HBCSD Corruption

March 30, 2005 – Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

4-Old Business:

1.       “The current estimate for total project is $16.9 million showing a $1.3 million overrun to the Bond Measure J total funds of $15.6 million.”… 

2.       “There was a discussion of a plan to restructure the existing bonds to generate an additional $200k.  There is an open question about the amount of new fees, if any, that will be required to pursue restructuring.” 

April 8, 2005 – Committee for Responsible School Expansion (aka Mr. Jerry Compton) files a petition for writ of mandate, challenging the legality of the school district’s approval of the plan for development of the gymnasium. 

1.       The Introduction to the Petitioner’s (Jerry Compton) Opening Brief states: “…the School District did not ensure the Gymnasium was listed on the ballot or in ballot materials sent to voters, in violation [of] the state constitution, which requires that voters be given a list of specific projects to be funded.  This violation was all the more egregious because the Gymnasium will consume approximately 43% of Measure J funds as the single largest component of Measure J expenditures, and evidence shows the School District knew the public did not view the Gymnasium as important enough to spend scarce funds upon when new classrooms were needed more.” 

2.       The Introduction also states  … “The School District’s Facilities Master Plan required for a bond measure under Proposition 39 includes the need for eight new classrooms and the replacement of four portable classrooms. (4:1873) However, the School District voted to build a high school regulation size Gymnasium on an elementary/middle school site for the Gymnasium’s money-making capabilities at the expense of building new classrooms as promised in the bond measure.” 

3.       An issue brought by the lawsuit was the district’s desire to build a “Joint Use” gym with the Beach Cities Health District which would also be rented out after school and on weekends and used as the district’s “money center” with Measure J funds. 

4.       See also:  June 2002 – Survey of voter attitudes toward the district’s planned facilities bond by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc. 

April 14, 2005 – Lawsuit filed against Valley School gym by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1.       “The lawsuit, filed Friday in Superior Court by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion, claims that the city school board did not take adequate measures to ease noise, traffic and parking congestion in the surrounding neighborhood.”

2.       … a “large contingent’ of the membership simply wants the school board to make the project “less burdensome” on the neighbors.  School neighbor Douglas Robins said he believes an “overwhelming” majority of neighbors want the gym project modified, not halted.  He said the neighbors filed the lawsuit to make sure their concerns would be addressed, adding that the statue of limitations for such a lawsuit would have soon expired.”

3.       “It’s first amended petition, filed two weeks later, added a cause of action alleging that the School Board’s March 9, 2005 authorization of the expenditure of Measure J funds on a gymnasium project that was not disclosed to voters on the ballot violates the requirements of the California Constitution and The Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000.” 

4.       “Ballot snafu.  The 2002 citywide election also has been called into question.  School board members last week acknowledged that the ballots in the polling place did not contain the full text of Measure J, which asked the public for the school bonds.  School district officials and the district’s bond counsel were trying to determine how that happened, [Superintendent] McClain said.”

5.       NOTE:  On both bond language examples (June 2002 and November 2002), classrooms are given high priority, and the gymnasium is not mentioned.  While in reality the gymnasium is given the highest priority by school board members.   Was leaving mention of the gymnasium off the final ballot really an “oversight” by the school district as was claimed by Lance Widman?  Mention of the gymnasium was left off both the Voter Survey bond language AND the final Measure J Bond election ballot wording.  If a “mistake” is made twice was it really a “mistake”?  See also: Documents show gymnasium ballot lapse by Robb Fulcher, May 12, 2005 Easy Reader.

May 11, 2005 – HBCSD resolution no. 15:04/05 providing for the issuance and sale of REFUNDING BONDS.  Refunding bonds required that HBCSD take out an Escrow Agreement which was not finalized until FEBRUARY 23, 2006.* 

 *NOTE: School board members finally accepted construction bids in February 2006 after eliminating two more classrooms from the project.  Please see: February 17, 2006 - Final set of bids for new construction at Valley School. 

Was the decision NOT to accept the May 25, 2005 construction bids due to the April 8, 2005 lawsuit as school board members told the public?

- OR –

Were the real reasons school board members did not accept the May 25, 2005 bids because of the following issues?

#1.) Bids came in $2,612,485 over budget as confirmed at the June 1, 2005 Citizens’ Oversight Committee meeting.  Please see: June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes.

#2.) The Division of State Architects did not approve construction plans until July 1, 2005.  School districts need DSA approval before starting construction.   The DSA approval required that HBCSD perform additional excavation and retaining walls for the gym new construction at Valley School.  The higher cost of October 27, 2005 construction bids* reflected the new cost for construction with the DSA changes.

NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a new NOTE added to the October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review."  This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

#3.) The Coastal Commission did not approve the new gymnasium complex until early September 2005.  School districts need the Coastal Commission approval before building in the Coastal Zone.

#4.) The district was in the process of refinancing a portion of their earlier 2002 Series A bonds (see May 11, 2005, HBCSD resolution 15:04/05) and the amount of additional funds was not finalized until February 23,

2006.   School board members were not sure of the final amount of funding that would be available to construct the gymnasium complex until February 2006 when the transactions were completed.

Why would school board members purposely try to blame fellow residents for the increase in costs?

1.       To discredit the people who were questioning making the gymnasium the focus of Measure J facilities bond.

2.       To discredit the people who were bringing up questions about the school district’s use of the Community Center (aka Pier Avenue School) for students.

3.       To deflect the blame for the high cost of the gymnasium complex from their own decisions.

4.       To create an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ attitude within the community for political advantage.

5.       To try to shut-down “conversation” by community members who did not agree with school board members decisions.

6.       All the above.  Was the REAL reason that school board members were blaming residents for the high cost of the gym and the elimination of all but two classrooms was because building a gymnasium was part of a larger plan hatched by an unofficial clique of Hermosans to keep the school district out of the Community Center so that the city did not have to share it with the school district?

May 12, 2005 – Documents show gymnasium ballot lapse by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1.       “In a resolution, adopted in July 2002, the school board directed the Registrar’s Office to include only a brief summary of the construction projects – with no mention of the gym – on the November 2002 ballot.”

2.       “Mix-up.  Current School Board President Lance Widman has blamed the mistake on a mix-up between the school district’s former bond attorney and the Registrar’s Office.  This week Widman said his view of the mix-up came from a “comment” made to the School Board.  “Some time ago that comment was made, and frankly I can’t recollect who said it.” Widman said.”

3.       “Full steam ahead.  Despite the lawsuit by the roughly 30-member Committee for Responsible School Expansion, Widman said the school board plans to seek a construction contractor and stay on course with the gym project.” … “but the lawsuit does not ask for a temporary halt to the project while those issues are thrashed out in court, Widman said.  “That’s right from the lawsuit itself.  There’s nothing in there that says we can’t pass go,” Widman said.  “… We are proceeding with what we’ve got to do.”

4.       Gym ‘not important’.  A pre-election survey by a school district consultant found that the gym was “not viewed as important” by residents.

Please see: June 2002 – Survey of voter attitudes toward the district’s planned Measure J facilities bond by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc. 

NOTE:  On both bond language examples (June 2002 and November 2002), classrooms are given high priority, and the gymnasium is not mentioned.  While in reality the gymnasium is given the highest priority by school board members.   Was leaving mention of the gymnasium off the final ballot really an oversight by the school district as was claimed by Lance Widman?  Mention of the gymnasium was left off both the Voter Survey bond language AND the final November election ballot wording.  If a “mistake” is made twice was it really a “mistake”?    See also: Documents show gymnasium ballot lapse by Robb Fulcher, May 12, 2005 Easy Reader.

5.       “Enough money?  Meanwhile a construction consultant has estimated that the school district has fallen about $1.3 million short in revenues needed to build the $6.3 million gym building.”… 

May 25, 2005  - First set of bids after the April lawsuit was brought by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (aka Mr. Jerry Compton).  Original Budget from December 2003 was $6,645,000.  The previous estimate from March 22, 2005 was $8,367,445.  May 25, 2005 estimate is $9,630,193.  Total program funding is listed as $14,625,328.  A $2,612,485 shortfall of funds is identified. 

June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

1.       “[Superintendent] Dr. McClain reviewed the Measure J list of projects and talked briefly about the lawsuit that has been filed by a group of neighbors, the Committee for Responsible School Expansion.  The lawsuit alleges CEQA violations specifically with 1) traffic mitigation and 2) noise mitigation.  Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the district cannot build the projects that were not listed in the voter pamphlet.  Exhibit B, the longer list that included the media center and the gymnasium, was the list that went to the county registrar.  Exhibit A, a shorter list, was in the pamphlet.  Representatives for the CRSE are set to meet with the District for mediation on Friday, 3, 2005.”

2.       Item 5. Old Business.  …”On the new construction [gymnasium at Valley School] the bids have come in at a level higher than our available funds.”…  “Shortfall  $2,612,000”

3.       “The bids for the new construction were opened on May 24th and they increased from an expected level of $6.3 million to $7.55 million (the bids include an allowance of $515 million.)  The bids are higher than expected because 1) material costs have escalated, 2) we had the [to] make two changes as directed by the Department of State Architects, and 3) “fear factor” on the [south side adjacent to the Marineland Mobile Home Park] retaining wall, so the contractor bid high.” … “The construction bids are good for 60 days so if we are going to act on this [these] bids the District must “pull the trigger” by July 24, 2005.”…  

NOTE: In addition to the three points listed above, refunding Series A bonds and Series B funds totaling approximately $4,020,600 (See School Board meeting of May 11, 2005; HBCSD resolution no. 15:04/05 providing for the issuance and sale of REFUNDING BONDS.) would not be finalized until February 2006, after which final bids were accepted. 

June 9, 2005 – Oversight chairman: gym is in jeopardy, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

1.       …“His [Sam Abrams, chairman of the Measure J Citizens’ Oversight Committee] committee learned last week that revenues from voter-approved construction bond fall $2.6 million short of funding the $7.6 million building [ultimately $11 million dollar complex].  A previous estimate by a consultant had the project at $1.3 million short, but the new figure is based on written bids submitted by construction contractors who want to do the job.”

2.        … “To keep the gym project alive, Abrams said, educators probably must: Hire a construction contractor by July 24, when the contractors’ current bids for the gym project expire”

3.        … “Fill in a $2.6 million shortfall using money from other sources, such as $1.3 million in [school district] reserves, $200,000 in fees charged to commercial developers in Hermosa, $200,000 that educators hope to get from refinancing some of the school bonds [Refinancing was not finalized and realized until February 2006],”

4.       “as much as $1.5 that educators hope to get from a special state fund for school construction.”

5.       “Get California Coastal Commission approval for the gym building within the next few weeks as well” [Coastal Commission approval was not granted until September 2005 with conditions.] …

NOTE: See below May 2005 – November 2005 – Emails between Citizens’ Oversight Committee members discussing the California Department of State Architecture additional requirements for increased reinforcement of retaining walls for the gymnasium complex at Valley School.   The Department of State Architects approved the Valley School new construction on July 1, 2005.  It is believed that a substantial portion of the increase in the gymnasium project was due to the additional DSA requirements for the new construction.

June 30, 2005 – HBCSD School board members

1.       Lance Widman, term expires 2009

2.       Gregory Breen, term expires 2009

3.       Linda Beck, term expires 2009

4.       Cathy McCurdy, term expires 2007

5.       Linda Wolin, term expires 2007

6.       Sharon McClain – Superintendent

June 30, 2005 – HBCSD Available Reserves (school district savings account) at June 30, 2005.

In 2003 available reserves were $529,699 or 7.2%  (Average Daily Attendance is 989)

In 2004 available reserves were $337,984 or 4.5%  (Average Daily Attendance is 1,012)

In 2005 available reserves were $225,960 or 2.9%  (Average Daily Attendance is 1,015) 

NOTE: HBCSD is required by law to hold at least 3% in reserves.

NOTE:  In 2000, before Measure J was passed, HBCSD reserves were 13.5% or $722,932 (Average Daily Attendance is 920 students).

NOTE: Because of HBCSD School Board members spent so much money on a low-priority gymnasium when HBCSD had use of a gymnasium for FREE at the Community Center, HBCSD entered the Great Recession (Dec. 2007 to June 2009) in a very bad financial position.

NOTE: School board members ended up taking more than $990,000 from district funds to fund/finish the new construction, even after deleting four classrooms from plans.  Please see: February 17, 2006 - Final set of bids for new construction at Valley School ,  June 2007 – HBCSD Purchase Orders over $500, July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Construction Management Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project.  B-10-07/08, July 18, 2007 – HBCSD Contract Extension for Architectural Services for the Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project.  B-11-07/08, October 4, 2007 – A&A Protective Services, Inc.*

NOTE: HBCSD School Board members also purchased an expensive and unnecessary update to the 2002 Facilities Master Plan from Architects Dougherty and Dougherty in 2009. The new update to the FMP was promptly shelved after it was created. Neither the 2002 FMP nor the update to the 2002 FMP done in 2009 were given to Facility Planning and Advisory members in January 2013. It is believed that the FMP "update" was a way of thanking Dougherty and Dougherty for their extra work on the unnecessary and costly gymnasium.

NOTE: By 2015 HBCSD school board members had amassed reserves of $2,949,713 or 25.5%.  In other words, $2.9M was held back from being spent on students or plant services while school board members waited to pass a $59M facilities bond. 

July 1, 2005 – Division of State Architects (DSA) approval of Valley School new construction (gymnasium, library and two science classrooms) with additional excavating and shoring requirements.  The original estimated amount was $4,800,000.  The date that the DSA received the district’s plans from HBCSD was 12/13/04.  Change order amount is listed as being $191,305.00.  The final construction cost was $8,302,889.00.  It is believed that the cost amount of $8,302,889.00* is for construction costs only and does not contain project soft costs such as architectural fees and construction management fees.  HBCSD CAN NOT START CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF PLANS FROM THE DSA. 

 NOTE: See also, May 2005, October 2005 and January 2006 – Soft Cost Summary changes:  There was a total increase of $950,242.86 in soft costs from May 2005 to January 2006.  The increase in soft costs from May 2005 through January 2006 were for geotechnical, architectural services, construction management, special testing (soil?)/inspecting, reproduction (for building plans), O.C.I.P Insurance and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

NOTE: September 9-10, 2006 – Emails between Citizens’ Oversight Committee members discussing the California Department of State Architecture additional requirements for increased reinforcement of retaining walls for the gymnasium complex at Valley School in May 2005.     According to the emails send between COC members, construction management firm PCM3 stated that $1.6 to $1.7 increase in costs from May 2005 to November 2005 was due to the DSA substantially increasing the reinforcement of the retaining walls next to Marineland Mobil Home Park.

A.      See also: May 2005, October 2005 and January 2006 – Soft Cost Summary changes.

B.      See also: Citizens Oversight Committee meeting minutes of April 19, 2006 which reports that $90,000.00 was spent on modifications to the retaining wall that abuts Marineland Mobile Home Park.  The $90,000.00 was not paid for through bond proceeds.  Was the $90k taken from school district funds used to pay for education or regular campus maintenance?  In addition, “it was pointed out that the new construction had to be redesigned several times as construction cost rose over the past two years, which contributed to the increased architectural fees…”  

C.      See also: Citizens Oversight Committee meeting minutes of November 2, 2005.  “PCM3 Representative Robert Stewart discussed modifications that will be made to the retaining wall that abuts the Marineland Mobile Home Park.  Such modifications are estimated to cost $180,000 and are included in estimates of total project costs provided to the Oversight Committee.”

August 10-12, 2005 – California Coastal Commission hearing regarding new construction at Valley School. 

September 2005 - California Coastal Commission gave a preliminary permit for new construction at Valley

School.  HBCSD CAN NOT START CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF PLANS FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION.  See also February 8, 2006 school board discussion S-34/05/06 regarding the preliminary permit status.  (Exhibit TL-2006Feb8)

September 1, 2005 – CRSE’d again by a member of the Committee for Responsible School Expansion, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News. 

1.       “The education of the children of Hermosa has always been a priority of its residents.  The taxpayers have built five elementary schools and a junior high school in Hermosa Beach with the belief that this is one of the finest cities in the world to raise children.  The School Board of Hermosa seems to see things differently.  Over the years, due to a variety of circumstances, the District has sold half of our original school.  The last to be sold by the District was Pier Avenue Junior High, which included a gymnasium, auditorium, tennis courts and eighteen classrooms, for $550,000.”

2.       … “The funds from the $14 million-plus bond promised to take care of the needs of the school district for the next 10 years but will disappear by building this gym.  At a cost of almost $7 million [final cost is $11.5 million See 2009 Citizens’ Oversight Committee Final Report], gym construction will take the remainder of the bond funds and some of the School District reserves to complete.”

3.       … “The Committee for Responsible School Expansion is asking the Board to stop its all-out quest to build this gymnasium long enough to form a consensus on the real needs of this school district.  Build the classrooms you promised.  Take stock of all the Hermosa school resources.  Create a plan that includes a future that allows more children to attend school in our wonderful city.”

September 13, 2005 – Measure J Bond Proceeds: Bonds yet to be sold (Second Sale) = $4,020,600.  As of

September 13th, school board members had NOT YET sold the second set of bonds.  Projected Bond Refinance Funding = $200,000.  NOTE: As of September 13th, School board members did NOT know how much the bond refinance (refunding) would net.  The final bond refunding sale would not be realized until February 2006. 

October 27, 2005 – Second set of bids received after the April lawsuit was brought by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (aka Mr. Jerry Compton).

Original Budget from December 2003 was $4,980,150 for hard costs and $1,664,850 for soft costs for a total of $6,645,000.  The previous estimate from May 25, 2005 was $7,555,344 for hard costs and $2,171,890 for soft costs for a total of $9,727,234.  In October 2005, hard costs were estimated to be $8,193,105 less two classrooms at $700,000 and soft costs are now estimated to be $2,736,549 for a total cost of $10,229,654. 

Apparently hard cost rose by $637,761 from May 2005 to October 2005 ($8,193,105 - $7,555,344).  Soft costs rose by $564,659 from May 2005 to October 2005.   The increase in soft costs were for geotechnical, architectural fees, construction management and reproduction costs which would correspond to additional excavation and shoring requirements issued by the DSA in its July 2005 approval of new construction plans.*  How much of the hard cost increase of $637,761 in October 2005 was also due to the additional excavation and south retaining wall requirements by the DSA in July 2005?   Therefore, was the increase in costs from May 25, 2005 to October 27, 2005 due to a general increase in prices OR were the increase in costs due to the additional excavation and stronger retaining wall requirements that were imposed by the Department of State Architects in their July 2005 plan approval? 

The increase in Total Program Funding is now listed as $16,325,328.  A shortfall of $1,511,946 is still identified.

NOTE:  Projected Bond Refunding is listed as $200,000.**  See February 23, 2006 – Refunding bonds finalized.

*NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a new NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review.  This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

NOTE:  See also: April 12, 2006 – HBCSD School Board Meeting of April 12, 2006, minutes:  “Mr. Birjandi, Project Manager for PCM3, gave a review of the latest work on the construction site at Hermosa Valley School.  He stated that soldier beams were being placed into ground approximately 40 feet deep.  He also said that the plans for the south wall construction are at the Department of State Architects waiting approval, and the plans are not expected back to the district for another two weeks.  Once the plans are returned, construction on the south wall will begin.  Mr. Birjandi spoke with the City of Hermosa Beach regarding the sewer line, and it appears that the district will pay for the new line.  Mr. Birjandi also stated that most of the unknowns underground have been discovered, and the contractors are now clear on what material needs to be purchased.”

November 2005 – Litigation brought by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion in April 2005 is

settled by the Superior Court.  All claims from the lawsuit were dismissed.   The ruling states: “Neither the state constitution nor the Education Code requires that the list of specific school facilities projects to be funded through a bond measure be included on the ballot.”

November 2005 – HBCSD New Construction Scope vs. Time Illustration by PCM3, Inc.

Original scope (school board members’ plans) for the new construction at Valley School was $13 million dollars.   Original budget for the original scope was $4.9 million dollars.  According to this document the difference between the original scope of the new construction at Valley School and the original budget at 1st Qtr. 2003 was $8.1 million.

1.       School board members spent from 1st Qtr. 2003 to 2nd Qtr. 2005 developing the district’s new construction plan while construction costs rose.

2.       From 4th Qtr. 2004 to May 2005 cost per square foot increased by $105/sq ft.

3.       According to this document the cost per square foot only increased by $10 from May 2005 to November 2005.   This was also the time frame in which school board members blamed the CRSE lawsuit for the increase in construction costs.  School board members claimed that the cost increase of $10/sq ft between the May 2005 bids and October 2005 bids forced the school board to eliminate two classrooms from the final new construction plans.

4.       Was the elimination of two more classrooms from the new construction final bids actually a result of the $105/sq ft price increase from 4th Qtr 2004 to May 2005 and not the lawsuit brought in April 2005 by Hermosa Valley residents?  Afterall the May 2005 bids had already come in $2.6M over budget, even though school board members did not announce the elimination of two more classrooms until they received the October 26, 2005 bids.  Did school board members delay announcing the elimination of two more classrooms, even though based on the May 2005 bids the ‘writing was on the wall’ that the district would need to eliminate two more classrooms?  Did the lawsuit just give school board members ‘cover’ when the time came to admit they needed to eliminate two more classrooms from plans to save the gymnasium?

5.       See also: June 9, 2005 – Oversight chairman: gym is in jeopardy, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News.

…“His [Sam Abrams, chairman of the Measure J Citizens’ Oversight Committee] committee learned last week that revenues from voter-approved construction bond fall $2.6 million short of funding the $7.6 million building [ultimately $11 million dollar complex].  A previous estimate by a consultant had the project at $1.3 million short, but the new figure is based on written bids submitted by construction contractors who want to do the job.”

November 2, 2005 – Measure J Citizen’s Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes.

5 – Financial Update

“Mr. Stewart [PCM3 Representative] reviewed with the committee the PCM3-prepared Construction Program Budget dated October 27, 2005 (attached).  Current estimates of total construction costs are $17,837,274; these estimates do not include two classrooms in the new building that were part of the original plans.  These classrooms were removed to reduce costs….”

“Current estimates of construction funding are $16,325,328 which indicates that total construction costs not currently funded are $1,511,946. ...”

November 10, 2005 – Hermosa School District’s new math by Gordon Evans, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News. 

“The Hermosa Beach School Board included “purchasing property” in Measure J to assure voters that open space would be increased on the overcrowded Valley School campus.  It did not include a gym or joint venture with the Beach Cities Health District because they were unpopular with voters.”

THE ABOVE IS A CORRECT STATEMENT BY GORDON EVANS:

1.       Please see:  June 2002 – Survey of voter attitudes toward the district’s planned facilities bond by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc.: 

a.       First attempt at bond language: Slide 5: “To modernize, repair and renovate Hermosa Valley and Hermosa View Schools, enhance technology capabilities, construct additional classrooms and student facilities, upgrade safety systems, upgrade electrical wiring, plumbing and mechanical systems, improve the safety of parking lots and energy efficiency, shall the Hermosa Beach City School District be authorized to issue 12 million dollars of bonds at legal interest rates, appoint a citizens’ oversight committee, and complete annual financial and performance audits with no proceeds used for administrator salaries or other school operating expense.”

A.      No mention of a gymnasium.

B.      No mention of acquiring land.  (See April 9, 2002 HBCSD Citizens’ Meeting minutes, item a.)

C.      Classrooms given high billing.

b.      Slide 11: (Showing opinions given by supporters and opponents.)  “Opponents: The District does not really need this money.  The schools need some improvements but too much of the money will be used to build an unnecessary gymnasium at one of the schools.  It is not needed and will result in less green space around schools.”

2.       Please see: November 5, 2002– 13.6M Measure J facilities bond is passed by 67% of voters.

Official bond language states: “To improve the quality of education, shall the Hermosa Beach City School District be authorized to finance classroom modernization; upgrade electrical systems to improve access to technology; make health, safety, and security improvements; classrooms and science labs; acquire land, and qualify for State funds up to $1,700,000, by issuing $13,600,000 in bonds, within maximum legal interest rates, with annual audits, a citizens’ oversight committee and no money for administrators’ salaries?’"

NOTE: Only this portion of the bond description is listed on the face of the ballot. 

A.      No land was acquired by Measure J funds to expand Valley School.

a.       Why did school board member list acquiring land on the final ballot when several months earlier at the April 9, 2002 Citizens Meeting.

Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark stated that Adelphia (aka Spectrum) had just invested more than $1 million into upgrading their equipment at the site and were not interested in selling their property to the school district?  See April 9, 2002, item a., HBCSD Citizens Meeting minutes.

b.      There is no mention of acquiring land in the 2002 Facility Master Plan.

c.       In the June 2002 survey of voter attitudes, preliminary bond language did not mention acquiring land to expand Valley School.  Why then was it added to the final bond language in November 2002 especially considering Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark’s statements at the April 2, 2002 Citizens’ Meeting?

d.      Was the prospect of buying land to expand Valley School only used to convince voters to pass the district’s bond with no intention of actually using the funds to purchase land to expand Valley School?  

B.      There was NO mention of building a gymnasium listed on the face of the ballot description for the district’s $13.6M Measure J bond.

a.      California schools are not required to have a gymnasium. 

b.      The gymnasium was not viewed as important in the voter survey of June 2002 presented to school board members four months before the election.  See June 2002 Voter Survey facts.    

c.       On page two of Full Text Ballot Proposition Exhibit B ,“Acquire property adjacent to school to expand existing school facilities” is listed before the gymnasium.  It is believed that listing “acquiring land” before listing building a gymnasium on Exhibit B would give voters the impression that acquiring land to expand Valley School was more important than building a gymnasium.   

d.      If the gymnasium was listed as a top priority on HBCSD’s items list prior to the bond, why was it listed toward the bottom of the page 2 and therefore implied lower status on Full Text Ballot Proposition Exhibit B?  Were school board members hoping that most people would not read down to the bottom of Exhibit B?  Were school board members hoping that the position of the gymnasium on Exhibit B would make most people assume it was not a higher priority over building classrooms? 

3.       NOTE: Why would school board members leave the construction of a gymnasium off the ballot twice – the first time during the June 2002 voter survey and then again on the actual ballot in November 2002?  Was it a “mistake” if it happened twice?  Or was failing to mention the gymnasium on the ballot the plan all along?

4.       Please see: November 7, 2002 – School bonds approved in a landslide, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader News (Exhibit TL-2002,Nov7)

a.       “Hermosa voters overwhelmingly approved a $13.6 million school bond to revamp the city’s two aging public schools, build at least 13 new classrooms, acquire more land and build a gymnasium on the Valley School campus.”…

b.      “The successful campaign was bolstered by a $27,500 war chest provided mostly by Dougherty + Dougherty architects of Costa Mesa, which has been employed by the school district to help prepare its renovation and expansion program, and UBS Paine Webber of Los Angeles, which is expected to assist in the sale of the bonds.” …

c.       “Of the $13.6 million total, $3.8 million is to be set aside to acquire property now housing the Adelphia Communications cable TV company next door to Valley School.  Officials have said they are willing to use imminent domain to secure property.”…  See also the April 11, 2002 Citizens’ Meeting, Superintendent Dr. Duffy Clark stated that Adelphia (aka Spectrum) had just invested more than $1 million into upgrading their equipment at the site and were not interested in selling their property to the school district.  See April 11, 2002, item a., HBCSD Citizens’ Meeting minutes.

d.      “The bond is needed “to completely bring both schools up to the current standards of construction and technology, and to build the necessary classrooms to handle anticipated growth in the district,” school board President Cathy McCurdy said.

NOTE: School board President Cathy McCurdy does not mention the gymnasium as the main focus of Measure J bond money in this article.

“Immediately after passing Measure J the school board began designing a gym on the existing site, showing they never intended to acquire property.”

5.       Please see: April 11, 2002 – Minutes from the HBCSD Citizens’ Meeting held at View School: 

NOTE: The comments made by Superintendent Clark and a PE teacher at the April 2002 Citizens’ Meeting were made SEVEN months before the Measure J vote in November 2002. 

a.       Superintendent Duffy Clark spoke to Adelphia (now Spectrum) about selling their site.  But Adelphia said that they do not have any intention of selling because they just invested over one million dollars upgrading their cables/equipment.

b.      PE teacher said that every inch of the open space is needed.  Gym space is on top of the existing open space. 

November 17, 2005 – Indoor gym for an indoor generation? by Miyo Prassas, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News.

November 24, 2005 – To my old friend by Lance Widman, School Board President, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News.

  “Gordon basically rehashes the same old tired complaints submitted to the court by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (CRSE).  The court has held that voters were fully aware that the new construction called for in Measure J did include a gym,” …

CORRECT INFORMATION:  The decision of September 12, 2006 from the Court of Appeals did not exactly say that “voters were fully aware that the new construction called for in Measure J did include a gym…”

The Court of Appeals ruled: “The School District satisfied the Constitution’s accountability requirements by preparing and making available the required list of projects, which included a gymnasium.  Neither the state Constitution nor the Education Code requires that the list of specific school facilities projects to be funded through a bond measure be included on the ballot.” 

See also: December 16, 2002 – HBCSD Budget Committee Meeting, Valley School Library. 

“Lance [Widman] suggested that the committee establish operating principals or norms to govern the conversation.  The group opened with:”

1.       Respect all positions

2.       Maintain confidentiality

3.       Start at the ground up (“put everything on the table”)

4.       Suspend assumptions

See also:  Gordon Evan’s response to Lance Widman No Chance Lance, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News.  

December 5, 2005 – Back to (the old) school, by Charlie Doherty, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News

“Chris Miller’s suggestion (Letters, ER Dec. 1, 2005) to use Hermosa’s old Junior High School (now the Community Center) rather than build a new gym, classrooms, library at the Hermosa Valley School site is a great idea.  It would save the city [residents] a bunch of money and make a lot of Hermosa Valley neighbors happy.  Why didn’t the School Board think of it?

COMPETING INFORMATION: Why indeed didn’t school board members think of using Pier Avenue School for students?   Why didn’t Lance Widman and his fellow city council member George Schmeltzer who were signers on the Agreement at the time of the sale disclose the provisions for district use of the Community Center to the community?  Why was the Memorandum of Understanding, which outlined district use of classrooms, office and storage space, missing from available copies of the Agreement?  Please see: November 20, 2013 - Misleading statements contained in article: Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter 

1.       Why didn’t school board members or city council members provide detailed reports regarding the seismic safety of the Community Center in 2002 when the question of its use by the school district came up?

A. A Conditions assessment of the Pier Avenue Community Center was not done until 2015 for school use. In the summer of 2015, the Community Center was assessed as needing only $270,000 of repair work over the next ten years was deemed to be in GOOD CONDITION.

B. A seismic safety evaluation was not done until 2015.  The 2015 seismic evaluation of the Community Center reported that the Community Center was indeed safe.

C. The fact that school board members and city council members did not know whether or not the Community Center was safe or not, didn’t seem to stop them from claiming that the Community Center was unsafe for children since 2002.  

D. Did Lance Widman, George Schmeltzer and other members in their circle have the ulterior motive to keep the school district out of the Community Center so that the city could turn the Community Center into a performing arts destination as stated by City Councilman Jeff Duclos in November 2016?  City considers private management for Hermosa Beach Community Theatre, November 1, 2016 by Michael Hixon.

2.       HBCSD had priority contractual rights to use Pier Avenue School gymnasium and changing rooms at Pier Avenue School two hours a day (for practice) and an additional 10 days during the school year for tournaments. HBCSD also had priority contractual rights to use Pier Avenue School classrooms, office and storage space when district enrollment exceeded 1,266 students.  There is no expiration to this provision. 

3. In addition, in 2008 (after the gymnasium at Valley School was built) the School District and the City negotiated a Joint Use Agreement for City and District sharing of facilities. Why couldn't better terms have been negotiated for District use of the gymnasium at the Community Center too?

4.       The 2002 Facilities Master Plan had recommended that the district provide 14 additional classrooms by 2012. 

5.       In 2010 district enrollment would exceed the 1,266-student threshold needed to trigger district use of the Community Center.

6.       From 2012 – 2015 HBCSD School Board members would purchase six temporary classrooms and a restroom building, hold classes in the multipurpose rooms of both campuses and move the district offices to South School.  In all HBCSD spent $1.15 million dollars in taxpayer funds to accommodate rising enrollment.  The resulting temporary short-term solutions did nothing to relieve overcrowding on district campuses.   HBCSD school board members spent scarce taxpayer funds on temporary

classrooms instead of supplying lasting, high-priority classrooms with the 2002 $13.9M measure J bond.

7. As of 2024, Hermosa Beach taxpayers still owe approximately $9M on the 2002 Measure J $13.9M bond. The $13.9M bond will total $31M when it is paid off in 2031. After 22 years, taxpayers have only paid approximately $5M toward the total cost of the original bond.

December 5, 2005 – Email from prominent Hermosa Beach City Council member Sam Edgerton to supporters of the gymnasium pressuring Hermosa Beach School Board to go ahead with building the gymnasium despite a “$1.5 to $2 million” gap in funding for the new construction.  According to School Board member Lance Widman the $1.5 to $2 million gap in funding was on top of the additional $1.5 million from the state for HBCSD’s partnership with the Beach Cities Health District (joint use agreement) to build the gymnasium, the elimination of two proposed classrooms and $800 in bond refinancing (finalized in February 2006).

NOTE: Why would a city council member be so invested in the school district building a gymnasium that he would advocate dangerously depleting district funds to accomplish this goal?  Why would city council member Sam Edgerton take it upon himself to pressure school board members to spend $11 million dollars and $990,000 from school district coffers to build a gymnasium, two classrooms and a library instead of providing the 14 classrooms as recommended by the 2002 Facilities Master Plan?  Was Council member Sam Edgerton a member of the cabal trying to keep the school district out of the Community Center?

NOTE: Under the leasing provisions of Exhibit K in the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School, HBCSD had contractual rights to use the gymnasium, tennis courts, showers and changing rooms at the Community Center two hours a day and an additional 10 more days during the school year.  The Community Center is located less than two blocks from Valley School.  The Community Center gymnasium could have easily been used by middle school students for after school sports leagues games and practice, saving taxpayers approximately $11 million.  

NOTE:  School board members also had the choice of building a low-profile exercise room and classroom complex that would save money on the need for large structural iron beams and the additional excavation and reshoring needed to support a heavy, large gymnasium structure. 

December 7, 2005 – HBCSD school board members give authorization to accept final construction bids for the gymnasium complex at Valley School.

December 8, 2005 – No-chance Lance, by Gordon Evans, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News (Exhibit TL-Dec8,2005b)

“In reply to Hermosa School board member president Lance Widman (Letters, ER Nov. 24, 2005) I attended three years of School Board meetings about a gym plus other facilities for Valley School.  The gym took precedence over all in its location, size and importance.  I don’t believe as he does, that my thoughts were “misstatements or misinformation.”  My opinions were based on School Board meetings and Committee for Responsible School Expansion (CRSE) meetings.  Setbacks, delays and increased construction costs are the Result of the Board’s confused and officious attitude toward CRSE advice or concerns.” 

December 19, 2005 – School Board members plan to use $700,000 from school district reserves in order to cover the remaining cost of the gymnasium complex at Valley School.  An additional $800,000 is projected to come from bond refinancing which won’t be finalized until February 2006.  The increased funding for new construction equates to $17,625,328.    Previous listing of funding totals at May 26, 2005 (previous estimates) was $14,625,328. 

May 2005, October 2005 and January 2006 – Soft Cost Summary changes:  There was a total increase of $950,242.86 in soft costs from May 2005 to January 2006.  The increase in soft costs from May 2005 through January 2006 were for geotechnical, architectural services, construction management, special testing (soil?)/inspecting, reproduction (for building plans), O.C.I.P Insurance and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

The increase in soft costs seems to reflect the additional excavation and retaining wall requirements mandated by the Division of State Architects on July 1, 2005.*  

1.       From May 2005 to January 5, 2006 Geotechnical costs rose from $11,000 to $52,200.  A total increase of $41,200.00.

2.       From May 2005 to October 26, 2005 Architectural Services costs rose from $406,610 to $673,706.   A total increase of $267,069.

3.       From May 2005 to October 26, 2005 Construction Management fees rose from $541,846 to $872,495.  A total increase of $330,649.

4.       From May 2005 to January 5, 2006 Special Testing/Inspection costs rose from $70,100 to $150,000.  A total increase of $79,900.00.

5.       From May 2005 to October 26, 2005 Reproduction costs for plans and specs rose from $15,000 to $29,855.14.  A total increase of $14,855.14.

6.       From May 2005 to October 26, 2005 O.C.I.P. Insurance costs rose from 138,000 to 340,000.  A total increase of $202,000.

7.       From May 2005 to October 26, 2005 the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) costs rose from $74,500 to $89,069.72.  A total increase of $14,569.72.

8.       SOFT COST increases from May 24, 2005 to January 5, 2006 TOTALED $950,242.86. 

9.       Were the soft cost increases due to the additional excavation and retaining wall requirements mandated by the Division of State Architects when they approval the district’s building plans on July 1, 2005? Otherwise, if the project had already been determined and settled on why would soft costs increase?

10.   Soft costs are normally about 25% of hard costs.  The HBCSD gymnasium complex final soft costs were about 32%.   If the additional $950,242.86 increase in soft costs was due to increased excavation and retaining wall requirements by the DSA in July 2005, how much of the hard building cost increase from May 2005 to January 2006 was also due to the increased DSA requirements?

11.   It is possible that rising construction costs had NOTHING TO DO WITH the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005 as claimed by school board members but were primarily due to the increased DSA requirements?

12.   *NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a new NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review.  This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

13.   NOTE:  See also: April 12, 2006 – HBCSD School Board Meeting of April 12, 2006, minutes:  “Mr. Birjandi, Project Manager for PCM3, gave a review of the latest work on the construction site at Hermosa Valley School.  He stated that soldier beams were being placed into ground approximately 40 feet deep.  He also said that the plans for the south wall construction are at the Department of State Architects waiting approval, and the plans are not expected back to the district for another two weeks.  Once the plans are returned, construction on the south wall will begin.  Mr. Birjandi spoke with the City of Hermosa Beach regarding the sewer line, and it appears that the district will pay for the new line.  Mr. Birjandi also stated that most of the unknowns underground have been discovered, and the contractors are now clear on what material needs to be purchased.”

14.   NOTE: See also September 9-10, 2006 – Emails between Citizens’ Oversight Committee members discussing the California Division of State Architects additional requirements for increased reinforcement of retaining walls for the gymnasium complex at Valley School in July 2005. 

According to the emails sent between COC members, construction management firm PCM3 stated that $1.6 to $1.7 increase in costs from May 2005 to November 2005 was due to the DSA substantially increasing the reinforcement of the retaining walls next to Marineland Mobil Home Park. 

15.   May 2005 – February 2006 – Bid package hard costs changed from $7,555,344.00 in May 2005 which included two additional classrooms to $7,909,925.00 in February 2006, after eliminating the two additional classrooms, classroom casework, flooring and paint.  (TL-2006Feb17 Bids)

December 22, 2005 – Can’t teach old dogs new tricks, by Lance Widman, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader Newspaper.  See: Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in Letters to the Editor #7. 

January 5, 2006 – J is for jym, by Chris Miller (Hermosa Beach historian), Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader Newspaper

January 19, 2006 – Old school idea, by Robert Benz (former HB city council member), Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader Newspaper

January 19, 2006 – Remember the Pier, by Miyo Prassas, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader Newspaper

February 8, 2006 – HBCSD school board meeting minutes. Announcements and Communications, page 2.  (TL-2006Feb8 SB meeting mins)

a.       “Mrs. Jackie Tagliaferro, parent, criticized the school board for authorizing the building of a gymnasium instead of building classrooms.”

b.      “Mrs. Lisa Claypoole, community member (former Hermosa Valley School teacher from (1995-1999),…  She said that gymnasiums are as important as textbooks and teacher salary.”

NOTE: School board members ended up taking approximately $1M from school district coffers (above available bond funds) to finish construction on the gymnasium.

February 8, 2006 – HBCSD school board meeting discussion/approval – Board policy/administrative regulations 1330 on facilities use.  S-34-05/06. 

            “In August 2005, the Coastal Commission heard the District’s request for a Coastal Permit to begin new construction at Hermosa Valley School.  The District was granted a preliminary permit.  The District was requested by the Commission to give alternatives to alleviate parking overflow when the new facility may be used by groups after school hours whose size may exceed the number of school parking spaces available.”

February 17, 2006 - Final set of bids for new construction at Valley School. 

February 17, 2006 construction estimate is $10,661,474, which includes the elimination of two classrooms (saving $523,954) and eliminating  casework, painting and flooring (saving $200,522)*.  Total program funding is now listed as $17,512,659 with the addition of $1,500,000 joint use matching funds, $700,000 from the district’s reserve funds** and an estimate of $687,331 from refinancing original 2002 bond ‘A’ issuance.   A shortfall of $756,435 is still identified.

NOTE:  The previous estimate from May 25, 2005 before litigation was $9,630,193.  With a shortfall of funds of $2,612,485 identified.  The original budget from December 2003 was $6,645,000.

                *NOTE: Casework, painting and flooring were taken out of district Capital Facility Funds in June 2007. 

**NOTE:  See also: May 21, 2008 Worst Case Budget Scenario: $700,000 equates to 9 teachers and one clerk worth of funding.               

See also: February 23, 2006 – Refinancing of bonds is finalized.  In May 2005, HBCSD School Board members passed resolution 15:04/05 allowing them to refinance a portion of the district’s 2002 Series A bonds.

NOTE:  It appears that school board members waited for the refunding bonds to be finalized so they would know how much the additional funds generated were before accepting final construction bids in February 2006.  It appears that the delay in accepting final bids was because School Board members were waiting for a final determination on refinancing 2002 Series A bonds. The Citizen's lawsuit brought in April 2005 had NOTHING to do with School Board members accepting bids in February 2006. The final ruling on the CRSE lawsuit would not come until September 2006.

February 23, 2006 – Gymnasium’s second floor saved by board by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader Newspaper:

1.       “Despite concerns over a tight construction budget, the Hermosa School Board has decided not to ax the second story of a gymnasium-library building that is under construction at Hermosa Valley School.”

COMPETING INFORMATION:  The second floor holds the only two classrooms in the new construction and necessitates a dedicated elevator.  Would school board members really consider scraping the only classrooms in the project to save the gymnasium?  Why would school board members make the gymnasium the most important feature of Measure J? 

2.       “Over those three years construction projects have soared, forcing the board to ax four classrooms from the project and agree to spend at least part of the school district’s $1.2 million reserve fund if necessary.”

COMPETING INFORMATION:  At June 30, 2005 HBCSD reserves were only $225,960.   At June 30, 2006 HBCSD reserves were only $352,039.  At June 30, 2007 HBCSD reserves were only $439,632.  ALL actual reserves amounts were much less than the stated $1.2 million of school district reserves reported in the article by Robb Fulcher.

3.       “The reserve fund is made up of proceeds from the sale of school district properties and by law can be used only for construction and other capital improvements, district officials said.” 

COMPETING INFORMATION: According to HBCSD financial statements district reserves are defined as: “Available reserves consist of all funds designated for economic uncertainty contained within the General Fund.”

4.       “I’m very, very frustrated with the lawsuit and the delays because of it,” she [Cathy Barrow, HBCSD English teacher] said after the meeting.  She said she was also disappointed that delays caused classrooms to be cut from the project.” 

COMPETING INFORMATION: The school board members’ plan to make the neighbors next to Valley School the scapegoat for the district spending $11 million dollars for the gymnasium is repeated and accepted as fact by members of the community.

NOTE: Was the delay in accepting the May 25, 2005 construction bids due to the April 8, 2005 lawsuit as School Board members claimed?  The courts ruled in favor of the school district in November 2005.  Why then, did school board members wait until February 2006* to accept construction bids as construction costs continued to rise?

- OR –

Was the real reason school board members did not accept the May 25, 2005 bids not because of the pending lawsuit as they claimed BUT because:

A.      There was an initial shortfall of $2,612,000.  See June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:

a.       Item 5. Old Business.  …”On the new construction [gymnasium at Valley School] the bids [May 25, 2005] have come in at a level higher than our available funds.”…  “Shortfall  $2,612,000”

“The bids for the new construction were opened on May 24th and they increased from an expected level of $6.3 million to $7.55 million (the bids include an allowance of $515 million.)  The bids are higher than expected because 1) material costs have escalated, 2) we had the [to] make two changes as directed by the Department of State Architects, and 3) “fear factor” on the [south side adjacent to the Marineland Mobile Home Park] retaining wall, so the contractor bid high.” … “The construction bids are good for 60 days so if we are going to act on this [these] bids the District must “pull the trigger” by July 24, 2005.”…

b.      NOTE: Greg Breen’s claim on several occasions that school board members had the wherewithal to accept the May 2005 bids despite a shortfall of $2,612,000 has not been verified.   To make up for the shortfall in remaining bond funds School board members would have had to take the funds from HBCSD coffers.  It is highly unlikely that HBCSD could have afforded to give up $2,612,000 from their funding so that school board members could pay for construction from 2005 through 2009.  In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenues were $8,352,324 and district reserves were only $352,039.  District reserves are its savings account.  From 2005-2009 HBCSD did not have enough available reserves to allow school board members to accept the May 2005 construction bids.

B.      The Division of State Architects did not approve HBCSD’s construction plans until July 1, 2005. 

a.       School districts are NOT allowed to start construction before getting sign-off by the DSA.  When the DSA approved the plans in July 2005 they also required additional excavation and shoring for the new construction at Valley School.

b.      *NOTE: At the bottom of the October 2005 Budget Breakdown by Project, in the Notes, item #6: “New construction includes DSA initiated changes and trailer park wall modifications.”  This is a new NOTE added to this October 2005 Budget Breakdown report reflecting the larger scope of the project after Department of State Architect review.  This note did not appear on the May 2005 bids.

c.       Apparently hard cost rose by $637,761 from May 2005 to October 2005 ($8,193,105 - $7,555,344).  Soft costs rose by $564,659 from May 2005 to October 2005.   The increase in soft costs were for geotechnical, architectural fees, construction management and reproduction costs which would correspond to additional excavation and shoring requirements issued by the DSA in its July 2005 approval of new construction plans.  How much of the hard cost increase of $637,761 in October 2005 was also due to the additional excavation and south retaining wall requirements by the DSA in July 2005?

d.      April 12, 2006 – HBCSD School Board Meeting of April 12, 2006 (?), minutes: 

“He [Mr. Birjandi, Project Manager for PCM3] also said that the plans for the south wall construction are at the Department of State Architects waiting approval, and the plans are not expected back to the district for another two weeks.  Once the plans are returned, construction on the south wall will begin.  Mr. Birjandi spoke with the City of Hermosa Beach regarding the sewer line, and it appears that the district will pay for the new line.  Mr. Birjandi also stated that most of the unknowns underground have been discovered, and the contractors are now clear on what material needs to be purchased.”

e.      June 29, 2006 – HBCSD Facilities Committee and Public Forum Minutes:  #1. “Report on current status of construction:  PCM3 representatives… presented the status of Valley School Construction since ground was broken. … Two unexpected items caused a delay in work while they were being fixed.  A sewer line had to be re-routed and the retaining wall between the District and the Mobile Home Park had to be replaced.”  Was the extra excavation and retaining wall part of the Department of State Architect additional requirements when approving district plans for new construction at Valley School in July 2005?  Were the additional requirements part of the increase in constructions costs in 2005?

f.         Soft costs are normally about 25% of hard costs.  The HBCSD gymnasium complex final soft costs were about 32%.

g.       The increase of $564,659 in soft costs for geotechnical, architectural services, construction management, etc. and hard costs of $637,761 to accommodate the Department of State Architects additional requirements more than account for the two regular classrooms cut from the final plans.  The two classrooms that were eliminated from final plans were estimated to save the project $700,000.

h.      In addition to eliminating two classrooms, school board members also eliminated casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $200,522.00 were removed from final bids.   The cost of casework, painting and floor coverings were added back into the project in June 2007.  See P.O.#7662 and P.O. #7663.  The cost of casework, painting and floor coverings totaling $147,659 were not taken from bond funds.  They were taken from the school district reserves that are also used as the district’s savings account in case of economic uncertainties such as the 2008 Great Recession.

C.      The Coastal Commission did not approve the new gymnasium complex until early September 2005 and did so with event parking contingencies that were not addressed until 2006.  School districts need to have Coastal Commission approval before they are allowed to build in the Coastal Zone.

D.       *The district was in the process of refinancing a portion of their earlier bonds.  The amount of additional funds realized from the refinancing of bonds was not finalized until February 23, 2006.

a.       May 11, 2005 – HBCSD resolution no. 15:04/05 providing for the issuance and sale of REFUNDING BONDS.  Refunding bonds required that HBCSD take out an Escrow Agreement which was not finalized until FEBRUARY 23, 2006.* 

b.      School board members did not know the final amount of funding that would be available to construct the gymnasium complex until February 2006. 

E.      It is possible that rising construction costs had NOTHING TO DO WITH the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005 as claimed by School Board members, HBCSD superintendents and believed by district supporters and the community from 2005 onward?