Town Square

Post a New Topic

City official to talk development with Pleasanton school board tonight

Original post made on May 27, 2013

The Pleasanton school board will have some questions to address following a presentation tonight about new development in the city.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, May 25, 2013, 8:21 AM

Comments (18)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Suzy
a resident of California Reflections
on May 27, 2013 at 2:56 pm

Oh please, refi/reissue the bonds and fund the schools. Don't reduce the property taxes. The schools and kids need the money much more.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 27, 2013 at 10:44 pm

With class sizes already too high and many programs cut, we should not be thinking about cutting taxes at this time. I agree with Suzy.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carlotta
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 8:29 am

I think its going to be a riot when a new school is built to accommodate all the new low income folks coming to town (thank you Meatball Gov. Moonbeam) while the folks in Ruby Hill still don't have the elementary school they were promised. I wonder how many of those Ruby Hills folks voted for Moonbeam. Elections have consequences.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 28, 2013 at 9:02 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The bonds are facilities bonds--the money can't be used for salaries or CSR, only structural (essentially).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 12:44 pm

"all the new low income folks coming to town "

Most of the new construction is medium to high income.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Ruby Hill
on May 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm

If the bonds are for facilities, by all means, refi to save $ but what happened to the report from a few months ago that identified the millions and millions that needed to be spent on school facilities? Am I missing something here?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

If the district can lower the interest rate and NOT refund homeowners (about $6.50/year for $500,000 of assessed value), maybe we can get out from under this debt faster. The refund per year for individual homeowners is minimal, but the collective amount would be better spent paying down the whole debt. I don't know that it can be done without approval by the voters, though; but it is a different approach than the cash out refinancing done previously (which increased the debt/extended the length of the bond repayments without voter approval).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Glenn Wohltmann
Pleasanton Weekly reporter
on May 28, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Glenn Wohltmann is a registered user.

Joe:

They are two separate things. The bond debt is for work authorized through a referendum, and, in theory, all that work is done.

For new work, as suggested in the Facilities Master Plan, the district would have to seek approval through another vote.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by woggut
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on May 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm

<The bonds are facilities bonds--the money can't be used for salaries or CSR, only structural (essentially). <

It's just a paper game if we send all the regular cash flow into salaries & benefits then float a bond every few years to pay for facilities & upkeep. A business depreciates assets over their useful life. A going concern is expected to reinvest in fixed assets on an ongoing basis, otherwise they are "milking the cash cow" or "eating the seed corn" depending on your perspective.

I believe a large part of the hostility towards additional school funding by some PTown residents is the lack of transparency and sense of urgency on the true fiscal situation. Repurposing a PC buzzword, the current approach is not sustainable. The March 2013 Legislative Analyst Report says Calstrs payments need to be increased by 15% of teachers salaries for 30 years to cover the unfunded pension liability.
See page 5 of the report at
Web Link

While PTown is in better shape than most cities, the California public sector financial situation is approaching the tipping point. As San Jose is finding, we will be able to keep either the public employees or the services but not both. We will have to totally revamp our approach to education or face significant additional cuts in staff and programs.







 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 2:54 pm

"The March 2013 Legislative Analyst Report says Calstrs payments..."

That's for the whole state, not Pleasanton. How would that apply to "hostility towards additional school funding by some PTown residents"?

"We will have to totally revamp our approach to education ..."

Did you mean to say "... our approach to funding education ...", or since you are kind of throwing out generalities is this some pitch for home schooling or privatization?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack
a resident of Downtown
on May 28, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Woggut nailed it for me. My hostility (or at least disappointment) with regard to PUSD stems straight from the lack of transparency. The way the Neal School situation played out was embarrassing. As far as a new plan: Of course PUSD will expect some land thrown their way, and they'll refuse to build a new school for some reason, and they will merely throw some more portables on an existing site and call it a day...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 28, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

john. The discussion about increasing payments to STRS by 15% (give or take a point) has been ongoing for a few years at least. And yes, school districts would have to come up with that 15% wholly or through contributions from teachers/administrators or some combination. Problem is that it has to be legislated (unlike CalPERS Web Link ). At the top of the link, there also is a related link regarding STRS, and within that coverage is a link to additional information.

As to the broader topic of "our approach to education," rather than just funding models, what do you think about the current stand and deliver model?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 8:01 pm

" current stand and deliver model"

I haven't seen the movie. I don't think Pleasanton (or Dublin, or San Ramon) needs any kind of radical change in our "approach to education". I certainly hope people aren't looking to do that.

"The discussion about increasing payments to STRS by 15% (give or take a point) has been ongoing for a few years at least. "

PUSD was having these discussions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 8:39 pm

"The discussion about increasing payments to STRS by 15% (give or take a point) has been ongoing for a few years at least. "

The FAQ on the PUSD web site said something to the effect that CALSTRS policy was entirely set at the state level. I must be missing something here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 28, 2013 at 8:56 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Well change (not radical) is talked about all the time, but I doubt the conversation is happening locally.

I know districts are watching how funding STRS pans out because of the budget implications; and in this case, I certainly hope that is true locally.

PERS can set contribution rates. STRS has to wait for the legislature to set them. Either way the various agencies must comply, including school districts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by john
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 28, 2013 at 10:30 pm

Which goes right back to my original question.

"That's for the whole state, not Pleasanton. How would that apply to "hostility towards additional school funding by some PTown residents"?"

"totally revamp our approach to education..."

Sounds like someone wants radical change to me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by numbers
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 29, 2013 at 8:58 am


=======================================================
"
"all the new low income folks coming to town "

Most of the new construction is medium to high income.
"
=======================================================

Per epsp working draft presented at School Board Meeting:

Web Link

Option 1: 35% RHNA numbers
Option 2: 50% RHNA numbers
Option 3: 60% RHNA numbers
Option 4: 45% RHNA numbers

Combine the above options with current movement within the city
council to increase the IZO from 15% to a higher percentage, then
more than half of the new housing will be medium to very low
income, if options 2, 3 or 4 are chosen. Note that the Housing
Commission has preliminary voted for option 2. One point is the
School District should plan accordingly, my understanding is that
different numbers are used to estimate students per household
depending on housing density?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on May 29, 2013 at 9:13 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Here is a link to the demographer's report: Web Link Fall 2011 to Fall 2021


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Prop 46: Two Bridges Too Far
By Tom Cushing | 22 comments | 2,156 views

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,417 views

My secret identity is revealed!
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 1,167 views