elpasospeak

According to the “Facility Master Plan Draft Background Report” on the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) web site the district will decrease in size by about 5,200 students between now and the 2019-20 school year.  The report indicates that the district currently has about 61,000 students.

The district is trying to develop a strategy for dealing with the excess facilities that they will have.

Should they operate all of the existing schools at below optimum capacities or should they close some and consolidate student bodies?  Don’t be surprised if they even consider building new schools that are better located.  Texas law requires the school district to provide transportation for students that live more than two miles from the school that they would normally go to.

A disturbing part of the report addresses “Current Condition Cost” for each school.  While the report does not explain the meaning of the term, looking at the sample chart below we can reasonably conclude that the term means “repairs/improvements that need to be made”.

The report lists over $101 million dollars for elementary schools, $45 million for middle schools, and $86 million for high schools.  That comes to over $232 million.

The EPISD has deferred a lot of maintenance here.  What will they ultimately do?  Believe it or not they will probably propose a bond issue.

Also, remember that the central office is on city land and we are being told that the district will have to move in a couple of years.  The cost?  District officials are telling us $40 million.

We deserve better

Brutus

Do it! I’ll tell you what “it” is later told us that the El Paso Independent School District was going to change their graduation requirements to require “THE EQUIVALENCE OF AT LEAST 15 HOURS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE EACH SEMESTER WHILE ENROLLED IN A DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL”.

I wondered at the time what kind of activities would qualify as community service.

Last week I asked a few of my favorite high school students what they were doing about the requirement.  Their response was a universal “huh?”.  None of them had heard of the requirement.

Some of them suggested that I had left my senses.

Here we have yet another example of failure in our local governments.

We deserve better

Brutus

The Tuesday, September 16, 2014 agenda for the El Paso Independent School District board of managers includes two construction items.

One approves a contract to spend slightly less than one million dollars for classrooms at Crockett elementary.

The other commits $4.2 million for a new classroom wing and kitchen and library additions and improvements at Milam elementary.

Finally

These projects are being funded from the 2007 bond issue.  For the record we are in 2014 now.  They were part of what the public was promised when the bond issue was being promoted.

Why has it taken so long to get around to making these improvements?  Were they not necessary back in 2007 or 2008 or 2009 … ?  Have we been paying interest on these bonds?

Are these people so smart that they can tell us what our needs will be seven years in advance, or have they been busy with more important things like football fields?

We deserve better

Brutus

The Tuesday, September 16, 2014 agenda for the El Paso Independent School District board of managers contains a classic example of how local government staffs play favorites when choosing vendors.

The agenda had two separate construction items on it.  The backup material shows us how unfair the district can be.

One item was for about $4 million of construction at Milam elementary.  One bidder submitted a bid that was higher than the low bid.  Staff recommended that the contract be given to the low bidder.  That looks right on the face of it.

The higher bidder (Bidder A)  was given the highest score possible  (3.00) on criteria item 10 (“whether the Bidder’s financial capability is appropriate to the size and scope of the Project”).

The problem

The other construction item was for about $1 million.  Bidder A from the previous item submitted the lowest bid but did not get the contract.  District staff instead recommended giving the contract to the second lowest bidder.

The recommendation was based on a numerical scoring system that included twelve different criteria.  Bidder A was evaluated well across the board, except on item 10 (“whether the Bidder’s financial capability is appropriate to the size and scope of the Project”).  Bidder A was given a 2.10 out of 3.00 this time, thus lowering his total score and putting him in second place.  He was also dinged for “timely” submission of organizational and other documents in the bid he should have won while he earned the maximum number of points for the same item on the other bid.

Huh?

How can Bidder A be perfectly capable (3.00 out of 3.00 points) to financially handle a $4 million construction contract and only be marginally capable (2.10 our of 3.00 points) to handle a $1 million construction contract on the same day?

The same day!

The answer is that the fix was in.  Bidder A had done much work for the school district but evidently has fallen out of favor.

We deserve better

Brutus