School board to discuss student enrollment projections

Lydiksen rebuild design, budget update, Classified Employee of the Year also on tap Tuesday

The Pleasanton school board is set to review and consider the fall 2017 demographers’ report Tuesday night.

The demographic report takes into account data collected from fall 2014 through fall 2017 to create a seven-year projection for student enrollment in the district. The data, staff say, can help Pleasanton Unified with future facilities projects, boundary adjustments and staffing requirements.

“This report and the recently compiled demographic data will help the District determine areas that will be most impacted by projected growth or decline as well as providing insight into the long-term needs of the District at Maturity (when all potential residential units are ‘built-out’ and the neighborhoods have been established),” demographers wrote in a staff report.

The board approved a contract in December 2017 with Davis Demographics, who will continue conducting the district’s demographic report for the next three years, at a cost of $25,000 per year.

To conduct their research, the demographers looked at student residential data collected over the past four years and identified future development plans.

The demographers said that the district can expect a total net growth of 790 students through 2024: 424 TK-5 students, 164 middle school students and 202 high schoolers. Northern Pleasanton would be most affected by projected student growth, they found.

“In the near term, the District continues to see the impacted campuses in the northern region of the District that includes the Donlon, Walnut Grove, and Fairlands elementary attendance areas,” Davis Demographics wrote in the staff report. The District should consider its options to address the capacity concerns that include redistricting, continuing to transfer students into schools with additional capacity, or add capacity in the form of a new elementary school or expanding existing schools with funds from Measure I1.”

They added that at least two extra elementary facilities will need to be constructed at some point after 2024 once the district has fully “matured.”

After receiving and discussing the findings at Tuesday night’s meeting, the board will consider approving the fall 2017 demographers’ report.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the district office boardroom at 4665 Bernal Ave., following two hours of closed session.

In other business

* Board members will recognize the Employee of the Year for the California School Employees Association (CSEA) and students who earned perfect AP exam scores.

* The board will consider approving the conceptual design for the Lydiksen Elementary modernization project, which was presented at the last school board meeting. If approved, the project's schematic design phase will start immediately.

* Trustees will consider approve an enterprise fund for adult education, to account for fees collected and expenses incurred during the district's summer enrichment program.

*The board will consider approving an internship program for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, proposed by the district's adult and career education department.

If approved, the district will apply to the Regional Center of the East Bay for state funding, for potential implementation beginning fall 2018.

* Board members will discuss the second interim budget report, prepared as of Jan. 31, and consider approving it with a positive certification.

*The board will consider approving Cossolias Wilson Dominguez Leavitt as the new auditing service providers for the district, staff’s recommended pick after a month-long RFP and interview process.

*Board members will consider a resolution reducing a 0.20 full-time equivalent (FTE) employee position in the World Language Japanese department.

* Trustees will consider appointing two board members to the policy subcommittee.

* Superintendent David Haglund will present a resolution to support student safety and well-being in California public schools.

“Pleasanton Unified School District urges the state of California and the United States Congress to prioritize policy that promotes student safety and well-being and ensures welcoming environments where all students have the opportunity to learn, grow and thrive,” the resolution concludes.

* During closed session from 5-7 p.m., the board will consider appointing a coordinator of human resources. Also during closed session, trustees will confer with assistant superintendent of human resources Julio Hernandez regarding negotiations with the Association of Pleasanton Teachers (APT) and the California School Employees Association (CSEA).

Concluding the closed session in four separate items, the board will discuss undisclosed, anticipated litigation.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.


5 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 12, 2018 at 2:56 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

I was wondering why these numbers seemed like garbage. Page 11 of the report says:

“The EPSP units are NOT included in this table or the projections contained in this report (for either the seven-year projections or the Maturation projections). The EPSP has gone through many changes in the past and more are possible in the future. It will be important for the District to continue to monitor plans for East Pleasanton as plans for the site have the potential to impact the District’s future student population and facility needs.”

1330 to 2600 additional houses exist here. So I’m assuming that the district will remember to require a new middle school and such...

13 people like this
Posted by Julie Testa
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Mar 13, 2018 at 10:07 am

This report only considers growth already on the books. The City of Pleasanton recently made PUSD aware of the extreme growth that is likely in Pleasanton's future, that is not concidered in this report. And yet the report identifies a need for at least two new K-5's, 11 elementary schools with enrollment of 720 students each with current identified new growth. The report say's new middle and high schools are not needed "if" high enrollments are "acceptable". Tell PUSD to use the $270 million Capital bond for new schools.

"Housing developer profits on the backs of the taxpaying middle class"
"Although the state has been conjuring elaborate housing development schemes for more than a decade, there was always the lingering question of how such development would be paid for. That decision has now been made decisively: it will be on the backs of middle class residents in the guise of “fees” (the new way to tax residents without letting them vote on it) and the costs of running local government (assessments, bonds, sales taxes, etc.)....These new laws will unquestionably have profound long term financial impacts on cities and onerous consequences for taxpayers....How then can small cities possibly afford to build and maintain the infrastructure, public services, schools and public safety agencies needed to serve large-scale housing development? ...The answer is they cannot."
Web Link

4 people like this
Posted by Grumpy
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on Mar 13, 2018 at 5:50 pm

Grumpy is a registered user.

I don’t like the ABAG paranoia or displaced anger that I read a lot here. But I also agree that the new state laws being considered are unfounded and likely to backfire.

And I totally agree that the bond money was for new schools. I am puzzled why the district wants to tear down and replace one school without increasing capacity. It’s like living in a one bedroom house, getting pregnant, then taking out a home equity loan and using it to install a steam shower, hot tub, and giant walk in closet rather than adding a nursery for the baby. Seems deeply irresponsible.

4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Mar 13, 2018 at 7:14 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Here is my takeaway on the elementary section to the board:

Good afternoon,
Unfortunately, I am could only make quick notes on the first 30 some pages of the report focused on elementary schools. I am, quite frankly, afraid to find out the predictions for middle and high schools with caveats like “if” listed regarding size and capacity at those levels.

Before I paste my thoughts below, I think the board needs to ensure they are receiving a 204 page report at least a week in advance. Given the predictions and volume of data, it is unconscionable to provide this on a Friday before a Tuesday meeting.

As an opener: We are already too late to get an elementary in time. Lydiksen's priority was the wrong choice. I understand their feeling like they were first, but that is wrong. And NO ONE ever looked at a remodel versus a tear down. We aren't tearing down schools (WG at least was about stachyabotrus atra (however that was spelled).

These comments are page by page as I went through the report, but while in order, I, surprisingly, didn’t comment on every page. :o) I will watch the televised version of your discussions later. Thanks much, Kathleen

Report says two elementary schools at 600-700 are needed by 2024–when is the first school needed?

Cannot float a bond before 2019. With a 3-5 year lead time, we are already behind (first school not before 2022-2025).

Current capacity (9 schools at 700) is 6,300 students. Report states 7,927 students and 11 schools. That is 721 students for each of 11 schools or 231 students who don’t “fit.” That is before you count the students the district allows from other districts. I don’t know how many may be children of teachers or whether this also includes Special Day Class enrollment.

We continue to see that middle or high schools are not needed “. . . If 1,280 . . . and 2,580 . . . are acceptable and possible.” AVHS already exceeds 2,580.
Capacity discussions should NOT include the portables.

“It was part of DDP’s Fall 2016 contract, but not part of the 2017’s contract to update the District’s Student Yield Factors. Therefore, DDP used what was calculated in last year’s report.” Why? Last student yield factors did NOT predict the surprise growth occurring during the current school year.

EPSP COULD NOW INCLUDE HIGHER DENSITY because of actions in Sacramento. The report is indicating two elementary schools without EPSP. The district must include even the lowest projections in order to be able to plan and react to this eventual development. This is not just about getting an elementary site/school from the developer. There would be crucial impacts to middle and high schools with NO PLAN to address those needs. There must be a plan in place that can be modified for more, fewer, or no students based on what the city does. I think few believe this will never be developed.

Donlon, 1321; Fairlands, 918.1; by 2023. You cannot build a school in time. These schools are over 700 now (see note above) and continue to grow. What staff continues to say is that these children don’t matter. And I will dare say they are saying, these children don’t matter more than pensions.

For 2017, the report states Donlon is currently 1,063 students in the neighborhood. Where are you sending 363 students to stay at 700 or less? Fairlands at 812. Where are the 112 students being sent? The 2018 numbers are higher, meaning more portables, more parents moving across town to get to schools, more traffic, more disruption for families and students ability to make friends. These decisions hurt students and families. How long are we going to keep making the same decisions and expecting a different result. This is just insulting the community.

Mohr continues to stay a small, elite school. A private school in a public district.

Donlon, Fairlands, Hearst, Mohr, Lydiksen, Valley View, and Walnut Grove are all over 700 at maturity. “Maturity” is a euphemism for “we don’t know.” So it could come before 2024. Even before that. Often over 1,000.

Elementary expected to keep growing to 2023 at 6415. With maturity being, essentially, 7900.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Three Alameda County Supervisors vote thumbs down on public safety
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 582 views

Council halts plans for 90-home senior housing on Merritt property
By Jeb Bing | 0 comments | 208 views