Why doesn’t this bond issue include storm shelters?

The majority of the board members, after discussions with the architects, financial consultants, and a review of the state-level discussions on the issue, felt they did not have a solid plan yet to address the issue with the level of detail it deserves before asking voters to commit millions of dollars to their construction.

A committee is currently being formed specifically to address and research the best storm shelter options for the Bartlesville Public Schools.

Reasons cited for the delay include:

• • We do not have plans for how school storm shelters should best be constructed. Discussions revolved around a physically separate, underground concrete bunker, which does not conform to the types of shelters the federal government has helped pay for in a few districts. Experts in emergency management need to be consulted about issues such as:

    • Is it reasonable to expect 600 elementary kids, or up to 1600 high school kids, to be able to get into a structure like that in 15 minutes or less?

    • Is it a good idea for the kids trying to get in the shelter to be outside while they are waiting to get in?

    • What does access into and out of these shelters look like?

    • Is there a better conceptual alternative to this?

    • What has worked at other schools or large buildings hit by tornadoes and what did NOT work at Moore’s schools when they were destroyed?

    • What do emergency management experts view as the factors that our design needs to account for?

    • Bottom line, we do not want to throw money at an issue and build a system that we find out down the road, and heaven forbid after a storm, was flawed in its design.

  • While there are discussions at the state level about a plan for school storm shelters, no plan is in place. This is not in itself sufficient cause for delay, since we need to do what is best for our children regardless of whether the state helps pay for it or not, but if state funding were to become available we would hope to make use of it.

  • Building underground shelters and improving some existing spaces was estimated to cost $5 million and would have had to significantly increase the lease-purchase portion of the bond to avoid construction delays. However, that would have led to a $1 million or more increase in interest payments out of the district’s building fund, which would in turn have a significant negative effect on the general fund. The September 2013 bond is designed to address existing secondary facility problems which affect instruction on a daily basis; storm shelters could be voted upon later after due diligence.

  • We could not have the shelters built and installed in time for the 2014 storm season even if they were on the September ballot and were approved by voters. It did not seem wise to assume the above risks given that limitation.