From the Email Inbox: GT High School, or GT High Fools?

Paww...


Went to combined Colton School Board and G.T. City Council meeting on Thursday night. It was my feeling that the City Council just sat there like a group of sacrificial lambs, not understanding what was going on, while the School Board rammed their thoughts on through in a very practiced manner. For other than one comment by Bea as to grass and trees (a $1000 item) none of the council members brought up the situation
that the City residents would be asked to contribute millions of dollars to install the surrounding infrastructure.

In the report prepared by the School Board's consultant, there were numerous, numerous comments by the G.T. city staff as to the shortfalls. In my opinion, the city staff was a bit reserved in their comments. Odd, in that in personal talking to the city Planning department, even Asst. C. Mgr. they are universal that the environmental report has some serious errors and omissions. Biggest omission being the funding. For the report mentions that the school site only, the structures, has been funded, but zero has been funded for the streets and roads of the area, no traffic signals, no street widening of Michigan, no pipelines. I have been in this business for a good thirty years now, and the lack of concentration by the city council on these very, very expensive items is very unprofessional.

As per my earlier mention, the G.T. city council has displayed a lack of professionalism in not recognizing where and how city money is being spent. They tend to worry about some $1000 item and do not comprehend that they will be approving and saddling the city residents with a multi-million dollar expenditure. And again, by permitting the school to come in, there is yet another reduction in the land tax basis.

Patricia Farley pointed out at the meeting the impact of such a large facilities installation within the city. She kindly pointed out in the three minutes before the podium that the school was going to get about 3000 students and a sports arena for 5000.

Lies! per the school district representative.

More accurately the school is going to have an immediate enrollment of 2500 students, and then in 2-3 years be up to 3000.

Yet another Lie! per the school district representative.

More accurately the stadium is only designed for 4,500 visitors initially. It can be expanded another five hundred after two years.

As you can see Patricia had all her facts wrong. She was lying all the time. Although the school representatives had fifteen minutes to explain this away, Patricia had only three.

When it was brought up by the school district representative that the infrastructure was not really considered in the report, it was mentioned that these details would be worked out quickly between now and June first of this year.

"Please approve and endorse our big new school" for we want to get to building by July. The details regarding construction of infrastructure and payment by the city can easily be worked out. Much as saying to expecting parents that the child will only cost $$$, not mentioning that Birth is not all of the costs. Just the most immediate one.

Oh, and one other item went under the radar of the city council. For they got the need and addition of storm drains mixed up with the need for domestic water mains. Look for the G.T. Outdoor Activity Center to hit the pages once again. For the school district is planning on connecting their new storm drains into that as constructed by the O.A.C on the specific plan (funded by the city). For once you commit to a Specific Plan, then other developments can then base their needed pipelines into what is noted on the approved plan. Thus, if the city proposes something, they then have to come through with it. I think the city council wanted to languish for a while the O.A.C. and now it will have to be quickly resolved, and partly built for the school district need to use those facilities. Gee, reads like the city staff did not realize all the implications of their actions.

Back before the City of G.T. was incorporated, the biggest one in San Bernardino county was the new city of Rancho Cucamonga. I was on the consulting staff of the new city before they developed their own as they now have. The local school district had a set of plans quietly going on for years and then came in proposing a new high school on the extension of a straight street. The district only funded for the structures, not the facilities up and down the street. The district merely wanted to slap down about $100 of asphalt to tie in their parking lot into the little 50 year old two lane local street. We made a quick point out of this to the R.C. city engineer, and eyebrows were instantly raised, and then he took the situation to city council. For the new city of Rancho Cucamonga the school district was expecting them to come up with $3.5 million in off site improvements for the neighborhood. The school district loudly complained, said they were exempt, said how this would benefit the whole area, said it would beautify the whole city, make things safe, etc. but nothing of the costs.

The solution came to head about two months later, when the district came to the office of the Cucamonga County Water District asking for a water meter. As per normal procedures, the permit had to go through the city staff. And there is was denied. For per city ordinance, in order to obtain a new meter, all offsite construction had to be in place or engineered and bonded for. And thus, the school district could avoid the peering eyes of the R.C. staff, and city council but then they did not have water either. 'lemme tell
you, this readily got the attention of the school district. Within the same month there were plans, studies and specifications at the front counter for improving the streets.

Then a lag. Well, it seems the school district never considered as a part of their millions allotted from Sacramento to include the expected $3.5 million for streets. They had sent budget to Sacramento which only noted building, grading and little things like student water fountains. Items Only within the boundary of the lot.

Again. 'lemme tell you the school district had harsh words for us (the city consultant for discovering the omission) the city engineer (for requiring them to be installed) and for the city council (for delaying the opening of the new school). Then the plans got fast track approved, but no bonds. The city engineer refused to sigh the plans unless the bonding was presented. Seems the school district only assumed they had to do the engineering, not the funding. Then about 1-2 weeks later a check came forth from Sacramento guaranteeing the funding, if the city would approve the water meter application. The school district tried to wrangle out of this time after time. For the mere addition of the school wasn't argued, it was the IMPACT that it would have.

Later in the 1980's when the City of Moreno Valley incorporated, I was again on the staff there. (The new city of G.T. building inspector was hired at about same time, but in another building) Again, the school district had planned ten little elementary schools set throughout the city. And again, the district assumed the new city was rich, and would engineer and install all necessary offsite improvements from storm drains, pavement widening, sidewalks, and traffic signals. No.


In staff meeting, I mentioned how the city of R.C. had thwarted that school district. By end of day, Eastern Municipal Water district was informed NOT to install any water meters, except temporary ones off existing fire hydrants. And again the school district began yelling, but this time via their consultant Gary Bruton of Riverside, who got the architectural contract for the ten small schools. Seems they had completely forgotten to include the offsite facilities. Odd, too was that seems someone knew of the costs, for within one week the ten schools were suddenly trimmed to five. These five are today operating, and are placed on wide streets matching the remainder of the neighborhood, they integrate well visually, and have safe old traffic signals and crossing guards. It took yet another ten years and the remaining five were then built.

These two instances are the only ones I have direct memory of. I really think now more than ever, this city council has gotten over their heads. For merely agreeing that the concept is a "Good idea" meant to the district a tacit approval of everything they propose. The city staff isn't stupid, they saw right on through the report filed, and then the council either didn't read the recommendations, or glossed right over them. 'lemme tell you, a letter to the Governor’s off as the city engineer of R.C. did get the Attention of the school district - quick. And surprise, the funding which the city would have to come up with is found within the state school district budget in minutes then too. As Steve Berry mentioned just the other day, he too doesn't see how removing property from the tax roll and incurring the hidden costs will benefit the residents of the city. But he doesn't live here either. But he isn't stupid in reading the report. Instead he has been asking the
city residents to complain, ask for an accounting of the real costs for what the city of G.T. will be expected to pay out.

Someone within the city staff needs to send a letter off to Sacramento in explaining how the school district is steam rolling the residents. And as Patricia pointed out the proposed school enrollment is about 1/4 the current population of the city. LIES... the school district representative points out it is only 23 percent. Then when she mentioned the stadium seating was about 1/3 the population of the city, LIES!! Again, for it is closer to 37% When Patricia pointed out that the school with cause an increase in traffic of about equal amounts, LIES!! for a few students will walk to the grounds and others will be bussed in from miles away.