Neal School could open in late 2006 Neal School could open in late 2006 (August 27, 2004)

City, school district planning joint fund for $13.5 million project
by Jeb Bing

School Superintendent John Casey pressed the school board Tuesday to consider a funding plan he has drafted with Pleasanton city officials to finance the full cost of building and opening Neal Elementary School in time for classes in late 2006.

It's the first time that Casey, who has been cautious about proceeding on Neal until enrollment and budget issues were favorable, has urged construction to start.

The funding plan, worked out by city and school district staffs during the summer with the endorsement of the City Council, would have both Pleasanton taxing agencies paying $2.5 million - or roughly half of the $5 million in added construction costs over the school's original estimate of $8.5 million, which the school district budgeted earlier to cover.

Nelson Fialho, Deputy City Manager, who is managing the city's effort to help get Neal School built, said city funds would come from several sources without impacting the municipal debt load or other capital improvement projects.

Although not unanimous and with some school trustees lukewarm on moving forward on the Neal construction project at this time, the board gave Casey authority to continue working on the financing agreement. It's expected that the City Council will review the plan at its next scheduled meeting on Sept. 7, and that a joint meeting of the two agencies would be held later that month to ratify an agreement.

Casey's plan is to move forward on building Neal to serve the elementary classroom needs of Ruby Hill children and those who will be moving into new homes under construction or planned in the Vineyard Corridor. Although kindergarten to fifth-grade enrollment is down slightly from projections at the time Neal School was planned, Casey told the board that it will continue to remain above 6,000 students in the years ahead, a number he said warrants building a 10th elementary school.

The school district's focus on building Neal now comes as it is also embroiled in litigation with two developers who agreed in 2001 to advance the estimated $8.5 million interest free for a limited time to construct Neal. After Casey was hired as superintendent in 2002, he found that the construction costs would be $13.5 million, a $5 million difference that the school district could not afford. Casey and the district said that the Amended Cooperative Fee Agreement that the developers had signed with the district committed them to paying any costs in excess of $8.5 million, which both developers - Signature Properties and Standard Pacific Homes - said they never promised.

Since last year, both sides have been involved in legal skirmishing, with Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw ruling recently that the Amended Fee Agreement could not be enforced because it violated a state law involving public bidding requirements. The school district lost in its first appeal of that ruling, but was scheduled to be back in court yesterday for a new ruling.

Casey said that if the district's claim prevails in court and the developers are ordered to cover all costs over the $8.5 million that the city will be reimbursed its $2.5 million first. If the district fails to win its case, Fialho said the city would forgive the loan.

"It would become a permanent contribution to the school district to enable the construction of Neal School," Fialho said. "In return, we would gain the right to use multi-purpose rooms and athletic fields at schools throughout the district."

School board member Patrick J. Kernan said Pleasanton taxpayers shouldn't be concerned whether it's the city or school district that is covering the added cost of building Neal.

"Whether it's the school district or the city, there's really no distinction," he said. "It's taxpayer money and we need to spend it wisely. Our obligation as school board trustees is to provide education for our kids."

"I think it's paramount that we make a decision (on Neal) and move forward," he added. "We've been at this too long. We need to get on with it and do our best."

But board member Juanita Haugen questioned the need for Neal Elementary nearly a decade after it was planned and at a time "when demographics no longer work for us."

"Even though there's a new road to the school, it would still be located far from any homes and next to traffic circles that I think are accidents waiting to happen," she added. "I don't want us collaborating with the city just so that we can have it by 2007."

Under questioning by board member Steve Pulido, Casey acknowledged that the $13.5 million cost of Neal School was only an assumption based on an estimate that's now a year old.

"If when we go out for bids we find that the cost is higher, then we will have to sit down with the city and talk about it," Casey explained. "We would do that before starting construction to determine how to meet any higher costs."

Vicki Reinke, a long-time Pleasanton resident and school activist, questioned the board about moving forward on a commitment it made to build Neal several years ago.

Citing lower enrollment figures for elementary age children, she added: "I would hate to see us build a school that we may no longer need. Plus this school is way out on Vineyard and would be all by itself with no homes nearby. Kids couldn't ride their bikes there; they would still have to be driven to school."

In the end, while giving Casey their unofficial approval to continue pursuing the Neal School construction and financing plan, they also asked him to report back with estimated numbers for elementary age children in Ruby Hill and the Vineyard Corridor and the possible need for another school in Hacienda Business Park, where city officials hope to place hundreds of new subsidized, affordable homes.

"I continue to believe that the school district will be served very positively with a 10th elementary school at the Vineyard Avenue location," Casey said. "While the number for the K-5 student population may be lower than we had projected in 2002, at the end of the day we should still be at about 6,200 elementary school students, which would warrant another school."

"As we look at the timeline and partnership with the city, we believe we can build the school and have it open in November or December 2006," he concluded.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.