LASD Trustees will be reconvening the Facilities Master Plan Committee to finalize the draft 2015 plan report. In preparing the slides for the April 23 board meeting, staff has decided to cherry pick the 2015 finding that “acquiring a 10th site was the most preferred alternative.” What is omitted/suppressed is that the majority also favored continuing to work to establish a “base case” using existing land. In that way, a specific 10th site solution could be compared to the base case solution.
Randy Kenyon. Los Altos School District Superintendent for Business.
Randy Kenyon has prepared a presentation that shows
- The Safeway/Old Mill site is being acquired
- That site could support the construction of a k-5 school or a k-8 school (BCS)
- Blach and Egan will be converted to 6-8, removing the BCS footprint
ERGO, our ~$150M Measure N bond money will be spent to move BCS from Egan and Blach to the 10th site ($100M), and to convert the two jr. highs ($30M to $40M) to a middle school configuration. At least that is what Randy Kenyon expects.
The 2018 fake reason for not
finishing the FMPC report in 2015
Facilities Master Plan Committee 2018
Either an elementary or a k-8 school fits…2018
These are meant to show the amount of STUFF that each type of school gets…to State of California and LASD standards. It is not meant to show the configuration on the Safeway – Old Mill site.
“Needs” when k-6 schools
per Facilities Master Plan 2018
Randy Kenyon seems to be planning to convert the existing grade schools from k-6 to k-5. There is not much left from the $150M bond after spending $100M moving BCS to Safeway/Old Mill and fixing up the jr. highs for 6-8…,so many changes desired at the k-5 schools await a Phase 2 apparently.
Total costs at LASD campuses 2018..
It is interesting that the needs are now down to $200M at existing schools. Wasn’t it $300M per the FMPC…checking…
Kenyon Imagines Jr Highs
Free and clear of BCS someday soon
Kenyon’s slide does not have red boxes. Lalahpolitico drew them in here FYI incase you don’t know the BCS setup on these campuses. For 2018 Kenyon draws a new Egan track back in with a new more spacious configuration. At Blach, he keeps the expensive new kindergarten setup for BCS there.
Summary 2018 Facilities Master Plan:
Kenyon Expects to
Step up to these Costs
This amounts to $75M for a BCS building about $25M for land at Safeway/Old Mill, and up to $30M or $40M minimum for Egan and Blach jr. highs to accommodate 6th graders.
Renew the 5-year agreement?
Well, it’s nice to see LASD finally get serious about moving 6th grade to middle school for pedagogical reasons….like almost every other school district in the Bay Area did decades ago!!!!
However, we agree with Jill Jene writing below that this 10th site Safeway/Old Mill scenario should be considered vs. a base case of using the existing land.
There is still no word on how the risky eminent domain process for the 10th site is working out. Did the District do the appraisal step yet? Will the letters of intent for all those $100M worth of TDRs be worth the paper they are printed on?
Lalahpolitico does not know if those efforts are working out. But I do know that this Randy Kenyon story… is a good one in the sense that it gives the District leverage with its ongoing negotiations about renewing the “5-year agreement” with BCS to stay in its current digs split across the two jr. highs.
By the way. There is no need for BCS to vacate Egan and Blach, in order to accommodate 6th graders there. The architect drew up that sharing concept in 2014 Facilities Master Plan process.
Jill Jene letter to LASD
re Facilities Master Plan Committee 2018
I wanted to share my public comment for item I.1 on tonight’s agenda.
Thank you for publicly sharing a draft Facilities plan for LASD. As voters and community members review the draft plan, there are some additional topics which should be added.
Jill Jene seated next to Superintendent Jeff Baier
I encourage you each to look at the plan and ensure that the plan provides equal facilities to every student. I challenge each of you to be more fiscally prudent with all of our public resources, land and money. The idea that you would endeavor to use eminent domain to acquire additional land to shoehorn 600 or even 900 students into less than 10 acres while capping elementary schools at 420ish for schools that sit on 10+ acres seems extravagant. I encourage each of you to be more creative in solving the facilities problems today and in the future. The students deserve stronger leadership.
In some of the areas the details are omitted or need to be expanded. Here are a few specific suggestions:
Voters and tax payers would benefit from receiving information for the best base plan which outlines how existing land could be optimally utilized to house a 10th site. Any plan to purchase land could be compared to the base plan to ensure fiscal responsibility. Even the most recent FMPAC was given a preference of acquiring new land over using existing land by the LASD BOT. Who has done the comparison and analysis in an open public forum? What committee has shared the pros and cons of such a plan? What discussion has taken place publicly? How will tax payers know that the route to acquire land is the best use of tax dollars, unless there is a best base plan which to compare it?
I also encourage you to update the enrollment information in every chart to include the current school year enrollment data. The most recent enrollment data is important as it shows the enrollment decreases (more than 100 students) across LASD schools, while BCS is growing. Does it make sense to build capacity without the current enrollment included in the discussion?
Please develop and include your assumptions for facility standards for a k-5 campus. (Including the anticipated capacity for each campus). This is especially needed now as you are forced to prioritize spending initiatives and are consider moving to a middle school model. With limited resources you should want to ensure you do not overbuild any school sites. Please include a density calculation (acres per student) for each of the campuses with these standards.
Please update the yield numbers from new construction which has been completed already. The data will show that the new construction attracts new professionals, not families. Therefore the historic assumptions from these projects have been inflated over reality.
Please update the estimated timeline for new units coming on-line with the latest data. It is important as you make assumptions regarding the timing of these projects impact your enrollment.
Please share the BCS brainstorming discussion and facilities plans and needs. After all, every other public school in the district has their facility needs presented. What is the purpose in excluding including the BCS materials from the discussion ? BCS is the the only public school which is 100% housed in temporary facilities. Why is this information omitted for BCS?
Most of all, make sure your plan is aligned with prior committee recommendations and priorities. With a project list requiring more than double the dollars available from the current bond, prioritization of needs is paramount. The FMPAC discussed priorities and even developed rankings for spending priorities. It was determined that educational spaces should be prioritized over either administrative spaces or solar projects. However, this prioritization have not been followed.
In all, I encourage you to be leaders to ensure that all of our public school facilities are equitable and support the learning for each and every student.
Voter and Resident Los Altos
Ap 23, Full Agenda
Item I.1 Draft Facilities Master Plan
A. Presentation – LASD Master Plan 2018
B. Draft Facilities Master Plan
Lalahpolitico: Looks like FMPC will work through the summer….report to board sept-oct 2018. with their feedback about any unfinished business.
But the Architect and staff are to complete the report, not the FMPC.