BURTON SCHOOL BOARD DISCUSSES OPTIONS AFTER BOND ISSUE FAILURE

Mark Whitehead November 17, 2016

2 158

The Burton School Board began discussion of what direction they will go after the failure of the school improvement bond issue. The 18 million dollar bond issue was rejected by district voters 556 to 389 last week. Board President Demetrius Colvin said he is in favor of moving forward with another bond election, but breaking the improvements into smaller pieces, not just the whole pie at once. Board member Felton Cox said that he feels the board needs to look at keeping the current football field, but relocate the parking so that classrooms could be built in that area. School Superintendent Dr. Edna Kennedy reminded the board members that the next election that a bond issue could be on is May 6th of next year and January 16th is the last date to file to put a bond issue on the ballot. She also stated that the architect and the bond advisor had already been contacted to look into other options. The board agreed to continue the discussion at their next meeting on December 15th at 5pm.

In other action, the board approved two resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the next state legislature. One is supporting a coalition of districts experiencing a value decline in their tax base, and the other seeks to adjust the appropriation of funds to small school districts.

The board also heard a report from Richard Gibbens of Way Service on the energy usage by the district. Burton ISD contracted with Way in 2014 to identify what lighting and heating and air conditioning needed to be replaced in order to save electricity. Last year, the district saved $33,000 in energy costs due to the changes. Because this was greater than the amount predicted by Way, the district received the “Green Pig” award from the state.

green-pig-award — Board President Demetrius Colvin accepts the "Green Pig" award for energy savings on behalf of Burton ISD from Richard Gibbens of Way Service.

kathy-shedd — Burton board members listen as instructor Kathy Shedd (right) explains how her students use their chrome book laptops to make virtual notebooks online to keep all of their assignments and notes for her class.

What’s your Reaction?

Mark Whitehead November 17, 2016

2 158

These are interesting points presented by ALARMED. I would be interested in a response from the Burton ISD superintendent. The superintendent could provide great insight and dispel the charges of a “lack of transparency”.

As is the case any time people base arguments on statistics, it is important to understand the source of the numbers used to get the final tally. In ALARMED’s case, they commit the same mistake by not explaining what process and “facts” were used to make their claim. Until both sides can agree on “facts presented” to be accurate, and can be explained by the District, the taxpayers/voters are justified in not trusting the figures presented by the District. But, the taxpayers should also question the figures presented by ALARMED and request they present their “facts”.

As to the need for an elevator, the enrollment or the number of people using it is not the factor. Due to federal law regarding Handicapped and Disabled, a public building, including stadiums, gyms, and schools must accommodate them if there is a second floor or higher. The alternative to an elevator would be ramps. The ramps cannot exceed a regulated incline over distance and after so many feet there must be a landing to allow recovery before proceeding to the next ramp. Last week I was in the new CyFair Stadium. The visitor side had six ramps that were about thirty yards long, with landings several square feet in size at each end or turn. That is a lot of concrete, but probably cheaper than installing and maintaining an elevator. So, ALARMED makes a point that has alternatives.

The argument about transparency is valid in other respects as to how the $18 million will be spent. Are we going to use existing stands and lighting? Does the new stadium include chairs or just stands? Are the new dressing areas going to be built with siding or concrete walls? Since it will be used for about 10-12 weekends a year, will there be thermostats controlled by computer to turn the heating and cooling to cost efficient settings when not in use? Are the inside walls inside and going to be block tile or plywood or something else? Can some items be adjusted in material, construction methods, energy savings, etc to pare down the costs? If the voter is not given architectural renderings or specs, then the assumption is the District wants $18 million and will spend it on high end materials and design costs that add no function or utility.

As for ALARMED’s claims that there property not being used, and thus the football stadium should be kept as is, that argument can be easily dismissed. Any new classrooms would need to be in close proximity to existing facilities. That would allow access to library, cafeteria, gym, auditorium and ban hall. Any stupidest attending classes in new construction would need access to those facilities. The students do not stay in one classroom all day. They travel from one building to another, and they have limited time between class to get to the next one.

Also, if the District has online a map of Burton ISD property other limiting factors can be pointed out. For one the current property is divided by a large drainage ditch. On either side of that ditch the flood zone as defined by federal survey extends to within several feet of current facilities. In fact part of the Elementary parking lot is within just a few feet of the flood zone, as is the current Fieldhouse. On the other side of the ditch the softball field borders on the flood zone. The area behind the softball field contains the District fuel depot and storage buildings. The area around the baseball field is parking, bus parking and the Maintenance Building. All that remains of any size or with access is the area past the football field and adjacent to the Ag building. If one were to choose where to build classroom facilities that would be in place for up to forty years, I would choose the current football site.

If you choose the area by the Ag shop, there are some negatives:
1. Distance between classes, library, cafeteria, etc is increased by two hundred yards.
2. The cost of getting water, sewer, electricity, parking lot, sidewalks, covered walks for inclement weather, and technology to that building are more than placing it next to existing infrastructure.
3. Security of facility and students becomes an issue. At present the district has thirty students at a time walking to and from classes in the Ag Shop. They are watched by the Ag teacher on most days. Putting a classroom building with four additional classrooms puts up to 75-100 students walking each hour.
4. In between the two buildings you have the football field, that is not monitored or used except about two hours a day, mainly during football season.

The positive of placing the buildings on the property by the Ag building would be that you save by not spending money on a football field. However, consider the costs above, plus the positives:

1. The District NEVER heavily invested in the current football site. So they are not tearing up an expensive site or previous bond money.
2. The District spent $75,000 on lighting which could be utilized to light any new parking or buildings.
3. The District spent $125 to purchase the visitor stands from Washington County Fair Grounds, and that included the stands at the softball field. Those stands could be added to the new field on the visitor side.
4. The District spent $8,000 with the Department of corrections to put aluminum seating on the visitor and home stands, plus erect the fence on the visitor side. These could be used in part for seating on visitor side or home side. They are easy to take down in sections.
5. A sprinkler system was installed for $3800.
6. District maintenance staff tore down old stands and erected the re-cycled stands.
7. The Ag teacher maintained the field and built the home side fence.
8. The current Fieldhouse was re-purposes 15 years ago, a new roof, plumbing and air conditioned for $5,000. It may still be used if a bond passes.
9. The site is level and stable so cost savings in construction.

The District has NEVER had a track, something most Districts have. The voters could use it in the early morning or late afternoon to exercise. Lighting can be available on a timer for late use. It would not be all the lights, but enough to walk the track. Bond money would be used to purchase all the equipment needed to run track meets. In my experience, a new track, football field, locker rooms, lighting, seating and concessions costs from $2-4 million, depending on materials, seating and size of locker rooms, etc.

If anyone has attended a basketball or volleyball game, you have seen the cars parked on both sides of the street in front of the old gym. If you watched, the seating was packed, people sometimes stood inside along the back walls. The teams sit on the same seating as fans, so the fans are right over their shoulde. That really is a bother in volleyball when teams switch benches after a game. The out of bounds all around is about five feet. A new gym would be about $2-3 million. That would include parking and adjustments based on capacity seating and locker room size.

And yes, you hire an architect before the bond passes. The architect can provide a good estimate of cost of construction based on class size, grade level, construction similar to existing structures, construction costs per square foot, parking based on staffing levels and capacity. The architect’s contract is negotiated once the Board decides to pursue a bond. The architect is the professional that makes a determination on how much it will cost per the Board’s scope of construction. They will determine the square footage footprint. They will also advise on the site based on access to water, electricity, sewage, drainage, parking, traffic flow, safety, security and function. They will then put the square footage as a footprint on the map along with parking and sidewalks. They will include a visionary representation of what the outside will look like from the side and above. If it classrooms, they may include a drawing of a sample classroom. That work will be say 15% of their contract. They will be paid for those services. They will not be paid for any other work unless the Board requests it or if the Bond passes.

Hope the Burton ISD Administration can answer some of ALARMED’s concerns and criticism’s. That would be one their roles in this situation, to provide answers and information. ALARMED has done a good job of explaining their concerns about transparency, explanation of what the $18 million will used for in more specific terms, their ideas about using other sites and how the District came to the figure advertised as average cost. They did not seem unreasonable, instead ALARMED requested more info. It is time for someone to step and be recognized.

2 Comments

Alarmed Burton School District resident says:

November 18, 2016 at 7:29 am

To the members of the Burton School Board maybe you missed the news but the voters in the district overwhelmingly (59%) of the persons that voted said NO! The major issue with the last bond election was lack of transparency with the numbers and what was intended to be done with 18 million dollars. The tax increase amount was inaccurate since the basis for the amount of additional property tax was based on homes inside the City of Burton and not on houses in the County that are inside the Burton School District. According to KWHI reporting the following was stated “31 cent increase in the District’s tax rate, with the average homeowner’s taxes rising $494 in 2017.” I have done research and the proposed increase of $494 dollars applies to only a small portion of the residence inside the school district (mostly inside the city) while the majority of residence (mostly outside the city) would have had to pay a lot of more money because of there valuation.

Additionally, in a school district with less than 500 students a NEW FOOTBALL STADIUM with an elevator to the press box is not needed since a small minority of the students will ever use the field (football team, band, cheerleaders, etc). The statement that the old field needed to be removed to build school buildings is false as well since Burton School District has a lot of property that is not being used.

Based on these concerns the idea of passing other bonds in smaller amounts to get to the required 18 million causes concern and hopefully will not happen. Additionally, is it normal practice to hire a architect before the bond has even been presented to the voters? Wonder how much the architect is being paid without a project to design!
1. Jim says:
  
  November 19, 2016 at 11:56 am
  
  These are interesting points presented by ALARMED. I would be interested in a response from the Burton ISD superintendent. The superintendent could provide great insight and dispel the charges of a “lack of transparency”.
  
  As is the case any time people base arguments on statistics, it is important to understand the source of the numbers used to get the final tally. In ALARMED’s case, they commit the same mistake by not explaining what process and “facts” were used to make their claim. Until both sides can agree on “facts presented” to be accurate, and can be explained by the District, the taxpayers/voters are justified in not trusting the figures presented by the District. But, the taxpayers should also question the figures presented by ALARMED and request they present their “facts”.
  
  As to the need for an elevator, the enrollment or the number of people using it is not the factor. Due to federal law regarding Handicapped and Disabled, a public building, including stadiums, gyms, and schools must accommodate them if there is a second floor or higher. The alternative to an elevator would be ramps. The ramps cannot exceed a regulated incline over distance and after so many feet there must be a landing to allow recovery before proceeding to the next ramp. Last week I was in the new CyFair Stadium. The visitor side had six ramps that were about thirty yards long, with landings several square feet in size at each end or turn. That is a lot of concrete, but probably cheaper than installing and maintaining an elevator. So, ALARMED makes a point that has alternatives.
  
  The argument about transparency is valid in other respects as to how the $18 million will be spent. Are we going to use existing stands and lighting? Does the new stadium include chairs or just stands? Are the new dressing areas going to be built with siding or concrete walls? Since it will be used for about 10-12 weekends a year, will there be thermostats controlled by computer to turn the heating and cooling to cost efficient settings when not in use? Are the inside walls inside and going to be block tile or plywood or something else? Can some items be adjusted in material, construction methods, energy savings, etc to pare down the costs? If the voter is not given architectural renderings or specs, then the assumption is the District wants $18 million and will spend it on high end materials and design costs that add no function or utility.
  
  As for ALARMED’s claims that there property not being used, and thus the football stadium should be kept as is, that argument can be easily dismissed. Any new classrooms would need to be in close proximity to existing facilities. That would allow access to library, cafeteria, gym, auditorium and ban hall. Any stupidest attending classes in new construction would need access to those facilities. The students do not stay in one classroom all day. They travel from one building to another, and they have limited time between class to get to the next one.
  
  Also, if the District has online a map of Burton ISD property other limiting factors can be pointed out. For one the current property is divided by a large drainage ditch. On either side of that ditch the flood zone as defined by federal survey extends to within several feet of current facilities. In fact part of the Elementary parking lot is within just a few feet of the flood zone, as is the current Fieldhouse. On the other side of the ditch the softball field borders on the flood zone. The area behind the softball field contains the District fuel depot and storage buildings. The area around the baseball field is parking, bus parking and the Maintenance Building. All that remains of any size or with access is the area past the football field and adjacent to the Ag building. If one were to choose where to build classroom facilities that would be in place for up to forty years, I would choose the current football site.
  
  If you choose the area by the Ag shop, there are some negatives:
  1. Distance between classes, library, cafeteria, etc is increased by two hundred yards.
  2. The cost of getting water, sewer, electricity, parking lot, sidewalks, covered walks for inclement weather, and technology to that building are more than placing it next to existing infrastructure.
  3. Security of facility and students becomes an issue. At present the district has thirty students at a time walking to and from classes in the Ag Shop. They are watched by the Ag teacher on most days. Putting a classroom building with four additional classrooms puts up to 75-100 students walking each hour.
  4. In between the two buildings you have the football field, that is not monitored or used except about two hours a day, mainly during football season.
  
  The positive of placing the buildings on the property by the Ag building would be that you save by not spending money on a football field. However, consider the costs above, plus the positives:
  
  1. The District NEVER heavily invested in the current football site. So they are not tearing up an expensive site or previous bond money.
  2. The District spent $75,000 on lighting which could be utilized to light any new parking or buildings.
  3. The District spent $125 to purchase the visitor stands from Washington County Fair Grounds, and that included the stands at the softball field. Those stands could be added to the new field on the visitor side.
  4. The District spent $8,000 with the Department of corrections to put aluminum seating on the visitor and home stands, plus erect the fence on the visitor side. These could be used in part for seating on visitor side or home side. They are easy to take down in sections.
  5. A sprinkler system was installed for $3800.
  6. District maintenance staff tore down old stands and erected the re-cycled stands.
  7. The Ag teacher maintained the field and built the home side fence.
  8. The current Fieldhouse was re-purposes 15 years ago, a new roof, plumbing and air conditioned for $5,000. It may still be used if a bond passes.
  9. The site is level and stable so cost savings in construction.
  
  The District has NEVER had a track, something most Districts have. The voters could use it in the early morning or late afternoon to exercise. Lighting can be available on a timer for late use. It would not be all the lights, but enough to walk the track. Bond money would be used to purchase all the equipment needed to run track meets. In my experience, a new track, football field, locker rooms, lighting, seating and concessions costs from $2-4 million, depending on materials, seating and size of locker rooms, etc.
  
  If anyone has attended a basketball or volleyball game, you have seen the cars parked on both sides of the street in front of the old gym. If you watched, the seating was packed, people sometimes stood inside along the back walls. The teams sit on the same seating as fans, so the fans are right over their shoulde. That really is a bother in volleyball when teams switch benches after a game. The out of bounds all around is about five feet. A new gym would be about $2-3 million. That would include parking and adjustments based on capacity seating and locker room size.
  
  And yes, you hire an architect before the bond passes. The architect can provide a good estimate of cost of construction based on class size, grade level, construction similar to existing structures, construction costs per square foot, parking based on staffing levels and capacity. The architect’s contract is negotiated once the Board decides to pursue a bond. The architect is the professional that makes a determination on how much it will cost per the Board’s scope of construction. They will determine the square footage footprint. They will also advise on the site based on access to water, electricity, sewage, drainage, parking, traffic flow, safety, security and function. They will then put the square footage as a footprint on the map along with parking and sidewalks. They will include a visionary representation of what the outside will look like from the side and above. If it classrooms, they may include a drawing of a sample classroom. That work will be say 15% of their contract. They will be paid for those services. They will not be paid for any other work unless the Board requests it or if the Bond passes.
  
  Hope the Burton ISD Administration can answer some of ALARMED’s concerns and criticism’s. That would be one their roles in this situation, to provide answers and information. ALARMED has done a good job of explaining their concerns about transparency, explanation of what the $18 million will used for in more specific terms, their ideas about using other sites and how the District came to the figure advertised as average cost. They did not seem unreasonable, instead ALARMED requested more info. It is time for someone to step and be recognized.