Dear Editor,
I’m trying to Understand the Shepherd School Bond.
When I don’t understand something, I try to learn as much as I can about it. The Board of Trustee meetings I have attended have not included any discussion to reduce the nature and extent of the Bond. The Committee of local folks and teacher meetings I have attended have focused on how to get the Bond passed quickly in the name of sports.
I sat down with the Superintendent to talk about what the school needs, and the previous failed Bond. The architects told me that they expected $5 million dollar job, but the Board of Trustees listed all the items they wanted and ask for one near the previous failed $16 million Bond. This one is $18 million.
I reviewed the school’s asbestos records back to 1987 and walked through the entire school with the Superintendent. A 30-year career in Occupational Health and Safety as an Certified Industrial Hygienist involved regular oversight on 100s of asbestos abatement jobs. School records show many locations where the remodeling and construction will impact visible asbestos. Thousands of square feet of floor tile and mastic, asbestos in dozens of mudded pipe fittings, Libby vermiculite in some walls, ceiling tiles, acoustical spray on, wall board and texturing, asbestos board in the lab hood and asbestos throughout the old Kindergarten. The plan only includes abatement money for the Kindergarten. Abatement is very expensive and time consuming. The asbestos reviews only identified what was in plain sight. There will be 5-7 additional unfunded abatements on what is in plain sight. More asbestos will be discovered beneath, behind and under what is visible when work starts, always.
Fire protection for the kids we all understand. The national standard for fire protection in schools is the National Fire Protection Association 101 Life Safety Code. Fire protection oversight is the local Fire Marshal. The Life Safety Code is the standard for fire detection, fire alarms, exit signs and emergency lighting. Older buildings are grandfathered. Construction and remodeling require the entire structure to be up graded to the current NFPA 101 Code. When I asked, the architect from Collaborative Designs told me the entire school would be upgraded at the Board Meeting in January. He said that entire school would be fitted with sprinklers. Now, the plan is to only upgrade the new construction. I don’t understand.
The Code requires sprinklers in schools to protect the kids for escape. Sprinklers save kids’ lives in an old building. Emergency lights are critical for kids to see the way to the exits through the smoke in a fire emergency. Most fatalities occur in trying to get out. There are no emergency lights in the school now. I don’t understand the Board of Trustees accepting a plan that makes it less likely the kids in the old school will escape from a fire. I was the fire marshal for 22 years for facilities across 9 states. The Superintendent told me the local Fire Marshal is ok with the plan. The Local Fire Marshal accepting less does not change our responsibility to protect the kids. I don’t understand.
There were a number of serious maintenance issues noted during the walk through with the Superintendent. There is no hot water in a girls’ restroom (years), wall board and tile literally collapsing from leakage and mold growing four feet up the sheet rock in the pipe chases. There are strong acids stored with strong bases in the only chemical hood (a chemical fire in the making). There are no storage cabinets or room for them in the lab. The propane to the valves at each lab table are connected through a decades old gate valve shut off behind a cabinet in the corner (left on 24/7). No hoods at all in the science labs. I don’t understand.
During the February Committee of local folks, the architect referred to the big new room called a community center in January as a “hospitality center.” A hospitality center is a place to host sports tournaments. The high ceiling in the new gym called a lunchroom, the 5000 square foot weight/wrestling room, hospitality center/community center, two story energy inefficient glass front costing millions of dollars. Sports space more important than educational space improvements. Fire protection and long standing maintenance issues are not important. I do not understand.
The $18 million dollar bond will actually cost $27 million with the $9 million interest (DA Davidson). The impact on the local COOP is over $1200 per month for 20 years meaning our utility bills will go up. A total of $4.4 million are shown for the kindergarten, middle and high school up grades. There is over $13 million directed at sports. High utility bills, a costly high maintenance elevator designed in. No money for maintenance, teachers or academic programs. I don’t understand.
I don’t understand a plan that focuses on sports in a school district whose math and reading test scores do not make 50% compared to the rest of Montana schools. I do not understand the money for sports when the future depends on education. I do not understand a plan that burdens the budgets of the folks who will pay for it. The retired folks on fixed incomes will be hardest hit. I do not understand a 20 year $27 million dollar debt in a community where 36% of the kids get meal assistance. I do not understand cutting corners on fire protection. I do not understand new construction to keep Montana kids from going outside. I do not understand tearing down a restaurant building to build a new lunch room. I do not understand a second floor justified as cheaper ignoring the high cost of a high maintenance elevator. I do not understand a glass front yielding high energy costs for Montana winters for natural light.
I will understand and support a plan that focuses on the science labs, kindergarten, lunch room, nurses, computer room, fire code and maintenance for about 1/3 the cost of this one. A plan that addresses the needs, fixes the maintenance problems and upgrades the vocational education facility. I understand paying teachers better.
Vic Feuerstein
Shepherd, MT