Looking at the Facility Needs for Emerson and Davis High School

There were a lot of strange looks at the Facilities Masterplan introduced back on December 18 to the Davis School Board. The ultimate price for the long and exhaustive wish list was $200 million. Some asked what the value of such a pie-in-the-sky masterplan was, and they would be right to a certain extent. However forgotten there is the fact that this the beginning of the process, not the end of the process of developing a masterplan. Everything possible is now on the table and now begins the process of winnowing down to a workable and realistic plan.

There were two projects however that are not going to wait that long. The highest priority project right now is the track and football field at the Davis High School. Second on the list is upgrades to Emerson Junior High School.



The costs for these projects are considerable, their need is great however.

The school board put the Track and Field as the highest priority. Some in West Davis are undoubtedly groaning. However, there is a logic here that needs to be understood. You get a sense of it watching the presentation on the state of the field. I got a sense of it talking to a few high school students who use the field as well. Basically it is a big safety hazard in several different ways.







The two biggest are the condition of the track itself which makes for treacherous footing and has resulted in numerous injuries. Also the condition of the stands is very dangerous and has also caused numerous injuries. In short, it is a safety hazard and a huge liability for the school district.

The changes needed at Emerson fall into the code compliance category. I'm not going to say they are aren't potential safety hazards but they are not immediate safety hazards. Moreover, according to the consultant the need to make these upgrades is not as immediate. What he told the board was that until the school district has to work on these facilities, they do not need to make the upgrades. Once they work on the facility they would have to upgrade it. That gives the district some time to play with.






The basic hope is that some of the money needed to upgrade the track and field complex at the high school can be raised privately through the Blue and White Foundation. At the meeting, Foundation president Michael McDermott said that the Foundation has raised about $200,000 and has pledges for another $100,000, numbers paled of course by the $5 to $10 million project.

The school district does not have much money in their facilities fund. They basically used the rest of it to complete the King High construction. The $4.5 million that the district got from Montgomery went to pay off the bond they took out for King High when the district discovered that they were lacking the money they thought they had for the project.

There is expressed concern that this means that Emerson will close. There have certainly been rumors to that effect. However, the most important thing that came to light during the meeting on December 18 is the fact that really, Emerson's needs are not huge safety concerns. Emerson according to what we heard and what Board Member Tim Taylor said is not suffering from deteriorating conditions to its buildings. What it needs is to become code compliant and that is something that is neither an immediate need nor urgent.

Moreover, all five board member expressed some form of support for Emerson, it is just they all recognized that the safety hazards of the high school track push that need to front.

As mentioned previous Mr. Taylor dismissed concerns about deteriorating conditions at Emerson as not borne out by surveys by district architects. Board President Gina Daleiden said that the projects are not mutually exclusive. Sheila Allen emphasized the importance of the academic program and facilities at Emerson. Susan Lovenburg wants the planning for a modernization of Emerson to be further fleshed out.

She said:

"I'd like to see some phased-in approaches to Emerson' as well as 'some exploration of different types of programs that could attract additional funding from state, federal and private sources."

In short, as I have been stating all along here, I do not think people at Emerson have all that much to worry about assuming that the district can find ways to remain in the black. The most important asset that Emerson has going for it right now is geography, the logistics of closing it would be considerable.

So while DHS has been pushed up to the front, Emerson seems in good stead.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

State Backs Off: Pulls DJUSD Off Wednesday's Agenda [Updated]

Board President Sheila Allen informed the Vanguard on Friday evening that an item that would have requested DJUSD to return $4.5 million that had been allocated to the district upon appeal has been pulled off the State Allocation Board's Agenda for next Wednesday.

Last Wednesday, the Davis Enterprise reported that the Davis school district could be asked to return the $4.5 million it received just last year from the state in matching funds for the construction of Montgomery Elementary.

"That's apparently the gist of a new legal opinion from the state Attorney General's Office, directed to members of the State Allocation Board. The school district's appeal will be heard at a SAB meeting next Wednesday in Sacramento.

If the Davis district is asked to return the money, it will effectively reverse the SAB's decision in August 2007 to award the $4.5 million to the Davis district, following a lengthy appeal of an earlier decision by the Office of Public School Construction to deny the funds."

Board President Sheila Allen told the Vanguard in a written statement via email:

"More than a year ago, the DJUSD Board, with support from respected local leaders, were successful in regaining $4.5 million in school construction funds from the State Allocation Board, based in large part on the strong administrative and financial competencies of our new District staff.

The DJUSD board is very thankful to Assembly Member Lois Wolk and her staff and to Assembly and State Allocation Board member Kevin De Leon for requesting the removal of this item. Since we were legally awarded the funds and have had it in our possession since December 2007, the board has been confident that Davis will rightfully retain the funds. "

It was a move that never made any sense. First, the decision happened over a year ago.

Second, the district was already given the money and presumably spent it to pay off the bonds it took out when the district found itself short of money on the King High project in part because they had backfilled the spending for Montgomery with money that was allocated for King High construction.

The point is, the district had every reason to believe that that was their money and they had no reason not to spend it to pay off those bonds.

It would be one thing if the district had not received the $4.5 million, however, a year after the fact to make the school district pay the money back to the state seems irresponsible. That would have created a huge burden on the district to come up with $4.5 million in the facilities fund. It just would not have been very reasonable--not that that would have stopped the state.

The burden it would place on the students would have been tremendous. So while we do not know what happened to change their minds, perhaps cooler and wiser heads prevailed in this. Perhaps our state legislators imparted to the state that this would be a long and prolonged battle and they would use every resource they had at their disposal to fight this. I would like to think they just realize it was the wrong thing to do.

Regardless, it appears that the district will be able to keep the money and hopefully we will get more details in the next few days on why and how this happened in the first place.

Now the voters need to pass Measure W so that we do not have to see a repeat of last spring when the district issued dozens of pink slips only to narrowly avert disaster thanks to a more generous May revise to the state budget and the yeoman work of the Davis Schools Foundation.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

State to Ask Davis Schools to Return $4.5 Million?

The Davis Enterprise reported yesterday that the Davis school district could be asked to return the $4.5 million it received just last year from the state in matching funds for the construction of Montgomery Elementary.

"That's apparently the gist of a new legal opinion from the state Attorney General's Office, directed to members of the State Allocation Board. The school district's appeal will be heard at a SAB meeting next Wednesday in Sacramento.

If the Davis district is asked to return the money, it will effectively reverse the SAB's decision in August 2007 to award the $4.5 million to the Davis district, following a lengthy appeal of an earlier decision by the Office of Public School Construction to deny the funds."

Last year, the school district received the $4.5 million plus matching funds from the state after a lengthy appeals process that we have highlighted. This stems from the district back in 2001 and 2002, missing critical state deadlines and therefore becoming ineligible.

However, after a long process, the district finally received the money last year.

Bruce Colby, the current Chief Budget Officer for the District expressed his surprise to the district, noting that the state formally approved the funds and the district received the money. After that, the district considered the matter close.

Colby told the Enterprise:

"It's unprecedented for the SAB to ask for money back after they've approved the money and sent the money."

Assemblywoman Lois Wolk who was also involved in the process of recouping the matching funds was similarly baffled.

"I was very surprised by the action of the Office of Public School Construction staff to try to reverse the decision of the State Allocation Board. In 2007, the SAB decided on a 7-3 vote to support the Davis school district's appeal for funding. Since then, the district has received the funds owed to them.

I see no reason to reopen this issue again. I will be working with the members of the State Allocation Board to ensure that the district's funding is secure."

Commentary:

This is a baffling decision by the state. The district has long since acknowledged the errors that led to the original loss of eligibility for the matching fund. They have implemented new fiscal policies, hired a new CBO (Mr. Colby), even hired a new Superintendent in James Hammond. They have done the due diligence to correct whatever fiscal problems existed under the previous CBO and the previous Superintendent.

What is gained now by revisiting this issue? The State Allocation Board already met and made their determination. The school district has already received the money from the state, and undoubtedly has already spent it to pay off the bonds that were used to finance the building project in lieu of matching funds.

At this point, any attempt by the state to take back that money would have to be considered punitive. What possible purpose would it serve at this point in time?

The State Allocation Board will meet next Wednesday.

Before people jump to conclusions, understand that this money is for facilities only. It cannot be used for the general fund. Therefore, this has absolutely no impact on the parcel tax. If there is a deficit as a result of this, the parcel tax money cannot be used for it. The parcel tax is explicitly allocated already. However, general fund money cannot be used for facilities and vice-versa.

"Under state law, the matching funds can only be used to fund facilities projects - such as modernization of existing school buildings, or construction of new school buildings. (The money can't be used to pay teacher salaries.)

The Davis school district ran short on facilities funds in 2007, and borrowed money to complete construction of the new building for Martin Luther King High School, which was dedicated in November 2007. 'Part of (the state matching funds) is to pay back the King loan,' Colby said Tuesday."

Also, the school district cannot pass another parcel tax in order to pay off this $4.5 million.

This needs to be very clear--the general fund and the facilities fund are completely separate and money cannot flow between the two.

The immediate concern will obviously be on the district's part to retain the money at the hearing next week.

This is another very concerning development. There appears to be no rhyme or reason for such as decision by the state to re-open this case.

---David M. Greenwald reporting