HBCSD Corruption

March 30, 2006 – No “Middle” ground by Lance Widman, Letters to the Editor, The Easy Reader News.

“First, the School District does not own the site.  The Hermosa Beach Community Center is owned by the City.”

MISLEADING STATEMENT:  The fact that HBCSD does not own the Community Center does not change the fact that HBCSD has valid contractual rights and priority use of classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center when district enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.  Lance Widman was one of the signers of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978.  He knew that the school district has valid rights to use the Community Center without purchasing it from the City but purposely mislead the community.

Please see: Lie#3: Claiming that the Community Center needs to be purchased by HBCSD in order for it to be used by the school district.

“The School District can make only very limited claim to the use of the auditorium, gymnasium and tennis courts per the Lease Agreement.”

INCORRECT STATEMENT: HBCSD has priority contractual use of classrooms, office and storage space according to The Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School, Exhibit G and the Memorandum of Understanding, Section 4 that was agreed to by the city of Hermosa Beach at their meetings of June 14 and 28, 1977.  There is no expiration to this provision it is based solely on district enrollment above 1,266 students.

NOTE: HBCSD also has priority use of the gymnasium, changing rooms, tennis courts etc. rent free at the Community Center.  Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School, also gives HBCSD priority use the gymnasium and changing rooms for 2 consecutive hours during school days (including Summer School) and for 10 additional days other than normal school days and hours. 

Please see: Lie #9: Confusing the separate provisions for district use of the gymnasium changing rooms and auditorium in Exhibit K with the provisions for district use of classrooms, office and storage space that has NO expiration date contained in the Memorandum of Understanding in Exhibit G.

HBCSD should also be able to negotiate more availability for gym usage with the City of Hermosa Beach if needed.  The community can continue to use the gymnasium during the remaining hours.

NOTE: The Community Center is located about two blocks from Valley School.  There are crossing guards who  work the intersection at Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore.  The gymnasium at the Community Center could be used primarily for middle school team volleyball and basketball practice and tournaments.  School board members could have also opted to build a low-profile indoor sports room for indoor dodgeball, calisthenics, aerobics, dance and include changing rooms at Valley School instead of building an expensive oversized gymnasium. 

NOTE: Why would Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy think it made more sense to have taxpayers spend $11 million dollars to build a low priority gymnasium instead of providing future classrooms and retaining open space at Valley School when all along HBCSD had rent-free, priority use of the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center?  Building a brand-new $11 million dollar gymnasium at Valley School only makes sense if the TRUE motivation for Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy was to keep HBCSD out of the Community Center.  Was that the unspoken plan all along?

“Secondly, the existing rooms do not meet minimum State standards for classroom size”

MISLEADING STATEMENT: The Pier Avenue Community Center does not NEED to meet “minimum” State standards for classroom size.  Title 5 Regulations (aka standards) that Lance Widman is alluding to were adopted in 1993.  School districts are NOT required to bring all pre-existing school buildings up to 1993 standards.  Title 5 Regulations only apply to new construction and new renovations.  In addition, HBCSD routinely ignores Title 5 Regulations when it suits them – like holding two classrooms in the multipurpose rooms of Valley and View schools and housing Kindergarten students in classrooms designed for 3rd and 4th graders at the rebuilt North School in 2021.

NOTE:  The CDE recommends that classrooms be 960 sq feet when building new, but this is not a hard and fast rule for existing classrooms or leased classrooms.  If it were, taxpayers state-wide would be on the hook for millions to renovate existing campuses.

NOTE:  Most of the rooms (including the four classrooms used by the ARC Adults with disabilities at the southeast corner of the Community Center are only 30 feet or so smaller than Title 5 standards.  Most of the existing classrooms at the Community Center are 900 to 930sq ft or 23’X40’  or 30’X30’ or 30’X31’ instead of the recommended 960 sq ft or 31’X31’ dimensions.  The only slightly smaller size of the classrooms would not disqualify them for use by HBCSD. 

NOTE:  Some of the existing rooms are smaller because the city has partitioned them into smaller rooms.  The room partitions and interior walls can be removed to restore the classrooms to their original size.

NOTE:  It is also expected that the Community Center would only be used as a temporary overcrowding solution for HBCSD until enrollment dropped below 1,266 students. 

                “…It is not ADA compliant…”

MISLEADING STATEMENT:  By law the Community Center is required to be ADA compliant.  Has the City of Hermosa Beach put themselves in legal and financial jeopardy by NOT making sure that the Community Center is ADA compliant?   NO.  The City of Hermosa Beach has made the Community Center ADA complaint.  According to the 2014 Facilities Master Plan, all HBCSD schools also need some ADA upgrades.

“The gym is substandard, there is no library, multi-purpose room or lunch area…”

All MISLEADING STATEMENTS: According to statements made, the gym is only four inches too small, which is still fine for middle school students.  Any room can be turned into a library.  The original plans show a library directly across from the reception offices on the ground floor.  There is a gymnasium AND an auditorium, both of which could function as a multi-purpose room.  It is not mandatory that a school has a multi-purpose room or a gymnasium.   Students can eat lunch outside in the center court yard of the Community Center AND in the gymnasium which was adjacent to the kitchen until the kitchen was torn out by the city in 2013.  Did the city remove the kitchen adjacent to the gymnasium to discourage the school district use of the Community Center in order facilitate the quid pro quo for a brand-new unneeded campus at North School?

“… and electrical systems for handling state-of-the-art technology and telecommunications hookups are virtually nonexistent.”

MISLEADING STATEMENT: The city has upgraded the technology and telecommunications within the Community Center so it can be used as the city’s command center in case of a citywide disaster.  Technology and telecommunications can and have been upgraded within the Community Center.

“…There are currently no state matching funds available to make this happen, Measure J funds cannot be used, and the District does not have other funding sources to acquire the site even if it wanted to.”

MISLEADING STATEMENT: Considering that building a gymnasium was estimated to cost almost $11 million dollars, would using the Community Center gymnasium and classrooms cost anywhere close to $11 million dollars to renovate for TEMPORARY district use while enrollment exceeded 1,266 students?  (The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) attached to Exhibit G specifies district use of the Community Center when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.  There is no expiration to this provision.

NOTE: In his letter Lance Widman states that the district does not have other funding sources as he also asks residents to vote for the district’s Measure A parcel tax which would be a funding source. 

NOTE:  The district does NOT need to acquire the Community Center in order to use the site since they already have contractual rights to use classrooms, office and storage space there.  Former City Councilman and signer of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School, Lance Widman, does not disclose the district’s leasing rights for the Community Center to the community.  Why wouldn’t he be upfront about the lease agreement between the city and the school district?  Why didn’t his fellow city council member at the time of the sale disclose the provisions for district use of the Community Center?  Did they both have an 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.   Is that why school board members made building a gymnasium complex at Valley School the priority at a cost of $11 million dollars?

April 6, 2006 – Caught in a time warp by Lance Widman (HBCSD School board member), Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter. 

“The May 2005 construction bids included a new library/media center, two science labs, a multipurpose gymnasium facility and two additional classrooms, with funding* available to complete the entire project.”

NOTE: It is assumed that school board members Lance Widman, Greg Breen and Cathy McCurdy could claim that the district had the “available funding” or the “wherewithal” to accept the May 2005 bids because they could have taken MORE funds from school district coffers to overcome the bond funding shortfall of $2,612,000.  These statements from school board members are not verified by the facts.* 

*CORRECT INFORMATION: In 2005 when the May 2005 bids were received, total district revenues were $7,737,688.  At that time district reserves were at an all-time low and below the state mandated reserve percentage of 3%.  According to the district financial statement at June 30, 2005, there was only $225,960 left in district reserves.  There was not enough district funds available to take out an additional $2.6M from 2005 to 2007 to finish the new construction at Valley School. 

NOTE: At the May 11, 2005 school board meeting, school board members decided to refinance some of the 2002 Series A bonds in an attempt to garner more money for the new construction.  The refinancing would not be completed until February 2006.  School board members did not know how much additional funds they would net from the refunding of bonds for their project until February 2006.  Please see:  February 23, 2006 – Refinancing bonds 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.   It appears that school board members waited for the refunding bonds to be finalized so they would know how much the additional funds had been generated before accepting final construction bids in February 2006. 

*NOTE: School board members were forced to take $700,000 AND at least $264,926.80 from district coffers AFTER they had already eliminated all but two science classrooms from the project (See: June and July 2007) for a total of at least $964,926.80 of district funds in order to finish work on the gymnasium, two science classrooms and a library.  The funds were taken from the district’s reserves (savings account).  Available reserves consist of all undesignated fund balances and all funds designated for economic uncertainty within the district main General Fund (checking account).  Reserves drop from 13% in December 2002 to 2.9% in June 2005. California Department of Education requires available reserves of at least 3% for HBCSD.

“Unfortunately, a neighborhood group, CRSE, sued the district, forcing a six-month delay.  This caused construction costs to increase more than $100,000 for each month it was delayed.”

CORRECT INFORMATION:  HBCSD was not in a position to accept the May 25, 2005 bids whether or not there had been a lawsuit.  There were NO comments made in the minutes of School Board meetings or Citizen Oversight Committee meetings that blamed the delay in accepting bids on the CRSE lawsuit until after the October 2005 bids came in higher than expected.

The following causes for HBCSD NOT accepting the May 25, 2005 bids were cited in spring and summer 2005: 

1.       Please see: June 1, 2005 - Citizens’ Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes.  “Item 5. Old Business.”  …”On the new construction [gymnasium at Valley School] the [May] bids have come in at a level higher than our available funds.”…  “Shortfall  $2,612,000” 

2.       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.”  … “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” … “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.   Until then school board members did not know how much would be added to total project funding.], as much as $1.5 that educators hope to get from a special state fund for school construction.  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 and came with additional conditions.]

3.       The Division of State Architects (DSA) approval of Valley School new construction WITH additional excavating and shoring requirements.  The change order amount is listed as being $191,305.00.  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. 

4.       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.

5.       *The district was in the process of refinancing a portion of their 2002 Series A 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. 

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?

CORRECT INFORMATION:  On July 1, 2005, the Division of State Architects (DSA) approved Valley School new construction with additional requirements for excavating and shoring.*

1.       *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.

2.       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.”

3.       According to the May 2005 and October 26, 2005 bids – Soft Cost Summary changes there was an increase of $60,333.11 of approved changes and $155,000 of pending changes for a total estimated increase of $161,033.11 in soft costs from May 2005 to October 2005.  The increase in soft costs from May 2005 through October 2005 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). 

a.       NOTE: 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.  It makes sense that the increase in soft costs would be due to the new DSA requirements which would result in the architects needing to go back to the drawing board to rethink, reengineer and redraw portions of the project to meet DSA structural safety mandates.

b.      Therefore, the additional estimated increase in total construction cost from May 25, 2005 to October 26, 2005 were not all for construction materials and labor as alluded to by school board members when blaming the lawsuit and Hermosa School residents for cost increases.

c.       NOTE: 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 were 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?

COMPETING INFORMATION: 

January 2003 – November 2005 – HBCSD New Construction Scope vs. Time Illustration by PCM3. 

Original scope 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 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.”

“It is disingenuous in the extreme for [Jackie] Tagliaferro and other CRSE participants to now disavow any responsibility for the downsizing of the new construction project and blame the gym* for the consequences of their actions.”

CORRECT INFORMATION:  Jackie Tagliaferro had nothing to do with the CRSE lawsuit.  It was ‘disingenuous in the extreme’ for Lance Widman to assert that the school district had been able to accept the May 25, 2005 construction bids which came in $2.6 million over Measure J available funding.

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

COMPETING INFORMATION:  In 2002 prior to the passage of the $13.9M Measure J bond community members attended meetings held by HBCSD architect Dougherty and Dougherty about bond priorities:

February – April 2002 – HBCSD school board members, staff and architects from Dougherty and Dougherty hold community meetings regarding district facility needs.  Sampling of community letters sent to school board members and architects: 

1.       Notes dated February 6, 2002 from Dougherty and Dougherty architects: “plan for growth first – gym second.”

2.       Letter from Gordon and Betty Evans dated February 6. 2002: “I was a member of the Hermosa Beach commission that evolved Pier Avenue Junior High School into a community center.  It was our intent and understanding that the Hermosa Beach School district would always have the first right to the auditorium and gymnasium.  I have not heard this mentioned at any of the board meetings.”  See also Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School, Exhibit K: Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School.

3.       Letter from James Hausle dated March 21, 2002: “In reviewing the notes from the last meeting, I was surprised to see that the first item in your list of considerations was still the gymnasium instead of classroom space.  I recall that during the meeting I attended that we said that they should be listed in reverse since the classroom space and school master plan was more than just “building a gym”.  You noted that the previous group, the facilities committee had made the same comment.” …

… “Student density levels current and future?  Current campuses are overcrowded.  Just increasing the density of the student population will not be a good solution for the community.”

4.       Letter from Cary J. Bichlmeier dated March 25, 2002:  “Acquire more land.  This group wants a less dense campus than #1 and are willing to wait for it.  “Let[s] do it right, not fast”.”

5.       Letter from Gabi Adler dated April 8, 2002: …” has any consideration to using part of the abandoned shopping mall structure on PCH (next to Vons) for a school gym?”

6.       Letter from Beth L. Cross dated April 9, 2002: …”Let’s not allow [a] very vocal gym proponents to overshadow our primary educational goals.” … “Open space at Valley School is a priority to me.  I wuld love to see facilities expansion accommodated without encroaching on open space.” … “my child already feels crowds and waits in lines to participate in lunchtime play activities – this would be worsened with less open space.” 

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

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

1.       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.

2.       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.”

3.       Slide 15: District Project List ranked by district priority: 

A.      New classrooms/labs and facility enhancements are listed as low on the district’s priority list, however they are given high billing in the final bond language.

B.      The Build/Modernize Classrooms and New Classrooms/Labs and Facility Enhancements are projected to cost $3,570,000 ($1,750,000+$1,820,000) – the highest expenditure of the project list; about 30% of the $12 million total estimate of projects.

C.      A Gymnasium at Hermosa Valley is estimated to cost $2,225,000; about 19% of the $12 million total estimate of projects.   According to the final Citizens’ Oversight Committee Report of 9/30/2009 the final cost of the gymnasium complex was $11.5 million out of a total $19.5 million spent – or about 85% of the original $13.6M bond amount raised with Measure J.

D.      The district’s project list does not include acquiring property adjacent to Hermosa Valley School, yet it is added to the final bond language with a cost of an additional $1.6 million to make the final bond amount $13.6 million.  No land is purchased to expand Valley School  with Measure J funds.

4.       Slide 18: District Project List Ranked by Voter Rating of Importance. 

A.      New classrooms/labs and facility enhancements, providing additional interior gathering spaces, and expanding play fields/replacing fencing/site enhancements are rated as low priority for the school district, yet they are given top billing on both bond descriptions.

B.      The gymnasium is listed as a Priority 1 item for HBCSD, but considered as low priority by voters.

C.      There is no mention of acquiring land in the district’s list of projects.

5.       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 highest priority by school board members.   Was leaving mention of the gymnasium off the ballot wording at June 2002 Voter Survey and then again on the final ballot in November 2002 really an oversight by the school district as was claimed by Lance Widman?  See also Documents show gym ballot lapse by Robb Fulcher, May 12, 2005, Easy Reader.

6.       Slide 21: Key Conclusions: “Athletic facilities, specifically the new gym at Hermosa Valley, are not viewed as very important.”

April 11, 2006 – Regarding: “Caught in a time warp”, 04/06/06 by Tom Graner, Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter (TL-2006Apr11 LTTE Tom Graner)

“In his letter published on April 6th, Lance Widman [HBCSD School Board member] states that the CRSE [Committee for Responsible School Expansion] forced a “six-month delay”, due to their suit regarding Valley School’s construction.  Mr. Widman said, “This caused construction costs to increase more than $100,000 for each month it was delayed.”

“Now let me get this straight.”

“Does he REALLY expect us to believe that this construction cost increase, which by his calculations totals $600,000, would NEVER have occurred had construction simply continued?  This contract was apparently open-ended enough to allow such increases during the delay.  Mr. Widman expects us to believe that, magically, all construction costs would have been stable had there been no delays caused by that nasty evil-doer CRSE group?  Something tells me the monthly construction increases would have happened anyway,  Who the heck is doing the cost control on this? 

“Mr. Widman then finishes up his letter stating that, “Measure ‘A’ provides $13.1 million to finish Measure ‘J’ projects.  It will also make significant additional improvement in our schools.”  And to think I thought I was getting that with Measure ‘J’.

“This is a great lesson to teach our kids.  Budgets don’t really matter and if you use up all your money, just charge up some more on the taxpayer dime.  Sheesh.”

April 22, 2006 - HBCSD School Board member Greg Breen’s personal letter to Mr. Tom Graner, community member. 

Please see: April 11, 2006 – Regarding: “Caught in a time warp”, 04/06/06 by Tom Graner, Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter (TL-2006Apr11 LTTE Tom Graner)

NOTE:  Greg Breen seemingly (purposely?) completely misses the point of Tom Graner’s letter.   Tom Graner was making the point that even if the district had accepted the May 2005 bids, any future construction cost increases probably would have been added to the project anyway.  Apparently, there were no controls in place in the bid specifications/ instructions that would have prevented future cost increases from being charged to the district as the project proceeded. 

“Thanks for your interest in the schools, and for taking the time to express your concerns in the local paper.  There is one comment in your letter I need to correct.  Your letter mentioned that the lawsuit was not accountable for the increase in construction costs since those costs could have increased anyway.  I do not think this is quite correct.  I think the proper comparison is between the contracts that were rejected in May [2005] and the contracts that were accepted in November [2005], since both the new and the old contracts are comparable and contained the same exclusions and exceptions.”

This is an incorrect statement*.  The Division of State Architects did not approve the district’s building plans until July 1, 2005.  At that time the DSA okayed the plans with ADDITIONAL requirements for excavation and shoring.   According to emails between Citizens’ Oversight Committee members discussed the California Division of State Architecture additional requirements for increased reinforcement of retaining walls for the gymnasium complex at Valley School.   Therefore, it seems that the requirements changed after the May 2005 bids.  The October 27, 2005 bids and the May 2005 bids were not apples to apples comparisons.

*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 in the May 2005 construction bids. 

“Both contracts can be viewed as stating [starting] base bids, if you will, bids that are fixed except as to as to excluded elements, excluded element that are comparable between contracts.”

This is an incorrect statement.  See *NOTE above.

“The bids received in May – and that we rejected because of the lawsuit… “ 

Correct Information:  HBCSD was not in a position to accept the May 25, 2005 bids whether or not there had been a lawsuit.  There were NO comments made in the minutes of School Board meetings or Citizen Oversight Committee meetings that blamed the delay in accepting bids to the CRSE lawsuit. 

NOTE: 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.

Please also see:  Timeline: May 11, 2005 – November 2, 2005.

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?

Is it 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?

NOTE: 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.

“The bids received in May – and that we rejected because of the lawsuit total 9,727,234, including the related soft costs.  The bids in November, again included soft costs, were 11,385,950, which is an increase of about 1.6 million due to the delay from the lawsuit.  (In the final bids we cut an additional 724,000 of costs by reducing the scope of the project.)” 

NOTE: School board members reduced the scope of the project by eliminating two classrooms, not by reducing the size of the gymnasium.

NOTE: Some of the cuts in the final bids, like the elimination of casework, paint and flooring were paid for through regular school district funds in 2007. In all, school members used approximately $1 million dollars of school district funds, in addition to bond funds, to finish the gymnasium project.  The final project consisted of two LESS classrooms that were eliminated from final bids in February 2006. 

See also: 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. 

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

“REPORTS: Hermosa Valley School New Construction Project Update: 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 [the] 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.”

April 19, 2006 – Citizen’s Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006: 

“Ms. Jones [Angela Jones, long time HBCSD business manager] also confirmed that $90,000 used to make modifications to the retaining wall that abuts the Marineland Mobile Home Park will not be paid for with bond proceeds.”

April 20, 2006 – Teaching the wrong lessons by Tom Graner, Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter. 

April 20, 2006 – It’s all about the gym by Mary Lou Weiss, former Hermosa Beach school board member, Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter.  (

April 20, 2006 – Can’t get the Community Center back by School Board member Greg Breen, Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter. 

…“Unnamed city officials and unreferenced documents say the Hermosa Beach City School District can get back the Community Center simply by asking for it?”

UNINFORMED STATEMENT: Former Hermosa Beach City Council member Michael DiVirgilio (2006 to 2014) had commented privately that he had no knowledge of anyone from the HBCSD school board ever asking anyone at the city about district use of the Community Center for students.  He said that all school board members needed to do was ask city council members to start a dialog and investigation regarding district use of the Community Center.

“These provisions are not in any document I’ve seen, nor have I spoken with any city official who thinks this.”

UNINFORMED STATEMENT: Who at the City had Greg Breen inquired about district use of the Community Center?  Was there NO ONE from the city who knew about the Sale and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School?  Obviously, school board member Greg Breen had never taken it upon himself to read the full Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School before making his rude statements to members of the community whom he served.  Did Greg Breen ever request information from the City of Hermosa Beach and minutes of city and school district meetings in 1977 and 1978 to investigate district use of the Community Center for students?

NOTE:  Why did it take a member of the Facility Planning and Advisory Committee member in 2013 to find the Memorandum of Understanding that laid out the provisions of the district use of classrooms, office space and storage?  Why was the MOU missing from the available copies of the Purchase and Sale Agreement for Pier Avenue School? November 20, 2013 - Document uncovers details about 1978 Pier Avenue School sale by Alana Garrigues, The Beach Reporter

NOTE: Greg Breen and Lance Widman claimed to have had extensive discussion regarding district use of the Community Center with fellow school board members and architects Dougherty and Dougherty.  Why then is there NO EVIDENCE of these discussions?  Where is the evidence of the walk through and statements made by Dougherty and Dougherty that it would be cheaper to tear-down the Community Center than to try and use it for students?  Please see: Misinformation and Misleading Statements contained in Letters to the Editor, Greg Breen former HBCSD School Board member, Letters to the Editor 07/30/15, Easy Reader News.

NOTE: According to a conditions assessment by Civil Source and a seismic safety evaluation by John A. Martin & Associates done in 2015, both the classrooms and gymnasium at the Community Center are in good condition and do not require a lot of money ($270,000 over 10 years) to repair.   The cost to upgrade the seismic safety of the gymnasium was estimated to only cost $500,000 in 2015.  In addition, over the years the city has been keeping up with other renovations and repairs to the Community Center.   

NOTE: HBCSD sold Pier Avenue School (aka the Community Center) to the city when enrollment was dropping below 1,000 students starting about 1975.  HBCSD sold the Community Center 40% below market price so that IF enrollment rose again and the district needed to use Pier Avenue School it would have priority leasing rights.

NOTE: The provisions for district use of the Community Center give HBCSD priority usage of classrooms, office and storage space when enrollment exceeds 1,266 students.  These provisions are contained in the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4.  The city agreed to ALL the provisions of the MOU when they took out an escrow for Pier Avenue School following the directions specified in the MOU, Article 3 at their City Council meeting of June 14 and 28 1977.  The MOU did not have to be signed since it had been executed by city council members when they took out an escrow on Pier Avenue School following the instructions specified in Article 3 of the MOU.  The city council meeting minutes from June 14th and 28th 1977 confirm this as well as the escrow and the statement from the city attorney submitted by letter and labeled as Exhibit J in the Agreement. 

“I do not know the source of this oft repeated yet entirely and absolutely untrue legend about the city simply giving the Community Center back to the School District.  It is disappointing and somewhat surprising that people actually spout this folklore, and I hope folks will take a few minutes to read the documents before swallowing the pabulum.”

RUDE AND UNINFORMED STATEMENT: From 2002 to 2013, neither the city nor the school district had made the Agreement readily available to the community.  In addition, the MOU had been removed from copies of the Agreement.  In September 2013, Facilities Advisory Committee member Kat Bacallo took it upon herself to drive to the County Registrar’s office in Norwalk, CA to investigate whether or not something had been removed from the available copies of the Agreement.  There Kat Bacallo found the Memorandum of Understanding that described the agreed to provisions for district use of the Community Center.   Why hadn’t Lance Widman OR George Schmeltzer told Greg Breen about the MOU?   Did Greg Breen ask them about it?

NOTE: Unfortunately, Greg Breen seems not to have taken it upon himself to investigate the Agreement or talk to the city manager, Lance Widman or George Schmeltzer about it before acting rudely to community members who suggested the district use the Community Center.  Or did Greg Breen know about the provisions of the Agreement and was in cahoots with George Schmeltzer and Lance Widman to keep the information from Hermosa residents?  Did they all 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, Is that why school board members made building a gymnasium complex at Valley School the priority at a cost of $11 million dollars?  To keep the school district out of the Community Center?

“Prassas correctly states that new construction is expensive, but maybe I missed the part about how cheap it would be to acquire, refurbish and update a 70-year-old facility.”

COMPETING INFORMATION: Greg Breen should know that HBCSD does NOT have to “acquire” the Community Center in order to use classrooms, etc. for students.  HBCSD has valid priority contractual provisions to lease classrooms, office space and storage space at the Community Center according to the Memorandum of Understanding, Article 4.  HBCSD also has priority contractual provisions to use the gymnasium, changing rooms, auditorium and tennis courts rent free according to Exhibit K.   Would the cost to refurbish and update a 70-year-old facility with a gymnasium, auditorium, kitchen, 15 classrooms, office and storage space and plenty of parking be less than $11 million dollars; the cost to build a gymnasium, two classrooms and a library at Valley School?  According to a conditions assessment by Civil Source and a seismic safety evaluation by John A. Martin & Associates done in 2015, both the classrooms and gymnasium at the Community Center are in good condition and do not require a lot of money to renovate.   The cost to upgrade the seismic safety of the gymnasium was estimated to only cost $500,000 in 2015.  In addition, over the years the city has been keeping up with other renovations and repairs to the Community Center.   

June 8, 2006 – School trustee is theft suspecting removal of campaign sign, by Robb Fulcher, Easy Reader. 

“Police identified [Hermosa Beach] city school board member Lance Widman as a petty-theft suspect after a videotaped escapade in which he removed a “No on Measure A” campaign sign from a public park.

Three decades ago, Widman – then a Hermosa Beach city councilman – served six months’ probation after taking down campaign signs.  Widman, 61, who teaches political science at El Camino College and operates the private South Bay Center Dispute Resolution, has not been charged with a crime, but the matter has been referred to the city’s prosecutor’s office.”

June 2006 – email letter, unknown sender about Lance Widman taking down campaign signs in Torrance when he was a City Council member.

This is a discussion from an unknown sender and recipient of Lance Widman’s history of taking down campaign signs in Torrance, CA. 

June 22, 2006 – A matter of ethics by Gary Osborn, Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader.

“I attended both the Hermosa Beach City Council and School Board meetings last week where Lance Widman’s well-publicized behavior was brought into question.  At both meetings, the City Council members and School Board members were asked to condemn Mr. Widman’s actions given that he has a contract with the City for Dispute Resolution/Mediation Services, and given that he is an elected member of the School Board.  To my surprise and amazement, neither elected body would publicly condemn his inappropriate behavior.” …  “Mr. Edgerton who aggressively defended Mr. Widman, chose to narrowly focus on the legality of Mr. Widman’s actions rather than considering the aspects of ethical and moral principles, and stating that if what Mr. Widman did wasn’t illegal, then it was OK and he was off the hook.  The School Board, including Mr. Widman, chose not to comment on the issue.  What I gathered from these two meetings is that our elected officials condone unethical behavior…”

NOTE:  The unethical behavior by the city council members and school board members continued through at least 2019 with misinformation spewed by each body.  It is not illegal to lie.  City council members and school board members ignored and therefore condoned unethical behavior by Superintendent Pat Escalante, HBCSD attorney Terry Tao, City Manager Tom Bakaly and city attorney Michael Jenkins among others. 

June 6, 2006 – HBCSD’s Measure A $13.1M facilities bond vote.  Measure A did NOT receive the required 55% of Yes votes in order to pass. 

Critics argue that the list of projects is a laundry list with no priorities or estimated costs associated with the items.  Measure A is defeated.

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.” 

NOTE: 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 that was blamed on Valley School residents? 

September 12, 2006 - The appeal filed by CRSE is overturned.

The courts rule that: “Neither the state Constitution nor the Education Code requires that the list of specific school facilities to be funded through a bond measure be included on the ballot.”  

Please also see: 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.”

October 27, 2006 – HBCSD School Board member Greg Breen’s letter to Mr. Gordon Evans, Valley School neighbor. 

NOTE:  Gordon Evans was in his mid-80s and had recently lost his wife of 60 years. 

“Thanks for your letters to the Beach Reporter and Easy Reader.  Once again, I think you have misstated facts and I need to correct you on a few points.”

NOTE:  Is Greg Breen correcting Gordon Evans on a few points in this letter or is he just harassing an 80+ year old man?  Greg Breen’s statements and conclusions in this letter make him appear to be “unhinged”.

“First, the CRSE has not stated its preference for classrooms over a gym, as you claim.  CRSE has objected to any construction on the school site, including classrooms.”

INCORRECT STATEMENT: A lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton using the Committee for Responsible School Expansion (CRSE) designation after school board members eliminated classrooms from building plans in 2004 in order to save the size of the gymnasium.  See: May 20, 2004 – District cuts back on expansion by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper: Jerry Compton felt that the district had mislead voters to believe that classrooms would be the priority of Measure J funds. 

CORRECT INFORMATION:

1.       Nothing in the briefs filed with the Superior Court cited issues with the district building classrooms. 

2.       The issues brought by the lawsuit were 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. 

3.       The Introduction to the Petitioner’s (Jerry Compton) Opening Brief states: “…the School District did not enure 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 vioation 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.” 

4.       The Introduction to the Opening Brief 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.” 

5.       The third paragraph of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement draft states: “Whereas the general position of the Committee For Responsible School Expansion is that the gymnasium which the Hermosa Beach City School District desires to build is unnecessary and should be deleted in favor of building classrooms…” 

…“In fact the original lawsuit filed by CRSE was as opposed to the construction of classrooms as it was to the construction of a gymnasium and if successful, would have prevented the construction of the classrooms you claim to want.”  Ridiculous Statement by Greg Breen. 

…“Second, the primary objection voiced by neighbors of the school, most of whom I presume to be the membership of CRSE, concerns neighborhood parking and traffic…. Interestingly, the concern seems to be that members of the public will park on public streets, which is something over which the School District has no jurisdiction.”  Ridiculous Statement by Greg Breen:  The fact the HBCSD does not have jurisdiction over parking has NOTHING TO DO with the issue of the school district creating a situation that could greatly exacerbate parking problems on nearby residential streets.

…“The notion that the lawsuit is about building classrooms instead of a gym is of very recent vintage and serves to mask the true intent of the some members of CRSE (I hope not including you), which is to have a private street at public costs.”   Ridiculous and Incorrect Statement:  CRSE plaintiff Jerry Compton objected to residents having to pay for annual parking permits (and supply visitors with parking permits) if the city were to create a private street because of parking issues due to district plans to build a 100 spectator, rental gym at Valley School.   Greg Breen’s ridiculous conclusion is that CRSE’s true intent of their lawsuit was wanting to have a private street at public cost.

…”It seems to me your rationale extends to include any school activity, including, for example math or humanities classes – this is, under your rationale, outdoor classrooms would presumably be healthier than indoor classrooms, leading to the preposterous conclusion that we should not have any school buildings.”

Ridiculous Statement:  Because Gordon Evans believes that outdoor exercise is good for students versus HBCSD spending a $11 million on a gym, Greg Breen accuses Mr. Evans of the ridiculous conclusion that “we [HBCSD] should not have any school buildings.”

 “I do wonder, though, what is going to happen if the California Supreme Court refuses to hear the case and      your attorneys turn to you for payment of the substantial fees they’ve run up.”… “My fear, were I in your shoes, would be having to write a check for the legal fees Mr. Compton incurs with the apparent approval of the CRSE.” 

Competing Information: It is not believed that Mr. Compton received any funds from Valley School neighbors (aka people involved with the CRSE group) for his lawsuit.