[img]2125|exact|||no_popup[/img]
Ms. Vizcarra
At a community workshop last evening intended as an update for hardcore observers of the complex web of capital projects envisioned for the breadth of the School District, and the various options for financing them, the work study opened with a cost budget categorization analysis and then burrowed into more esoteric streams.
Supt. Dave LaRose promised the central emphasis would be on “framework and methodology. We will be articulating some things that we have learned and others that we have amended.”
Gil Fullen, a vice president with the construction company Balfour Beatty that specializes statewide in physically upgrading school districts, was the star witness, the main expert voice. He sought to explain minutely how sensitively his inspectors spent weeks walking through each campus and facility in the District, never overlooking anything as arcane as an out-of-place brick or other seldom-noticed imperfections.
Responding to a mid-talk question from the crowded Garden Room that at the Vets Auditorium, Mr. Fullen acknowledged that the sometimes-amorphous data and findings he was discussing was a blend of previously announced conclusions and more recent ones.
On the Spending Side
In tying a ribbon around the detailed delineations of the estimated $165 million projected needs bill that presently exists, two young bond consultants, last seen in early summer before the bond measure campaign abruptly was shut down on July 1, made a return appearance.
Perhaps the most arresting numbers revolved around the almost giddily successful $40 million Measure T bond that passed (with 80 percent approval) in 1996. The consultants said that $33 million remains outstanding on the principal. The community will have spent nearly $97 million on the bond measure in whatever year it finally is paid off.
Still to be determined is a clear prioritizing of distinctions between improvements or changes that are desired and those that are mandated.
Before an audience that included six of the seven School Board candidates, numerous financial inquiries were sparked by Mr. Fullen’s discussion of “detailed costs by work category.”
With critics watching closely, both Mr. LaRose and Mr. Fullen acknowledged that publicly identifying categories of priorities – and how they will be paid for – will be among their most demanding forthcoming tasks.
Precise lists of priorities and their estimated costs are next for the School Board and District leaders.
Here is what Board candidate Claudia Vizcarra posted on Facebook last night:
“I was at the Special Board Workshop this evening along with a room full of thoughtful and concerned community members. It was so great to listen to a very well managed presentation and discussion of the facilities needs of the District and the various approaches to financing them. Although we left with a whole new set of questions, it was good to be part of this next step in the conversation. Thank you Superintendent La Rose and Culver City School Board!”
Ms. Vizcarra told the newspaper: “It seems pretty evident that the issues before us are complex and that much needs to be thought through before going to the voters.”
