BTA III - The Capital Levy

time spent: 1 hr 20 minutes

Going back to the first proposition, the capital levy, I researched more about SPSs spending history at http://bta.seattleschools.org/. This site provides information going back to the first Buildings, Technology and Academics (BTA) Program. It addresses the projects associated with each BTA program and I was also able to find a 2006 Report to the Community on how monies were spent. It's a bit harder to it down further; i.e. associate each dollar (BTA I, II or III) with each project since many of these roll from one funding period to the next.

Taking into consideration the comments of the opposition, my thought process is as follows:

• Their first opposing point addresses maintenance. Last I checked, maintenance came under Operating expenses, so I'm inclined to associate this objection with Proposition number two. I said before that I believe their underlying argument is, if SPS did proper maintenance to begin with, these capital expenditures would not be necessary in the first place. So this is a punitive argument, an argument of principle.
• Their second argument is that over half of the buildings at SPS are over 50 years old and not being properly maintained. In my research at the SPS site, I read that their goal was to drive the average age of buildings down from 60 years to 48 years. Okay, to me that translates to modernization, a capital expense. Yet the opposition also states that SPS already spent over $700m to build new buildings that they do not properly maintain. Hmm...So here are the initial questions generated from this information: What buildings are associated with the $700m referenced? Is the capital requested associated with these same building or new ones, i.e. are we talking apples and oranges?
• Further stated in the rebuttal of statement in favor, the opposition argues that there is already a $500m maintenance backlog, therefore this ($270m) levy will barely make a dent. Again, my pea-sized brain corresponds maintenance to operating expenses, so I am inclined to take that $500m and compare it against the operations levy, proposition two, a 3-year levy that raises $442.7m. So the questions forming in my mind are: Confirm the backlog exists. If it does, are they not being completed because current funds are depleted or for other reasons? What is the ratio of funding (capital, operating) for these projects? How does this backlog affect the projects reserved for this new round of funding, i.e. if the maintenance could be performed, would it alleviate the need for additional capital expenses?

I decided that I will call SPS next week to get some of my questions answered through specific references that I can review independently. In fairness, if I am going to reach out to SPS, I decided I would also reach out to the opposition to see if I can get some factual reference so I can review and arrive at my own independent conclusion. Alas, the contact name representing the opposition on the ballot does not have an email or phone number listed, which will make the task that much more difficult.