|
|
|
Uploaded: Tuesday, August 7, 2012, 11:56 AM
Board of Education votes to put bond on November ballot
|
|
by Jessica Lipsky
Photo
 | At an early Tuesday meeting, the SRVUSD Board of Education unanimously voted to bring a $260 million bond issue to voters this November. The bond has been under discussion for nearly a year.
"As I continue to watch the state and its willful neglect of our public school system, what rises to the top for me is the fact that we can have some local control," said Boardmember Denise Jennison, adding that she was once unsure of the timing of the bond. "This is one instance and one way as a community to support our children…with a local measure that provides local control so this money comes from the residents of this local school district and stays in this school district."
The bond would be used for technology infrastructure improvements -- equipment, cables and software -- for schools, as well as new classrooms to prevent overcrowding and to help make sure kids can go to schools in their own neighborhood. It would also go toward modernizing classrooms and science labs, to improve energy efficiency and add earthquake, fire and security improvements. Upgrades include replacing classroom buildings, finishing master plans and other projects eligible for state matching funds.
A capital facilities needs assessment list identified 102 upgrade or modernization projects at a total of $397,777,938, the November bond will not cover all necessary improvements. Although the Board hasn't solidified the list of school-specific projects to be covered by the bond, several big-ticket items include the modernization of eight elementary and middle schools, four phases of renovation at Stone Valley Middle School and a new building at San Ramon Valley High.
Alamo resident Steve Mick, who served on the Facility Advisory Committee but spoke for himself alone, encouraged the board to let the public know how each school will benefit from bond funds. Mick said he supported the bond measure as a response to "intensity of enrollment" -- the school district now has over 30,000 students.
No one spoke against the bond at Tuesday's meeting, though several teachers and city staff expressed concern for the state of SRVUSD facilities. Bekki Livingston, Golden View Elementary's librarian, said she sees 500 students a week in a library that is " dark, dingy, not conducive to reading" and shared with an English learners class.
"This makes it very difficult for students to listen or pay attention," she said. "I am very much for a bond measure that includes Golden View that will modernize the campus. And this is one little thing at a small school, but this happens all over the district. These are small things that can go a very long way to improving our district. "
San Ramon Valley Education Association President Darren Day also spoke in favor of the bond, citing major improvements at his Bollinger Canyon Elementary classroom that resulted from past bonds.
"I want to encourage you …(to) work as strongly as we can to work on this process of rebuilding and renovation," he said.
The bond would cost, on average, $27.75 per $100,000 of assessed value, although the amount per year would vary from a low of $23.70 to a high of $38.90 per $100,000. If approved by voters, the bond would have a term of 30 years.
In June, the school district refinanced and restructured its Measure A general obligation bond (a $260 million bond passed in 2002 and expected to be paid off in 2027), the move is projected to save property owners more than $17 million in taxes. The Board assured attendees that these new rates, combined with outstanding bonds from Measure D (a $70 million bond passed in 1998), would keep total yearly payments below $75 per $100,000 of assessed value.
The interest rates on the outstanding bonds from the 2002 authorization ranged from 3.55 percent to 4.77 percent. The interest rates for the new bonds, issued on June 19, range from 0.52 percent to 3.14 percent, a difference that will save property owners a collective $17,002,379, or approximately $350 over the next 19 years. After the 2030-31 school year, with the payoff of Measure A completed, the total amount is expected to drop.
Assistant Superintendent Gary Black argued that the bond and ensuing school improvements could have a positive effect on property values while avoiding having to rely on the state for funds.
"In 2008-2009, we had unprecedented cuts, those cuts are $2.4 million a year to deferred maintenance," he said, adding that these cuts have cost the district an estimated $7.4 million. "There is $5 million worth of work in next two years that just wont occur and it becomes more necessary as time goes by."
San Ramon Mayor Bill Clarkson, a former school board member, spoke in favor of the bond and cited Palto Alto and Cupertino as thriving cities with good school districts. There is a correlation between the quality of services a city provides and the quality of its school district, he stated.
"Most of our funding comes from property taxes. Many, many cities have gone through huge decreases in property taxes and they've had to cut police and services. But there is a nexus there," Clarkson said. "Where you find great school districts, you find cities that are doing well."
Board members agreed that state program funds for modernization and construction are not available, and when they are, funds are insufficient.
"It really is, as I see it, more of an investment. The state doesn't provide us funds for what were trying to do with this measure, and hopefully at some point in time, we'll get the match dollars back. If we don't do it as a community, it's not going to get done," said Board Vice President Ken Mintz. "I believe we're putting things into effect that take into account the needs of our residents, our taxpaying community as well as our students, into the future."
Board President Greg Marvel said he does not trust the state of California to spend taxpayer money wisely with regard to education and encouraged San Ramon Valley residents to trust the school board, which "has a history of spending its money wisely and in a way that benefits the taxpayer."
"We have a unique opportunity here, probably a once in a lifetime opportunity, a bringing together of low construction rates and historically low interest rates…We need to take this opportunity and run with it," Marvel said. "We will be able to do more things with less money then we will in 20 or 30 years."
The bond will be on the Nov. 12, 2012 ballot and is expected to cost the district approximately $54,000, or $2.50 per voter. Part of that cost includes the school board election. Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Ms. Bunny, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 8, 2012 at 8:30 am Come November? I will not be voting for the $260 bond measure for the SRVUSD under the guise of "protecting the quality of educational programs" for another 25 years. As I stated earlier when the board proposed this bond, there was no mention of their "history" of mis-steps in asking for more money, always, in place of SOLID accounting for what has been spent and very poor auditing to PROVE to us citizens the expenditures. Currently? I personally am paying $33 for the parcel tax measure of 1998...Then the addl. one of 2002 at $68, then of course? -The 2009 tax of $144 in my property tax bill. Including this new measure? I would be paying some $450...One of the most inane comments in the newspaper article by a Librarian was her comlaint that the "kindergartners were distractred...in a place that can be dark and dingy". Excuse me? This is in large part, how they assess what our schools need and I'm simply TIRED of in the lack of real accounting for what's been spent to date - and what continues to be paid for by we homeowners. GIVE ME A BOND THAT MAKES SENSE AND HAS SOME PHASING TO IT? I MIGHT CONSIDER IT...BUT THEY REPEAT THEIR MISTAKES OF THE PAST OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I'm quite done with them! Their accounting is NOT to be trusted any longer!
|
|
Posted by Marilyn, a resident of Danville, on Aug 8, 2012 at 10:15 am Hi Ms. Bunny - Sign on to the Danville Express if you haven't already and check out the like-minded comments regarding the upcoming school bond in their comment section.
You won't be all alone on this site:)
|
|
Posted by Jim, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 6:22 am I'm a NO on this. The list is a joke. When I saw $10M for Montevideo (a school my kids went to and I know in detail) for a school in beautiful condition I knew the list was just made up. It's also like what the state does. They tie everything to the bond measure. How many dollars and what projects can be done with existing funds. Lets see that list. We have great schools as they are. We don't need the most pretty schools as well.
I'm also voting no on the increased state tax and all the other taxes. Cut the budget, don't raise taxes. Get rid of some of the older teachers who torture our kids and destroy their will to learn like Ms. Nguyen at Cal high and replace them with younger, more energetic teachers at half the price.
|
|
Posted by Teacher, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 7:58 am Jim, you will never see bad teacher go at Cal High. The administration at that school is one of the worst in the district. The principal is to worried about the football team and does little to collaborate with staff. Just look at the turnover in Assistant Principals there. They have three new ones starting this year alone. Do you really think much teacher support and quality education is going to get done? I don't.
Let's get some young blood in the administration building and stop all these long term principals from just milking the system for more retirement money as they stick around way to long. They become too comfortable and as long as status quo and nothing is rocking the boat on their watch then they think they're doing a good job. We need a leader at the school to be supportive of all and not just footbALL.
|
|
Posted by Ms. Bunny, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 8:52 am Marilyn, trust me, I don't feel "alone" whatsoever, and I will CONTINUE to "beat my drum" on this ridiculous tax initiative.
Teacher, AMEN! Years ago, serious problems with TWO teachers, one was very ill (history teacher) would not retire and made life a living "hel*" for students (and parents). The other? Auto shop teacher going through a divorce. My son was "in the wrong place at the wrong time" with both. Oye ve, barely got out of Cal High. They took NO OWNERSHIP of these teachers with problems. -But I found a way "around them" with a very unappealing threat. Worked very well and I'd DO IT AGAIN if I had to! Indeed, my son was a football player (-I was NOT happy about this) and that participation added to serious problems in "mentorship" as well (coaches who had no business coaching teens). Sorry to hear they STILL don't "get it". Not surprised.
|
|
Posted by Sandra, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 10:29 am The trouble with this bond proposal is that the board seems to think they need to throw something in for every school in order to pass it. It should be limited to what is really needed; a new school in Dougherty Valley, rebuilding Stone Valley Middle School, and finishing San Ramon High School. Keeping the dollar amount down and only doing what is really requred would allow this bond to pass.
|
|
Posted by Harry S., a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 11:29 am I see a laundry list of pet projects. I would want to know how many "new seats will this add" to existing facilities? If overcrowding is a concern, build new classrooms/buildings to accomodate the rise in students anticipated over the next decade. Technology is driving this as are solar projects and sports field upgrades. Technology changes so fast that today's hardware is tomorrow's scrap.
Give dollar for dollar tax breaks for companies that "donate" technology , solar or other improvements to schools. Getting the communities to contribute thru private sector incentives would produce results without increasing taxes on property owners.
We need a new way of thinkng here.
|
|
Posted by Julie, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 9, 2012 at 5:17 pm Why didn't the reporter write more from her coverage of the district meeting two days ago (Jessica Lipsky) than what was written on this story?
A little critical reporting from the writer of this story would be appreciated. Would a little background on our current and past bonds trouble the writer? I just read a long review written from a parent in the community on the Danville Express forum who attended the meeting a few days ago and it was an eye opener.
|
|
Posted by George, a resident of San Ramon, on Aug 13, 2012 at 5:24 pm I will vote a very loud NO on this new bond. It's clear that this list is way too long and not necessary. Read the comments by Greg Marvel from the School board in other articles on this subject. He talks about it being just the right number, not just the right projects. Manage your budget School Board. The facilities are fine. Maybe if you'd not borrowed 30 million dollars for solar panels that weren't needed, you'd have that money to expand a few schools or build a new school instead.
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
