Cunha & Measure K: What might have been
by Jonathan Lundell
1996 was a big year for the Cabrillo school district. In February, the board received and approved a new Facilities Master Plan, recommending an ambitious round of school construction, including a new $17M middle school. In June, district voters handily passed a $35M facilities bond to help pay for the construction, and in October a site selection committee reported its recommendations.
In nine months, a facilities plan, a bond, and a site: bang, bang, bang.
And yet, nine years later, we find ourselves looking at building a $32M middle school at the existing middle school site, with only $27M left in the bank, and an estimated completion date of 2009, more than 13 years after the bond was passed.
It’s instructive to look back over the history of the project to see what went wrong, if for no other reason than to see that it doesn’t happen again.
Time is Money
While the 1996 Master Plan estimated
that a new middle school would cost $17M
to construct, it warned that costs would go
up with time, doubling by 2010.
Bond Issues
The 1996 site selection committee initially
ranked Cunha as the best site for a new
middle school. However, they subsequently
downgraded Cunha, apparently misinformed
that rebuilding at the Cunha site would violate
the bond terms. Their report refers to an
“attached Bond Counsel opinion”, but despite
repeated requests, the district has failed to
produce a copy of any such opinion.
This was a critical mistake, effectively eliminating the most cost effective and timely site for the next nine years.
The bond problem with Cunha was not undisputed. Jonathan Lundell, in his 2002 and 2004 school board campaigns, argued that there was nothing in the bond language that prevented the district from building the middle school at Cunha.
In October 2002, noted bond counsel Jerry Laster confirmed that the bond language was no barrier to construction at Cunha, in an opinion letter provided to the school board.
Nonetheless, the bond language “problem” was cited again and again, by Jim Larimer, Jolanda Schreurs, Ken Wilson, Chad Hooker and others to justify excluding the Cunha site from consideration.
Nine Years Later
At long last, in October 2005, nine years
after the bond language was first raised as
a block to building at Cunha, the district
consulted its own bond counsel, William
Kadi, who informed them that the “bond
proceeds may legally be expended to
improve the Cunha site.”
After nine years of needless delay.
After construction costs had risen from $17M to $32M.
After the facilities fund had shrunk to $27M.