Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, January 16, 2013, 9:24 AM                                             

School board gives go-ahead to Bowman talks
Acquisition of school adjacent to Terman could offer efficient expansion option, officials say

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 11 hours ago

I wonder where the money will come from? Hopefully the builders development fees for schools impact will be put towards this. I would like to know where this money goes as we had to pay a tidy sum when we remodeled our home and I hope it just did not go into the general fund.

As for Bowman, what about the Ventura site. Last time I saw it it was in a delapidated state and I think the Y uses it, but it may prove to be more useful if renovated for something like Bowman.

Posted by Mom, a resident of the Old Palo Alto neighborhood, 10 hours ago

If Bowman is in the market for a larger site, why not sell Terman to them and then put a third, larger middle school at Cubberly?

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, 10 hours ago

I think that Garland/Stratford should be considered as part of a middle school expansion also since it is next to Jordan and we own it already.

Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 9 hours ago

> I wonder where the money will come from?

The PAUSD was able to con the voters into passing a $375M bond a few years back. The spending authority given to the District was quite broad--including buying new land.

How long have you lived in Palo Alto? Did you vote in that election? If so, did you read the literature--or just vote Yes--without even thinking about the matter?

Posted by Utter Stu, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, 9 hours ago

Half of what the school board does is grandstanding. There's no accountability of the Superintendent. They haven't stood up to him once.

I don't expect any sensible action out of this so-called organization.

Posted by member, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, 9 hours ago

Traffic will increase even more by adding 350 more students to the Terman site, and it is already horrendous on the south side thanks to all the road changes and new building...housing and commercial. Now that my kids are out of the school system, I hope to one day move to another city where better planning is implemented. This is not a cute place anymore.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, 8 hours ago

So far I am neutral about acquiring back the school land on which Bowman school currently sits. As someone who has lived here on and off for many years, I happen to think PAUSD should never have sold it in the first place - unwise decision... With some foresight and creative outlook, expansion of now tiny Terman should have been on the radar.

I agree the middle schools should be of approximate same size. Otherwise the ones in the larger populated school may suffer. My kids experienced some bullying at Jordan; I don't think it would have been as likely to have occurred at Terman. (Understand the supervising personnel have changed at Jordan and no comment is directed at current administrators there.)

As a taxpayer, I am puzzled to read in today's Daily Post, page 1 and 22:

"However, Bowman would require "significant" earthquake upgrades to bring it up to code, said Superintendent Kevin Skelly.

This would be an alternative to trying to open a fourth middle school, and less costly, said Skelly.

The district estimates a savings of $1 million in annual operating costs when compared with opening a fourth middle school."

ok, so whatever scenario they opt for, it will be expensive.

Do I gather-

Bowman is not up to current code.

If and when they sell, PA taxpayers would be on the hook for bringing the facilities up to code.

Why is Bowman not required to be up to code? If PA building dept found out any of us homeowners are not up to code - have a code violation of any sort - they can require it to be remedied. And, at time of sale, they certainly can require current code to be met on a whole realm of aspects - smoke detectors, no illegal remodelling and on and on.

-But in this case, PAUSD appears to be weak and willing for us taxpayers to assume the expense of bringing Bowman up to code for their (PAUSD) occupancy?!

I don't get it.

Someone needs to look out for us taxpayers on these matters.

Posted by Wondering too, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 8 hours ago

@Wondering,

I don't mind the district having flexibility in implementing a bond, I just have a lot of trouble with what's being done (or not being done).

I look at all this flurry of activity, and I don't see our aging facilities being replaced. At Terman, they added a nice new building for the administrators, and a new drama room or something like that, but the aging, stinky old classrooms that are cramped aren't even getting a new coat of paint. I see some new hardscape, that's it. At JLS, they're putting in a new building and the principal isn't even sure exactly what's going to go there, and again, there is no plan to rehabilitate or replace the majority of the aging classrooms, the gym, or do anything about the flooding around them when it rains.

The intention of this bond, what I thought I was supporting and voting for, was to replace and rehabilitate our school buildings, but for the most part, I see a lot of expensive bells and whistles and very little of what was originally intended.

Web Link

According to this state of California link, the cost of constructing an elementary school is about $10M, a middle school about $18M and a high school about $40M. We have 13 elementary schools? According to these projected costs, we could have replaced them all for $130M, replaced the middle schools for $50M, and replaced the high schools for $80M. That totals $260M, so if you think despite the down economy that our area costs more, even 50% more (!!!) we still could have gotten all or mostly brand new schools for the amount of money we taxed ourselves. Someone with vision could probably have finessed a deal to help bring the per site cost down if we were going to do all the schools.

And yet, not a single one of our schools is being replaced, and despite the flurry of activity, I see very little actually being done. I'm at the point of wondering if we should be looking for Swiss bank accounts.

Posted by palo alto mom, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, 7 hours ago

Wondering - the school construction cost estimates are from 2009 and specifically say "Local costs may vary due to district educational program needs and the local building economy." Just think about housing costs - how much does it cost to build a house in Palo Alto vs. Sacramento?

Regarding the code issues - it may be that California Public Schools have different earthquake codes than private schools.

Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 7 hours ago

> According to this state of California link

Well .. yes .. but keep in mind that these are really just guidelines. The current cost of new public school construction in CA is probably closer to $1,200/sq.ft.

> And yet, not a single one of our schools is being replaced

You should have read the fine print of the campaign literature (and ballot language). Although a Prop.39 election requires that the school district provide a complete list of construction projects that the bond money should be applied against—the Courts have allowed School Districts to spend the money anyway they want—once authorized by the voters.

That’s why I used the word “con” in my first posting. There was very little truth in the Vote-Yes campaign for Measure A.

Posted by Doesn't it equal out?, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, 6 hours ago

"Traffic will increase even more by adding 350 more students to the Terman site"

But what about the effect of removing the Bowman students?

Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 6 hours ago

Bowman traffic is probably higher than an extension to the Terman site because Bowman is private and has a lot of pupils from outside the present Terman boundaries. More Terman students should be biking or walking than at present come to Bowman from out of town.

The Bond (which I do understand) is not an infinite amount of money. There is the purchase of the site beside Greendell as well as the cost of opening another elementary school. The purchase of Bowman and the cost of altering the existing buildings (??) is still another good question.

My point about the developers school impact fees being accounted for is still valid. Are these fees set aside for school improvements in a fund somewhere, or are they just lost in the accounting of general funds?

Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 5 hours ago

> Are these fees set aside for school improvements

> in a fund somewhere,

Yes.

Posted by Wondering too, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 5 hours ago

@Wondering and Palo Alto mom,

PA mom - because of the economy, construction costs are actually LOWER today than in 2009. Recall, 2009 was when the market peaked. It would be really nice if people got familiar with the issues before making strong statements. Sure, it's more expensive to build here than Sacramento. But specifically in this situation? How much more? Not 50% more (do not confuse real estate cost with building cost, the land is the big difference between here and Sacramento, and we already own the land).

Even if we assume our building costs are 50% more here, we still had enough to substantially replace the buildings, even if we assume our administrators are too dumb to negotiate economies of scale for a whole district's worth of construction, which I don't think, and too arrogant to consult the guide the state produced on how to keep down the cost of school construction. Oh, wait.... Not only did they not consult that guide, they did many things in the most expensive ways possible.

We could have substantially replaced most of these campuses with new buildings. Think about it -- we just built a new giant library and community center for $40 million, and there are no economies of scale there, it's a one of. Yet we haven't managed to substantially replace ANY of the aging school facilities.

Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 5 hours ago

> Even if we assume our building costs are 50% more here, we still

> had enough to substantially replace the buildings

Without doing the detailed design, this kind of claim is probably not likely to prove true.

Please keep in mind that no one replaces a public building--they always increase the size, the scale and granduer--if only for the glory of the people who had the vision to push the project.

> library for $40M.

Costs for schools are quite a bit higher than other public buildings. Lots of reasons, but nonetheless true. And, since this library has turned out to be badly managed, and is still not complete--it's very likely to cost a bit more than expected.

Posted by Wondering?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 5 hours ago

Here's an example of just how costly schools can be these days:

RFK is LAUSD's most costly campus – and it needs more cash:

Web Link

Posted by Wrong Reporting, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, 1 hour ago

The reporting on the Bowman site has been wrong. The land on which Bowman sits NEVER EVER belonged to the PAUSD.

Some 45 years ago that site belonged to a Mother and Son who ran a pre-school, I know because my sons now in their 40s went there. They sold the land to a private school who built the present yellow sided school buildings and operated there until they sold it to Bowman.

The area which was owned by the PAUSD and subsequently sold to the City is where the low cost housing is presently located. The subsidized condos were built by the City.