly?
The only thing surprising about this pack of lies fro m
the administration is that it took six weeks for them to do it.
These guys are so sleazy. We need the money now, we can't wait even one week, you have to decide now! Talk about high pressure sales. Come on - you apparently have known and been planning this move since April, well before the bond vote. Who knew about this before this meeting? Same old tactics. I have to admit though, they are very effective. Maybe this is the only way to actually get things done that need to be done and it is in our best interest, I don't know. It just looks and sounds shady. Maybe at the end of this we will all be hailing Murely as a god as he takes off for a better job...
Does anyone think this acceleration maybe has something to do with the closing of old Hoover and the petition? Like maybe they are wanting to get all of the East side capacity addition projects underway so that old Hoover capacity is certainly not needed by the time the petition goes on the ballot? That is what I think. Otherwise accelerating all of these projects by 2-4 years, many of which already appear to add unnecessary capacity to east side schools makes no sense.
What happens if the IC boom turns bust in five years? IC is undergoing some massive growth but where’s the job market that’s spawning this building frenzy and spike in home values? What happens when construction slows, that industry moves on and the U Hospital hits a plateau? It’s being seen already at Kirkwood Community College where enrollment is lagging.
The industry in IC is what? The U? The hospital? If there is a downturn in either there will be more real estate supply than demand. How does the city and the district cover it’s ass if the well runs dry? If I’m in Construction with my hands in the District pocket I want all of these projects starting yesterday while the money is ripe for the taking.
I hope this speculation never comes to fruition but until I hear of the growing job market in IC that’s not construction related I’ll remain skeptical about the financial decisions being made by Murley et al.
For now just ride the wave and make sure you aren't around when it crashes. Murley and his friends will all get paid, that is all that matters. Our district is in the construction business, not education.
Anon 8:41, that sounds like a good plan. I voted against the bond, being a good citizen and all. I would very much prefer a smaller bond with specific projects. The school district should operate like any responsible household. You upgrade your kitchen or build a sunroom when they are needed and you have a budget for it. You don't just go to the bank and take out a million dollar loan thinking I am going to make that much in the next 30 years. But common sense and fiscal responsibility are hard to come by these days. I personally will benefit from this massive bond in terms of my property values, among other things. I plan to get out this district and cash in before it crashes and burn. It'll take a few years, 4 or 5 maybe, before it happens. By that time, I won't have much to do with ICCSD and I'll be sipping coffee somewhere outside ICCSD and enjoy the show.
I am hearing two new salaried staff/Administrators will be required to carry out the plan.
I am also hearing they can/will pay these salaries with bond money? Is this legal?
This means some project or projects will get the shaft because money we thought would be going towards giving us 21st century schools will instead be going to pay people’s salaries.
I do not think we need acceleration this badly, and I do not think the savings they are projecting will be realized when you figure in the salary costs combined with a less competitive bidding environment.
You're right about the administration making stuff an emergency before it reaches the board.
Looks like superintendent Murley wants the board to vote to send the bonds to accelerate the facilities plan to bid and it must be done NOW. Gotta wonder who is running the show.
Why don't you blog anymore? I enjoyed reading your opinions.
Post a Comment