|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton school board will receive an update on the Measure I1 bond program as part of its regular meeting agenda Tuesday night.
Since the passage of the $270 million school facilities initiative in November, the district has formed a citizens’ oversight committee and begun developing educational and building standards for bond projects.
Now, PUSD is in the process of requesting pricing estimates from its bench of architects for prospective work to develop the district’s Measure I1 and facility master plan. That plan will be developed with input from a committee that the district will begin recruiting for next week, according to an update in the board packet.
Fourteen people will be invited to join the committee, including district representatives, a high school student and a PTA member, among others. They will work with the selected architects to develop the facility master plan with timelines, budgets and project details by school, using the board approved bond project list as their foundation.
But because the process for developing a facilities master plan can take several months, district administration wants to proceed with issuing an estimated $69 million in bonds for a few immediate projects. They would include the Lydiksen Elementary School rebuild at a rough cost of $30 million; certificates of participation payoff at $14.3 million; $11.5 million for infrastructure, safety and security projects; $10 million for modernizations qualifying for state funding; and $3.3 million for staff and student laptops.
PUSD administrators are slated to ask trustees to consider authorizing the issuance and sale of bonds at the June 13 meeting, according to the board packet. They would next recommend a contract for architects to lead the facility master plan development June 27.
Measure I1, which passed with a 69% yes vote in the November election, imposed a new tax of $49 per $100,000 of assessed value on Pleasanton property owners. It’s expected to generate $270 million in revenue for school facilities projects, among them a new elementary school.
Tuesday’s meeting will get underway at 7 p.m. in the district office boardroom at 4665 Bernal Ave. following closed session at 5 p.m.
In other business
* District administration will ask the board to approve a donation of up to $1 million from the Amador Valley High School athletic booster club.
The donation would fund the purchase, installation and warranty for a new synthetic turf field, as well as track resurfacing at Amador.
If approved, the board would also consider awarding a contract to FieldTurf USA for the work.
* Trustees will consider adopting new instructional materials for middle and high school English Language Arts and English language development courses.
* The school board will receive a report updating student progress on college and career readiness.
* The board will be asked to approve new and revised job descriptions for several positions.
* Trustees will consider memorandums of understanding between PUSD and the local California School Employees Association chapter regarding classified layoffs and assignment during recess periods. One memorandum outlines protocol for classified layoffs; the other includes protocol for special education classified employees who work during summer school.
* Administrators will ask trustees to approve a contract between PUSD and Dublin Partnership in Education for DPIE’s summer 2017 STEM Academy. There are currently over 200 PUSD students enrolled in upcoming summer courses through the program.
* In closed session starting at 5 p.m., the board will conduct a performance evaluation of interim superintendent Micaela Ochoa, consider two cases of employee discipline, dismissal or release, and discuss three potential student expulsions.
Trustees could also appoint two elementary school vice principals.
They are also scheduled to discuss anticipated litigation, a tort claim and existing litigation involving former Walnut Grove Elementary School principal Jon Vranesh.
I think the interim superintendent should be given an F. Students aren’t “safe” on campus but they spend their time at the district headquarters composing “safe haven” resolutions. Given the widespread staff misconduct and lack of attention regarding the complaint concerning abuse and hazing at Amador Valley High School discussed at the last Board meeting Community agenda item, I would hope that the Board would just resign and hand over the running of the school district to more able and qualified members of the community.
The school district is in a sorry situation when it does not put the actual health and safety of its children in the community first.
Also, I do notice as did many others that as soon as Rick Rubino started saying at public meetings a third high school was needed in Pleasanton, that within months he was booted. This all seems to many parents a set of manufactured charges. The union does not like new schools, does it? Also, does that mean if I look down to tie my shoelaces or if my kids look down to tie their shoelaces, they can be accused of sexual harassment like Rubino was?
I did see the cringe worthy city council (without Thorne present)/school board meeting (school board is what made it cringe worthy) on TV. Did the school staff and board members file complaints against any of the downward looking male city council members and staff members for reading their notes? Downward glances = sexual harassment according to the school district.
No wonder there is declining enrollment.
Understanding that Ms. Ochoa has been pulled in multiple directions as CBO and Interim Superintendent, the promised bluebook of projects–promised for December–still is not completed. There is an interesting juxtaposition of coming up with suggestions as CBO for first priorities on spending the bond money and then approving her own suggestions as Interim Superintendent in her recommendations to the Board.
The Board should have the bluebook, should be discussing all the projects, and determining the priorities, before the first sale of bonds is attempted over the summer. And that process should be open to the public, before school ends, so the parents and taxpayers who will foot the bill can voice their preferences.
Instead we have this suggested list:
Technology: Staff and Student Laptops, $3.3MM
Infrastructure, Safety and Security, $11.45MM
Modernizations Qualifying for State Funding, $10MM
Certificates of Participation Pay-off, $14.27MM
Lydiksen Rebuild/Modernization, $30MM
The one I don’t believe is a priority is Lydiksen–at $30MM. There has been no discussion of where Lydiksen students will be housed while their school is torn down and rebuilt. $30MM when you already have the land seems overly expensive. The school was modernized, apparently not very well, in 2005. This does not get current students out of portables. It takes three to five years, even with land, to design and build a school start to finish and to get through all the hoops at the Department of the State Architect.
A new school, maybe at Neal–but there are other ideas being bandied about, means you could first use the school to house Lydiksen students OR change boundaries to shift students out of Lydiksen, but closer to their families/homes. Certainly, neither of those options is without its complications, and I don’t mean to make this sound like a walk in the park.
Additionally, we do not have an answer as to how long after the Series A bond ($69MM suggested above) before we again have capacity to sell a Series B bond and continue the work. If it is three years from now (about the time we will have paid the 1995(?) bonds off at $20/$100,000), and we go for the new school then, it would be 2023-2025 before it is completed. Better to tackle the new school, listed as $35MM, first; get in line for matching funds from the state, and then tackle Lydiksen, perhaps in phases and with the matching state funds.
The bottom line is staff is roaring ahead with recommendations a a proposed sale of Series A bonds without the board or the community weighing in and without a list of projects and costs (called the bluebook) so the board can hear from the community and set those priorities.
Agree with Kathleen’s message. I think it is VERY important to not sell the bonds until we have public buy-in on the projects and detailed plans that the community knows. When you sell a bond, you start paying the interest on it. You do not want to sell the bond before it is needed. Otherwise that is like paying for mortgage payments way before you even have a house.
The order of the process should be:
1) Get accurate costs on desired improvements
2) Go to the community and confirm this is what the community wants. If buildings will be removed, what will happen to the students there while construction is going on.
3) Bring this to the Bond oversight committee to confirm and make public recommendations to the School Board
4) Have the School Board vote on the projects and estimated costs
5) Go out for bid on the projects
6) Come back to the School Board with the new bids and approval to sell bonds to meet those projects. Should the bids be way off from the estimates, bring this to the Bond Oversight Committee first.
The District has to bring Trust to the community. When the Bond Measure was on the ballot, I was told many times that the District will produce a book of the projects along with realistic cost estimates and priorities to the residents prior to going ahead. Are they already disregarding what we were promised? It sounds like it.
Lydiksen needs of a refresh. The school is severely outdated and needs have the infrastructure to handle current technology. Not to mention the facilities in general are rundown. The school has
not kept pace with the other elementary schools.
Before spending that amount of money on demolishing and rebuild a school, we need an approved master plan of facilities; including how many students we will have at each school and how many schools we will REALISTICALLY build. How do we know how many classrooms to build at Lydiksen? If this is not done right (i.e., like things are being done today), after we spend a ton of money at Lydiksen the district will be placing portables there.
I don’t understand the criteria being used for rebuilding a school from scratch.
Why is a building like Lydiksen supposedly built in the early 1970s need to be re-built from the ground up when buildings from earlier decades like Alisal and Valley View that I believe are from the 1950s (Alisal is the 1950s, Valley View might be about the same era but perhaps later) are not on the list?
I have heard from some people that there is a movement to bring back ‘open classrooms’ and ‘classrooms without walls.’ Is this true?
Haven’t most districts abandoned K-5’s anyway? And are they simply rebuilding Lydiksen to be yet another K-5 or is going to be a K-8? And will it be the size of Donlon so that Donlon can be made smaller?
I don’t think the school board has done a good job at all addressing what their plans are and think they need to hold back issuing all bonds until they come up with priorities and reasons why they are priorities.
rebuilding?
You should send your comments to the PUSD Board.
The “problem” with Lydiksen is the current mis-use of the building design.
The building which will be torn down was designed as a “pod”.
The Pod design is an optimal design for class sizes of 10 ~ 18 students per class.
Packing 35 students into a any room designed for 18max will only lead to problems.
The current problem with Lydiksen is not the design of the brick & mortar, its packing 35 students into a room designed for 18 max.
John
In November 69.2% of our community voted to upgrade, repair and modernize our schools. The projects came from the school boards final approved list dated July 7th 2016.
Why is it still being debated? We need to stop all this talking, forming committees etc and just get it done. If we don’t issue bonds soon, we will very likely miss out on matching funds from the state’s $9 billion bond measure, Prop 51. We are already behind on that. If we miss the window to get about $10 million in matching funds this year, it means that Pleasanton taxpayers will be paying into Prop 51, but getting nothing back in our community for it.
Holding up all projects for a Facilities Master Plan is unnecessary for projects like Lydiksen and all the District wide needs that were identified back in January 2013. Lydiksen was supposed to be rebuilt with Measure B bond money, but there wasn’t enough left over after Walnut Grove was done in 2003-04. Lydiksen received some paint and carpet in 2005 and that has been all. It was heartbreaking to hear one of our teachers talk about how thin the walls are and how the rooms are not ADA compliant. We should be moving forward with Lydiksen and other critical repairs and upgrades throughout the district. No further study and prioritization is needed.
A new school for Pleasanton wasn’t even on the list of priorities until July of 2016. All previous plans made 0 mention of it.
The board will be voting June 13th. If we want what we voted for in November to be approved then we need to be there at the school board meeting reminding them to move forward with upgrades, repairs and modernizations now.
GwennErtoz…
Thank you for your perspective
Prop 51
In 2015, the PUSD passed a resolution in support of the Prop 51. This was disingenuous, and a WASTE of Pleasanton taxpayer money. Why…because a basic requirement to apply for matching funds is that a school district must have a “Director of Facilities”.
The position of “Director of Facilities” requisition was not approved by the PUSD Board until January 2017, and I do not think that position has been filled yet.
So PUSD currently does not qualify to apply for matching funds from Prop 51.
New Schools
The demographer report has stated the need for 2 new elementary schools in North Pleasanton. This is supported by the fact that Donlon will be at 1000+ students in the near future. Or are we willing to start busing our kids to schools in Dublin as was done many years ago?
THE BOND
upgrade, repair and modernize our schools…This was the Kool-Aid the voters drank.
If one read the fine print, $15MM was to pay-off current COPS debt. So, of the initial $70MM Bond, $15MM is being used to retire COPS debt.
We were also told that the estimate tax would be $40/$100k assessed. Now, at the recent PUSD Board meeting, I have heard that that estimate is now $49/$100k assessed. And that is only for the first $70MM of Bond issued. We will soon be heading to the maximum allowed by State of $60/$100K. This will be on top of the current $22/$100k on on our property tax bill from the 1997 Bond.
Lydiksen
In 2005, approx. $5MM was invested into Lydiksen….For paint & carpet??? It is a shame we did not have a Bond oversight committee of citizens at that time. $5MM seems a little excessive to me for paint & carpet!
John
Expecting that school bond money to be used for upgrading, repairing and modernizing as promised would be like expecting measure RR that passed for BART at 3.5 BILLION to be used to upgrade, repair modernize and make safe a very outdated poorly managed and run system! The voters are such easy prey, long term memory loss and deep pockets.
The bond measure had a vague list of projects and the district stated they would come back to the community with a detailed list.
As for the state bond, I thought I remember the finance person at a school board meeting saying it was unlikely that PUSDd would get money from that bond, or very little, since it was based on needs and demographics and PUSD did not meet most of that criteria. If this is not true then the school board should be having special meetings now and staff working hard to produce the definitive list of projects and costs for the district to weigh in on, and then meet with the community ASAP.
res2
I would be shocked if the finance person made that statement…unless s/he knew that with no Director of Facilities….No chance for Prop 51 matching funds.
Actually, Supt Rubino, stated during the Measure I1 open houses that almost all the projects on the PUSD Bond list, WOULD qualify for Prop 51 matching funds, and that the funds would be available on a 1st come 1st serve basis.
I think the only person in the State who did NOT support Prop 51 was Gov. Brown.
All PUSD & City Council elected officials supported a YES vote for Prop 51.
So res2…you’re absolutely correct in DEMANDING that the PUSD hire a Facilities Director, get some projects designed, and submit those plans to the State Architecture Board for Prop 51 matching funds.
Looking at the demographics of Pleasanton, I’m sure that many residents will be hit with this extra tax once they file their returns for 2017/18/19/20/21….
I’d like to keep my tax money in Pleasanton if at all possible.
John
FNAF is correct, the Lydiksen “pods” are a joke, they barely fit the 33 desks they are supposed to house inside. And Gwenn is correct, a fellow teacher spoke about the thin walls.
The five million spent in 2005 was for bathroom rebuilds in four buildings (to be ADA compliant), new cabinetry, removal of drop ceilings, increased office space, paint and carpet as mentioned above, plus probably other things I do not recall. Also the added expense of portables for most of a school year.
Anyone who doesn’t think Lydiksen needs all of most of that 30 million, please come by and take a tour.
A new school is slated at $35MM. Why does Lydiksen need $30MM?
And while Lydiksen may have small classrooms and thin walls, the generations of students and their teachers stuck in old portables–62 at the elementary school level–will get no relief from rebuilding Lydiksen. And even more portables will be needed. And there will be students and teachers stuck in portables for six to eight more years, if we are lucky, before a new school would be built under this plan. And the matching money for a new school, $17.5MM potentially, will likely be gone.
If 33 kids are too many, there are other options–many I suspect–to make classes smaller at Lydiksen until the school can be rebuilt.
We aren’t going to get money for every project. We are far from ready. The state bond, while I voted for it, puts the cost of statewide growth on the shoulders of taxpayers, not developers . . . which is why developers backed it.
Lydiksen teacher:
Thank you for your perspective as a teacher.
A serious question…
As a teacher would you prefer to teach in one of the Lydiksen “PODS”, or in a portable (assuming those were your only 2 options)?, and why.
FNAF, the rectangular portable fit rectangular desks better than triangular rooms fit rectangular desks. Maybe the answer is triangular desks?
Kathleen, why 30 million? I have no idea, I’m not in the construction field, but you gotta figure it’s going to require a decent amount of dough. Tearing down five buildings and rebuilding the 20 classrooms, 11 offices, a library and bathrooms for both adults and students will take a lot of money. Plus portable rental for, I’m guessing, 2-3 years, it all adds up.