STEVE SMITH -- What’s Up?

You’re being told that the $163 million needed by the school district is

for “brick-and-mortar” projects and “only brick-and-mortar” projects.

“Brick and mortar” is the term that was used by Harbor Council PTA

president Jill Money in a quote appearing in the Pilot a few days ago,

when she described the difference between the recently failed Irvine

school bond and the one we’re to vote on June 6.

The impression proponents want you to have is that without this money,

you’ll be able to knock down any school in the district with a feather.

But an examination of the district’s educational facilities master plan

reveals that a huge chunk of the money ($110 million from a bond and $53

million in matching funds from the state) will fund nonessential repairs

and upgrades.

Let’s start with the biggest chunk. Of the $163 million the district

would like property owners to give them, the biggest line item is for

“implementation.” For the uninitiated, “implementation” is how much it

will cost to spend your money.

Specifically, implementation money is used for plan check fees, project

management, design services, testing and inspection, interim housing and

a built-in 10% contingency budget, also known as cost overrun.

In the business world, we know that it “takes money to make money,” but

we see now that in the world of public tax money it “takes money to spend

money.”

In this case, the amount of money it will take to spend your money is

$50,618,110. That’s about 30% of the tax dollars they want. So if the

bond passes, you’ll vote to use $50 million to spend $113 million.

There’s more. According to the plan, Eastbluff Elementary School, which

opened only eight months ago, needs $701,250 to pay for health and safety

code compliance, infrastructure, building improvements and repairs, site

improvements and repairs, additional instructional and educational

support areas (that’s more district-speak for portable classrooms) and

the aforementioned implementation.

Excuse me, but shouldn’t all of this have been done before the school

reopened late last year? That Eastbluff money includes $140,250 for

implementation, a cost we can assume would have been avoided had the

project overseers been acting responsibly when they were rebuilding

Eastbluff last year.

And who oversaw the project that didn’t bring the school in line with the

safety code and other missing construction links? The same people who

want you to give them 110 million more dollars in six weeks.

Looking at the report, one wonders what the broad definition of “brick

and mortar” is. There is, for example, money set aside for “lunch shade

covers” at several schools, including Victoria Elementary, Whittier

Elementary and Kaiser Elementary. Not only is this not “brick and

mortar,” but all of these schools already have lunch shade covers.

In the case of Victoria, the PTA worked hard selling fireworks and making

pests of our kids who hit up every aunt, uncle and neighbor to buy candy

bars and gift wrap to fund the $10,000 needed to erect the structure last

year.

There’s more. How about bond funding for an electronic marquee at

TeWinkle Intermediate? That is an actual item from a budget of $385,000

for “Site Improvement/Repairs.”

For many schools, there is $48,000 set aside for portable classrooms.

Because of overcrowding? No, because of a need called “program

designations to be determined later.”Still, there’s more. In what must

have been a secret study commissioned by the school board, they have

learned that upgrades to the sound system, drapes and lighting for Loats

Performing Arts Facility at Newport Harbor High School will be directly

responsible for an increase in test scores. How else to explain their

presence in a budget allowance of $905,000 for the facility?

This bond is not strictly for health and safety code upgrades. It is not

strictly for the repair of leaky roofs and crumbling bathrooms, as you

have been led to believe. Were it only for that, I’d be a good chunk of

the way to endorsing it.

Instead, we find that this bond is a wish list of gifts from the property

owners (renters get a free ride), who are expected to play either Santa

Claus to bestow gifts on June 6, or the Lone Ranger to bail out a school

board that has been neglecting the real repairs -- the real

brick-and-mortar stuff -- for years.

This is not the bond you thought it was. This bond should be withdrawn

and resubmitted without the pork and with a body other than the trustees

to oversee it.

If ever there was proof that our best interests are not being served, it

is in black and white in the Facilities Report.

It’s time for some answers from our elected officials on the board, not

from the regulars who have graced the pages of this paper in rebuttal to

these columns.

For the board members to hide in this manner is an insult to the property

owners who are being asked to foot the bill for this fiasco.

More to come, including more “brick-and-mortar” projects.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and freelance writer.