HBCSD Corruption

June 1, 2016 – Hermosa Beach Community Center’s history key to bond vote, by Ryan McDonald, Easy Reader.  

NOTE: This article was published less than one week before the $59M bond vote on June 7, 2016 and posted to the HBCSD website.  HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao gave a one hour presentation of curated misinformation to the community one week before the bond vote. 

Please see:

Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.

1.      “The Hermosa Beach City School District cannot automatically reopen the city’s Community Center as a school, and attempting to do so would likely require extensive examination and retrofitting, according to a report provided at a joint meeting of the school board and the city council Tuesday night.”

This is an INCORRECT and MISLEADING statement.

A. HBCSD attorney Terry Tao is NOT an engineer and is not qualified to make any statements regarding the seismic safety of the Community Center.

B. The Community Center passed a Tier 1 Seismic Evaluation and Conditions Assessment in 2015.  Both assessments by professionals pronounced the Community Center seismically safe and in very good conditions, with only minor changes/improvements needed.

C. Terry Tao should have known (and probably did know, but kept this information from voters) that Pier Avenue School was built to Field Act specifications and is therefore considered safe for school students as is.

NOTE: Was HBCSD Attorney Terry Tao simply working for the cabal members in an effort to keep the school district out of the Community Center and get taxpayers to pay $59M dollars for an unneeded brand-new campus at North School?   According to Terry Tao’s invoice, Superintendent Pat Escalante and presumably other school board members spent six hours colluding with Terry Tao at a cost of $10,900.00 for his one-hour presentation to mislead the community one week before the bond vote. 

2.      “At the request of the district, Terry Tao, an attorney, architect and seismology expert who regularly represents school districts in land use questions, gave a presentation that bolsters the district’s case [to pass a $59M facilities bond to completely rebuild North School for 510 students].  Opponents of Measure S question the objectivity of Tao’s report, given that his firm was hired by the district, and has been used by HBCSD since at least 2013.”

NOTE:  Easy Reader reporter Ryan McDoanld was given a notebook and presentation of proof of Terry Tao’s curated misinformation to voters in August 2016.  He apparently did nothing with the information.

Please see: Lie #16: Rampant misinformation and misleading information told by HBCSD attorney Terry Tao with collusion by Superintendent Pat Escalante and School Board members in a videotaped and televised presentation one week before the district’s $59M bond vote.

3.      “A limited agreement accompanying the sale gave the district “limited usage” of “certain portions” of the former Pier Avenue School; under the agreement, lease of the entire school, including classrooms facilities, was a possibility, but not something the city was obligated to agree to.”

CORRECT INFORMATION:  The “limited usage” of “certain portions” of the former Pier Avenue school consists of one classroom per 28 students over district enrollment of 1,266 students.  There is no expiration to this provision, it is based solely on district enrollment above 1,266 students.  In September 2014 HBCSD district enrollment was 1,472 students.   HBCSD was entitled to use at least 7 classrooms at the Community Center temporarily until enrollment dropped back below 1,266 students.  As of 2020 enrollment is 1,200 students.  Taxpayers paid $59M for a brand-new campus for 510 students that the district no longer needs.   The MOU also specifies that HBCSD is to have priority use of office and storage facilities at the Community Center. 

In addition to the MOU, under Exhibit K, Lease Agreement for Future Use of Pier Avenue School, HBCSD also has the right to use the gymnasium, changing rooms, showers, lockers and tennis courts at the Community Center, rent free for two hours a day during the school term.   HBCSD has the right to use the gymnasium, changing rooms, showers, lockers and tennis courts ten additional days per year at times other than school hours.   The school district also has priority use of the auditorium at the Community Center for ten days during the school year.  

4.      “At Tuesday night’s (one week before the $59M bond vote) presentation, Tao said the MOU was not incorporated and has no legal effect, and that the district is not guaranteed the opportunity to use the former classrooms at the Community Center.”

Please see:

Lie #1: Misleading the public regarding HBCSD’s contractual provisions for use of classrooms, office and storage space at Pier Avenue Community Center.

Lie #2: Claiming that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not valid because it was not signed by the Hermosa Beach City Council members.

“In an interview last week, City Manager Tom Bakaly said that the council has been clear that there is not an interest in turning over the property.”

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.

Lie #5: Misinforming the public that the Community Center can only be used for recreational purposes.

NOTE:  It seems that the Hermosa Beach City Council members were not interested in finding out the truth about the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School.   HB City Council members were prepared to throw HBCSD students and taxpayers under the bus to retain sole interest in the Community Center.

5.      “In addition to legal difficulties in acquiring it, if the Community Center were to be repurposed as a school, it would require a “very significant” evaluation, and would “more than likely” need to be upgraded, Tao said.” 

This is an incorrect statement by Terry Tao.

Please see:

School for students:

Lie #4: Claiming that the Community Center does not meet CDE Title 5 Regulations.

Lie #6: Misleading the public as to the condition and safety of the Community Center (or the grandfathered-in North School) for students.

Lie #7: Claiming that the Community Center and North School are not ADA (Americans with Disability Act) accessible.

Lie #8: Claiming that renovating historical schools such as Pier Avenue School or North School are very expensive and cost prohibitive.

June 7, 2016 – FULL TEXT OF BALLOT MEASURE S

“To reduce student overcrowding and make safety, security, and health improvements; construct, renovate, modernize, and equip classrooms and facilities at North, Valley and View Schools; replace or repair roofs; provide technology improvements for students; and upgrade or replace outdated electrical, plumbing, heating and air conditioning systems, shall Hermosa Beach City School District issue $59,000,000 of bonds at legal interest rates, and have an independent citizens’ oversight committee with no money for administrative salaries or taken by the state?”

NOTE: Only this portion of the bond description is listed on the face of the ballot.  There is no mention to voters of the district’s plan to tear-down and rebuild North School at a cost of $29,000,000 on the face of the ballot. 

NOTE:

A. Renovating North School was estimated to cost between $6.2 million by the Juge Construction Company in 2017.  Juge Construction company had also renovated Valley School in 1987 for $3.4 million

B. In Spring 2013, the Facility Planning Advisory Committee “expert” hired by HBCSD, Paul Bunter of BCA architects, estimated $11 million to renovate North School (and $14.5 million to demolish North School and rebuild it.  The actual cost to demolish and rebuild North School was $29M in 2021. 

C. In 2014, the Facilities Master Plan estimated $14.7 million (2014 Facilities Master Plan page 115) and between $16,251,624 and $18,689,368 to renovate North School on page 2 of the GKK Works Executive Summary.   Did school board members get their consultants to skew the cost to renovate North School higher and higher in various reports so that voters would pass their $54M (November 2013) or $59M (June 2016) facilities bond?

NOTE: Five years later, after North School was rebuilt for 510 students, enrollment had dropped by 270 students, making North School (aka renamed Vista School) unnecessary.  HBCSD would lose $230,000/year by not leasing North School out the old North School campus since summer 2017.

NOTE: The information below is listed in the back pages of a voter guide that accompanies the ballot description.  The first page and first line of the “Project List for The Bond Measure” does not indicate that North School would be completely torn down and rebuilt: 

“PROJECT LIST FOR THE BOND MEASURE: Renovate and Modernize Existing Classrooms and Buildings.”

NOTE:  Voters must read down to the middle of page two of the “Project List for the Bond Measure” to find the truth about the school board members’ intentions with bond monies.  In the middle of page two hidden at the bottom of the fourth paragraph is this district disclaimer that most voters would probably miss:

Page 2:  Bottom of fourth paragraph: “Projects may also include the costs of demolition and reconstruction of existing facilities currently scheduled for modernization, if the Board of Education determines that such an approach would be more cost effective solution.”

NOTE: Since school board members (i.e. the Board of Education) put a $59M bond on the ballot then their plan all along was to tear down North School instead of renovating the campus for 1/3 the cost of tearing down and building new.

NOTE: The arguably hidden information that is actually profoundly important as to how bond monies are spent is only disclosed on the extended descriptions of all HBCSD facility bond measures (J, Q, S) to date.

June 27, 2016 – Governor Approves Higher Project Cost Thresholds for DSA Review, by Hengameh S. Safaei, Associate from the Los Angeles office of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.  The threshold for DSA review of public school structural projects increased from $42,218 to $100,000 in 2016.  The threshold for DSA review of public school nonstructural projects also was increased from $168,187 to $225,000 in 2016.  

HBCSD could have made up to $225,000 in non-structural improvements and $100,000 in structural changes at North School without using an architect and engineer before triggering a DSA review period.   The elimination of the DSA review period would allow the district to use North School immediately for students rather than wait for a months-long review period.

NOTE: The HBCSD had approximately $2 million in reserves (savings) over and above the CDE 3% requirement for district savings.  HBCSD also spent approximately $1.14 million dollars on short term portable classrooms from 2013 to 2016.  Therefore, HBCSD had a total of approximately $3M that could have been spent renovating North School or the Community Center for district use before passing a $59M bond to demolish and rebuild North School for $29M. 

The expenditure of some of the district reserves on either North School or the Community Center could have immediately eliminated the overcrowding problems at Valley and View Schools.  Any expenditure to improve either North School or the Community would be a lasting improvement on a community asset versus “throwing away” $1.14M on temporary overcrowding solutions.  Did school board members withholding of $2 million of district funds from being spent on student needs and facility improvements act to pressure the community and panic parents into voting for a $59M bond?

June 30, 2016 – Hermosa Beach City School District Governing Board

1.       Dr. Mary Campbell, president, term expires 2019

2.       Margaret Bove-LaMonica, term expires 2017

3.       Patti Ackerman, term expires 2019

4.       Carleen Beste, term expires 2017

5.       Monique Ehsan, term expires 2019

6.       Patricia Escalante – Superintendent

August 23, 2016 – Hermosa Beach city manager will step down, become CEO of Beach Cities Health District, by Kelcie Pegher and Megan Barnes, Daily Breeze

“Bakaly became Hermosa Beach’s top administrator after the departure of Steve Burrell, who served the city for 18 years.” … “According to his most recent contract, Bakaly earns $198,252 a year in salary as city manager.  He began with a base salary of $185,000.”

“[Susan Burden] Burden is leaving the Beach Cities Health District making $259,000.  The agency has an operating budget of about $11 million.”

NOTE: Tom Bakaly left Hermosa Beach after only four years of being hired and after school board members and city council members had used his help to pass the district’s $59M facilities bond in June 2016.

November 2016 – Decision Insite Five Year Enrollment Projections report significantly DECREASING enrollment AFTER the district’s $59M bond passed in June 2016.

Voters used Decision Insite May 2015 enrollment projections of a significant INCREASE in enrollment to inform their vote.   School board members did not provide an updated enrollment report before the June 2016 $59M bond vote.

Only Six months after the district’s $59M facilities bond passed in June 2016, Decision Insite’s changed their May 2015 Enrollment Projections from 1,543 students in 2019 to that of only 1,234 students in 2019.   DI changed their enrollment prediction to a 309 student DECLINE in HBCSD by September 2019 from the May 2015 enrollment projections.

See also:

Lie #27: Less than six months after the district won it’s $59M Measure S bond vote, HBCSD’s enrollment consultants changed their projections from future large increase in enrollment to one of markedly lower overall enrollment at HBCSD.

NOTE:  One year after Decision Insite’s November 2016 projected a significant decrease in K-8th grade enrollment at HBCSD, the Easy Reader addressed the controversy in an article entitled Study projects enrollment decline for school district in coming years, by Ryan McDonald, December 22, 2017.    

In the article Decision Insite senior vice president Dean Waldfogel was quoted as saying that he was aware of only one [school] district in the [entire] State [of California] forecasted to have enrollment gains in the coming years.  Did all of California have a sudden inexplicable drop in enrollment after HBCSD’s June 2016 facilities bond passed?   If Dean Waldfogel was aware of only one school district in all of California forecasted to have enrollment gains in the coming years, how and why did Decision Insite predict that enrollment was rising in Hermosa Beach in its May 2015 Enrollment Report?

NOTE: Despite DI’s, LAUSD and the CA Dept of Finance predictions of future significant decreases in K-12 population, school board members continued with their plans to build a brand new, and now unneeded 510 student campus at North School (aka Vista School).

The cost to tear down and build new at North School was estimated to be $29M.

The estimated cost to renovate North School and add an administration/ classroom building was $6.2M, one-third the cost of rebuilding a brand-new campus. 

NOTE:  SAMPLE OF RECENT ARTICLES WARNING OF DECLINING POPULATION:

1.       5 ways Los Angeles County’s population is changing, by Brenda Gazzar, Daily News, published March 30, 2015, updated August 28, 2017. 

2.       The Number of Children in L.A. is Shrinking – Which Could Be a Disaster, by Hillel Aron, LA Weekly, published March 2, 2017. 

3.       US Population growth hits 80-year low, capping off a year of demographic stagnation, by William H. Frey, Brookings.edu, February 21, 2018. 

4.       A bigger problem for schools, editorial, The Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2019. 

5.       The U.S. Birth Rate Dropped Last Year, But Don’t Blame It All on the Pandemic, by Emily Barone, Time Inc., May 5, 2021.

6.       Projected K-12 drops in enrollment pose immediate upheaval and decade long challenge; State forecasts 11.4% fewer students by 2031; LA and Bay Area to be hit hardest, by John Fensterwald, Ed Source.org, October 18, 2021. 

NOTE:  By the time North School is completed in 2021, HBCSD enrollment will have dropped by 270+ students from its 2014 high of 1,472 students.   By June 2022 HBCSD total enrollment was 1,239, with Hermosa Beach enrollment at 1,176 students, and 63 students brought in from other school districts using interdistrict permits.

NOTE: A big selling point for a brand-new North School campus was the plan for it to be a “green” school.  With HBCSD now bringing in 63 students from other school districts, there are approximately 63 more car trips in and out of Hermosa Beach twice a day, most likely eliminating what-ever “green” savings were made by tearing down, hauling away and dumping into a land-fill the old iconic North School buildings.

January 4, 2017 – City Council members:

1.       Hany S Fangary - Mayor

2.       Carolyn Petty

3.       Jeff Duclos

4.       Justin Massey

5.       Stacy Armato

February 2017 – Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, North School Reconstruction.

March 1, 2017 – Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Scoping Meeting Notification for the Proposed North School Reconstruction Project.  

March 13, 2017 – Letter regarding the 58% of potentially significant community impacts in the draft Environmental Impact Report, by Miyo and Jim Prassas (6 pages). 

“The Initial Study of the proposed North School project by HBCSD identified 48 items out of 83 total items, or 58% of the issues, as being potentially significant impacts.  Hermosa City Schol District has two other options to house students to solve their current desire for additional classrooms and renovated schools:  Pier Avenue School for up to 500 students or a renovated North School for up to 300 students.  Both options would have potentially less negative impact on our densely populated community and save taxpayers millions of dollars.”…

March 2, 2017 - The Number of Children in L.A. is Shrinking – Which Could Be a Disaster, by Hillel Aron, LA Weekly, published March 2, 2017. 

January 2018 - Decision Insite enrollment consultants now projects HBCSD enrollment will decline to 1,200 students by 2028. Decision Insite also projects district enrollment will be approximately 1,300+ students as of September 2020. The actual enrollment at September 2020 is 1,214 students.

January 9, 2018 – City Council members:

1.       Jeff Duclos- Mayor

2.       Stacy Armato

3.       Mary Campbell

4.       Hany S Fangary

5.       Justin Massey

January 1, 2018 – Letter to Barbara Wu Heyman, Associate Principal at Placeworks (company heading up work on the Environmental Impact Report) from Miyo Prassas - Re: North School Project – Verified Declining District Enrollment.

January 2, 2018 – Letter to Barbara Wu Heyman, Associate Principal at Placeworks (company heading up work on the Environmental Impact Report) from Miyo Prassas - Re: North School Project – Misinformation, Reprographic Errors, Evidence of Collusion, Unethical and Illegal behavior by HBCSD and their hired consultants from May 2016 to January 2, 2018.

January 12, 2018 – HBCSD submits architectural plans for North School to the Division of State Architect for approval.  DSA approval for district plans is given one-year later on January 17, 2019.  

February 21, 2018 - US Population growth hits 80-year low, capping off a year of demographic stagnation, by William H. Frey, Brookings.edu, February 21, 2018. 

March 1, 2018 – District on a Mission by Jim Fasola (Fasola Architects, Manhattan Beach, CA), Letters to the Editor, Easy Reader News. 

“The Hermosa Beach School District is about to destroy the most historically significant building in its jurisdiction, at a great cost in both dollars and community character.  The North School main building is a fine example of Mission architecture of the 1920s.  [The North School main building was renovated and designed by renowned architect Samuel Lunden in 1934 after the 1933 Long Beach earthquake destroyed the original school building.]  It is structurally sound, and its classrooms are large and bright.  With proper renovation, upgrades, and replacement of its missing clay tile roof, it could be a beautiful place for our kids to learn and thrive.  Yet the District intends to tear down this handsome building, and the two adjacent 1920s [actually 1939] buildings, too.  The proposed replacement building is a large, utilitarian mass, adorned with ridiculous imitation buttresses, with the overall look and feel of a public housing block.  Almost as bad is the proposed multi-purpose building, which could easily be mistaken for a self-storage facility.”

“The decision to obliterate everything on the campus is expensive and unnecessary.  The proposed enrollment of 510 students is too large for the local streets to accommodate.

NOTE: Luckily for North School neighbors, but not for taxpayers, as of 2021-2022 HBCSD has only housed about 250 students at North School (aka Vista School - renamed) even though it was built to house 510 students, resulting in about seven (7) underused or unused classrooms.

"The City Planning Department has indicated that the proposed school size will result in unsolvable traffic and safety issues, and the Fire Department has determined that the most effective method of resolving problematic emergency access to the site requires a design change.”

April 5, 2018 – Reopening Pier Ave. School by Goerge Barks (former City Council member 1974-1978 and signer on the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Pier Avenue School in 1978) , Letters to the Editor, The Beach Reporter. 

“As a homeowner, business owner, graduate of the Hermosa School system and a former city councilmember and mayor of Hermosa Beach, I have first-hand knowledge of the great schools we have in Hermosa Beach.” …

“As a graduate of Pier Avenue School, my memories of middle school in addition to excellent academics included a gymnasium, baseball stadium, and an auditorium for school assemblies, plays and graduations.  These facilities were all shared with the community outside of school hours for more than 50 years.”

“To set the record straight, as a former city councilmember during the time of the sale of the Pier Avenue School to the City, I can attest first-hand that when this issue came before the council, we absolutely guaranteed that the students could return to use the school if needed in the future.  A simple lease-back option was included within the contract between the district and the city.”

“This entire matter of current overcrowding could be quickly resolved by City Council member honoring the contractual agreement between the city and school district to allow the 7-8grade students use of the classrooms at Pier Avenue School while construction at View and Valley Schools takes place over the next few years.”

January 13, 2019 - A bigger problem for schools, editorial, The Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2019. 

“The state Department of Finance just delivered a little noticed blow to Los Angeles schools.  Its updated projections showed that the population of school-aged children is declining even faster than previously expected.”

“The ongoing decline should be part of the planning for districts, for the teachers’ union and for charter schools as well.  There will be too many seats for too few students, and steadily reduced revenue.  Yes, fewer teachers will be needed for fewer students, but school also have fixed costs for administration and facilities and will have less to pay for them.”

NOTE:  This article was sent to school board members in early 2019, before HBCSD had started the process of physically tearing down and rebuilding North School for $29M in September 2019. 

NOTE: Children’s Journey used to lease out North School for approximately $230,000/year.  HBCSD terminated Children’s Journey’s lease in August 2017.  From 2017 to 2022 HBCSD has lost more than $1 million dollars in revenue by not leasing the North School campus.   In addition, HBCSD now has approximately 600+ empty (unused) seats between three campuses.

January 17, 2019 – Division of State Architect approval of North School plans received by HBCSD. 

HBCSD cannot start building the new North School campus until it gets approval of its plans from the Division of State Architect.  Shortly after receiving the okay to build, school board members accepted the district’s expensive, two-year, riddled with misinformation Environmental Impact Report.

NOTE:  HBCSD blamed the long delay to rebuild North School (aka Vista School) on the Environmental Impact Report and the citizen’s September 2017 Superior Court complaint, however, neither of these issues delayed the rebuilding of North School.  HBCSD did not submit their plans to rebuild North School to the state until January 2018.  The district’s plans were not okayed by the DSA until January 2019.   After that, the district needed to wait to get Coastal Commission approval in August 2019 before they could start construction.  The long wait for a rebuilt campus located in the Coastal Zone was foreseeable and the result of the district’s decisions and self-imposed delays.

January 31, 2019 - True North: History weighs on Hermosa’s schools by Ryan McDonald, Easy Reader News  

“Resident Cathy McCurdy served on the HBCSD board from 1991 to 2009, the longest tenure in the district history.  McCurdy said that, like today, she had to fight an onslaught to what she half-jokingly described as “fake news”.  And while she was frustrated at the struggle to get factual information to the community, she disagreed with Flaherty’s [Mike Flaherty, Hermosa Beach resident and long-time city employee] characterization of the district suffering from an embattled mentality.”

“I don’t think it was a “We know best” situation.  From my perspective, I always tried to take the input of the community,” McCurdy said.  What McCurdy saw instead was a “frustrating lack of trust that the board would do the right thing – a general distrust of government” that created a kind of vicious cycle: as the burden on the district mounted, its inability to meet what it saw as unreasonable expectations became reason for challenges to set the bar ever higher.”

“The suit [lawsuit filed by the Committee for Responsible School Expansion in April 2005] was dismissed the next year in a unanimous decision from the California Court of Appeal.  But the district had to dip into bond proceeds to defend itself, which had the ironic effect of limiting the district’s flexibility on the Valley Project, creating greater disappointment with what resulted.”

THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT.

CORRECT INFORMATION: Hermosa Beach City School District get OK for gym, by Shelly Leachman, Daily Breeze, December 15, 2006 “McCurdy [School Board member Cathy McCurdy] said the district has spent nearly $140,000 from its general fund on legal fees.”

NOTE: By law, facility bond funds are supposed to be used for construction related costs only, not on lawsuits.  HBCSD took the $140,000 it spent on the lawsuit from its own checking account (aka the general fund) NOT from bond proceeds. 

“Leading up to Measure J construction, Flaherty [Mike Flaherty, Hermosa Beach Public Works Department and Hermosa Beach Planning Commission] said at one point he suggested relocating the driveway entrance to fit more people on campus and have fewer queuing on the street. ”They said, “Mike, we spent so much money in defense of the bond, we can no longer spend that money on the driveway,” he recalled.”

THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT.

CORRECT INFORMATION:           

1.       School board members had eliminated plans to reconfigure the Valley School parking lot and driveway, upgrade the Valley School kitchen, upgrade the playground, etc. in favor of the gymnasium years before accepting bids in February 2006 for the new construction at Valley School.

2.       May 20, 2004 – District cuts back on expansion by David Rosenfeld, Easy Reader Newspaper: 

NOTE: This article was written one year BEFORE the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005.

a.      “After costly delays, the board votes to cut two classrooms and scale back the library to meet $800,000 shortfall.”

b.      “The board decided 4-1 Wednesday to maintain plans for a large gymnasium while scaling back a proposed library and eliminate two proposed classrooms.”

c.      “The gym will hold two courts for either volleyball or basketball and seat about 100 spectators around the main court.”

d.      “Board member Greg Breen said he supported the large gym but would not support additional parking at the school because “Less parking gives incentives to walk.  We’ve got a car problem in our culture and a lack of physical exercise.”

3.       December 17, 2003 construction bids – Three years before the final tally for the Valley School new construction (gymnasium, library, two science classrooms) came in at $11,385,950 in January 2006, the 2003 estimate came in at $2,346,013 over available funds for a total of $8,991,013.   Regardless of whether or not HBCSD had the “wherewithal” to complete the new construction, considering the crazy cost of $8,991,013 in 2003, long before a lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton (April 2005), why would school board members continue making the gymnasium the focus of $13.6 million of Measure J bond funds?   Why would any school board member continue to make building a gymnasium the priority over the Facility Master Plan recommendation for 14 more classrooms by 2012?

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

5.       NOTE: According to Exhibit K of the Sales and Purchase Agreement for Pier Avenue School, HBCSD had priority rights to use the gymnasium and changing rooms at the Community Center rent free.  The Community Center is located two short blocks from Valley School.  In addition, there are crossing guards stationed at Pier Avenue and Valley/Ardmore intersection between Valley School and the Community Center.

“McCurdy said that the lawsuit caused a delay of between six months and a year in starting construction, which raised the minimum bid the district received by half a million dollars.” 

 THIS IS A MISLEADING AND UNTRUE STATEMENT.

NOTE: The lawsuit was brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005.

CORRECT INFORMATION:

Did the lawsuit cause school board members to delay accepting the May 2005 bids or was the real reasons school board members did not accept the May 2005 bids because:

1.       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”

b.      “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: School Board member 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 lack of bond funding of $2,612,000, 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 general fund or reserve accounts so school board members could accept the May 2005 bids.  In 2005/2006 HBCSD total revenues were $8,352,324 and district reserves were only $352,039.  District reserves are its savings account. 

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

a.       The additional excavation and shoring required by the Department of State Architects on July 1, 2005, apparently increased hard costs 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?

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.

b.       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.”

c.       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?

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

e.      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.

f.        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 the 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.

3.      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.

4.       The district was in the process of refunding a portion of their earlier bonds and the amount of additional funds 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. 

NOTE: Is it possible that the delay in accepting the May 2005 construction bids and the subsequent rise in construction costs had NOTHING TO DO WITH the lawsuit brought by Jerry Compton in April 2005 as claimed by school board members, HBCSD superintendents, reinforced by articles in the local newspapers and believed by district supporters and the community from 2005 onward?

Did HBCSD school board members simply use the lawsuit and the Valley School neighbors as their escape goat for prices rising and their own decisions to make a gymnasium the priority over classrooms from 2002 to 2008?

Did the local newspapers, The Easy Reader News and the Beach Reporter, simply publish articles that contained outrageous misinformation and made certain residents community targets without verifying that the information they were receiving from the school district was correct?

See also Lie #41: Claiming that the lawsuit brought against HBCSD in April 2005 was the cause for the district’s decision NOT to accept construction bids and was the cause of the delay, cost increases and the elimination of two classrooms in February 2006:

See also Lie #42: Claiming that the lawsuit brought against HBCSD in April 2005 cost the district $500,000 in legal fees.

June 30, 2019 – Hermosa Beach City School District Governing Board

1.       Douglas Gardner, term expires 2020

2.      Margaret Bove-LaMonica, term expires 2022

3.      Jennifer Cole, term expires 2022

4.      Stephen McCall, term expires 2022

5.      Monique Ehsan, term expires 2020

6.      Patricia Escalante – Superintendent

June 30, 2019 – HBCSD Available Reserves (school district savings account) at June 30, 2019 

1.       In 2014 available reserves were $2,184,876 or 20.2%  (Average Daily Attendance was 1,385)

2.       In 2015 available reserves were $2,949,713* or 25.5%  (Average Daily Attendance was 1,422)

3.       In 2016 available reserves were $3,384,821** or 25.9% (Average Daily Attendance was 1,384)

4.       In 2019, after HBCSD passed their June 2016 $59M bond, available reserves are back down to 13.5%.

5.       From June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2019 HBCSD spent an additional $1,449,338 on students and overhead that had been previously withheld prior to the June 2016 bond vote.

6.       Average Daily Attendance has declined by 33 students over two years and is projected to decline further by another 16 students in 2019-2020 school year.

7.       Since school district finances are tied to enrollment a decrease of 49 students equates to a significant decrease in future revenue.

8.       In addition to losing funding from a declining enrollment, HBCSD has also lost approximately $230,000/year since 2017 because North School is no longer leased out to Children’s Journey.

9.       A rebuilt 510 student North School will be completed in March 2021 as enrollment declines.

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

11.   *NOTE: By 2015 HBCSD school board members had amassed reserves of $2,949,713 or 25.5% of available funds.  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.

12.   **NOTE:  By June 30, 2016, the year the school district’s $59M Measure S was passed, HBCSD reserves were 25.9% or $3,384,821!!! (Average Daily Attendance was 1,384 students).  These are funds withheld from district operations which is believed to have also helped to panic parents, staff and the community to pass the bond.  

July 5, 2019 – Letter to the Coastal Commission regarding HBCSD Environmental Impact Report errors.