Some Martin County School Board members have asked why we push so hard for TV coverage of their meetings. They point to opposition of anything that takes money away from the classroom, and note that they occasionally discuss items concerning children that should not be made public. We have offered several suggestions for mitigating the cost through use of other County facilities or video taping meetings with existing assets. Delayed replay on MC Channel 20 would take care of any possible redaction issues that might arise. In short, we believe there are reasons the public deserves complete and accessible coverage of School Board proceedings that trump their concerns.

The most basic is that the School Board controls an operating budget of well over $300,000,000 per year, manages nearly a billion dollars of existing capital equipment and controls the basic education of our residents and future leaders. We commend the excellent job our School Board and Administration is doing educating our children, but also believe the public must continuously monitor any group with this much power and influence. Unfortunately, as indicated by the lack of public participation at their evening Board meetings, “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” seems to be the rule.

A second reason is what appears to be the need for more publicity and oversight of new school construction. For example, i n 2004, the Martin County School Board approved two new elementary schools, Hobe Sound Elementary and JD Parker. Both were built with similar plans and construction techniques to accommodate 750 students at a respective cost of $14,282,000 and $16,210,000. Given the high cost of construction following the ’04 – ’05 hurricanes and site-specific differences, we do not challenge these costs or the differential. However, earlier this year the school district awarded a contract for a third identical school in Palm City at a cost of $23,230,000. Why is there a 42 - 61 % increase in less than three years and at a time when the local construction industry is suffering a severe slowdown?

They defend this contract based on comparative square foot cost data from other South Florida counties’ construction experiences. We question a justification based on data that may not be applicable when easily comparable actual costs appear out of line. We are in no way suggesting wrongdoing on the part of any member of the School Board or the Administration, but we do believe that future cost savings can be made. Perhaps the current system of using a “manager–at-risk” overseeing many sub-contractors, and paid a percentage of total cost, is not the most efficient methodology. In addition to more visibility, we recommend that the school district appoint a Construction Advisory Committee of volunteer architects and contractors that have no financial stake in school construction.

Public understanding of Ad Valorem funds collected for school construction and general improvements to existing facilities is also lacking. The school district is allowed up to two mils on the overall county property assessments each year for these purposes. Historically our School Board collects the maximum, which amounts to $52,894,252 this fiscal year. When added to State funding of $11,074,584, this totals nearly $64 million for these purposes. In addition, the school district has a carry-over construction fund, currently totaling $91,561,273, which was unspent during prior periods.

In the comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2006 the district projected a five-year outlay of $165,000,000 for construction of new schools and remodeling of existing facilities. As noted above, total revenues and fund balances for this fiscal year amount to $ 156,280,109. If property values in the county only remain static, the school district will assess nearly $250,000,000 over the period. Does collecting approximately $400 million against a $165 million stated requirement seem reasonable? Is this one reason recent requests for large increases in School Impact Fees have been revised downward several times and are still contentious?

The answers to these and numerous other questions need to be fully understood by the property owners/voters paying the bills. Only community participation in the process, facilitated by open, convenient coverage of all School Board meetings can make that happen.