PUSD seeks community feedback on addressing capacity issues

District-released survey open until July 13

The Pleasanton Unified School District has released a survey open to all community members to share input on how the district can address increased enrollment numbers in the northern part of the city.

Enrollment figures have been high on the district's agenda for the past few months, as demographers have projected an increase of about 790 students over the next seven years, with a bulk of the growth in northern Pleasanton -- meaning the school district needs to determine how to best hold the influx of students.

Superintendent David Haglund held two community input meetings last month as a chance for parents and others to share their thoughts on the options currently being considered. These options include adjusting school boundaries, increasing the capacity at Donlon Elementary and Hart Middle School, building a new elementary school and using a K-8 school confiugration at two existing schools.

District officials say they are still collecting feedback, however, and for those who were unable to attend the input meetings, PUSD has released an online survey. The survey will remain open until July 13.

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


14 people like this
Posted by More feedback?
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jun 14, 2018 at 9:49 am

I will say the one thing this city does well is ask for feedback. How about ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING WITH THE FEEDBACK!! I have lived here for 19 years and the city has been asking for a new elementary school the entire time I have been here. Voters approved the tax based on the fact that a new school was part of what was promised. Now in typical fashion the district is back pedaling saying we don't need a new school when clearly we do. This is the best district for dragging their feet. Quit asking for feedback and build the damn school - do something Heglund to earn this big bonus and raise you just got!

8 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 14, 2018 at 10:26 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

The district and the board, in their bond language, promised a new elementary school. The board also committed to not floating the remaining $34MM budgeted for the school if they do not intend to build it (this reduces the total bond from $270MM to $235MM, saving taxpayers $35MM in debt). There also is the board's 5-0 vote for elementary campuses of no more than 700 students.

There is the demographer's report that indicates the district will need two new elementary schools in the future. There is the fact that some 200 students are being overflowed out of their neighborhood schools (Donlon, Fairlands, and Walnut Grove I believe)--one parent who spoke had a child moved from WG to either Valley View or Vintage Hills. There also was a question raised by one parent who wanted to understand where students from Donlon or Fairlands (TK-5) would go for 6-8 if Hart is made a TK-8 school.

Also being floated is the idea of just adding to current elementary campuses, ignoring state guidelines for acreage/Multi-purpose/library space per student. This also, and perhaps more importantly, flies in the face of the district's insistence that it does not have funds for operating a new school. Yet expanding campuses will create a need for more teachers and more administrators to teach and manage much larger campuses. (Right now, a new school would mean most teachers could choose to move to the new campus, reducing current overcrowding, and only needing to hire administration/support staff--who might also come from overcrowded campuses).

Add to this the Facilities Master Plan that indicates a need for $840MM more 11_3_B1MeasureI1FMPDocumentTableOfContentsPages1Through91_0.pdf (if that link doesn't work, it is item 11.3, attachment links at the bottom of the item, Pages 1-91 at this link Web Link ). Look at the wish list in the attachment, page 55, which includes Greenhouses for all schools at $12.5MM, and most alarmingly Employee Housing and a Technology Refresh with no estimated costs (so those costs are above and beyond the hoped for $840MM and the $270MM they already have from voters). It also includes updating the theaters at both high schools for $58MM. Doesn't the Amador theater belong to the City? Thankfully there is $108MM set aside for new "facilities to address capacity," but that is sufficiently vague enough that it may not mean a new school at any level.

No matter your opinion, I hope the broader community will respond to the survey by July 13. It is relatively brief and shouldn't take much of each person's time. The district and board need to hear from all of us.

14 people like this
Posted by no name chosen
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 14, 2018 at 10:56 am

no name chosen is a registered user.

My response -- does it cost money? Then the answer is and always will be NO.

This district cannot be trusted with following up on promises or spending responsibly. Ever dollar that they pry from us goes to salaries and bonuses. A big raise AND a bonus for a guy who has been there one single year and made no significant changes? Right, not reasonable or responsible. Until they CUT salaries, pensions, and show fiscal responsibility (not even remotely likely in my lifetime) I will vote no on every single issue that gives them more money. No matter what they say they will do with it. Be responsible with ALL of the money before asking for any more for any reason.

1 person likes this
Posted by Snowflake
a resident of Pheasant Ridge
on Jun 14, 2018 at 11:15 am

Snowflake is a registered user.

No, measure I1 never promised a new school - it merely stated that it COULD be used for a new elementary school.

From the ballot: "California Education Code Section 15100 restricts the use of the proceeds from the bonds sale to items such as building school buildings, improving school grounds, supplying school buildings and grounds with equipment, and the acquisition of real property for school facilities. In addition, proceeds may only be used for the projects listed in the measure. This measure provides that its proceeds will fund projects that include, among others: school site safety and security; renovation, repair, and upgrading of school facilities; and construction of an elementary school. Proceeds may not be used for any other purpose, such as administrator salaries.

If you interpret everything on the ballot summary as a promise, there would not be enough money to deliver on everything.

Web Link

11 people like this
Posted by Ellen
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jun 14, 2018 at 11:17 am

The inmares are running the asylum...... I live in Valley Trails where they are building 36 new homes. WHERE WILL THOSE KIDS GO TO SCHOOL? Just keep building. Just keep building.

Like this comment
Posted by Ellen
a resident of Valley Trails
on Jun 14, 2018 at 11:19 am


6 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 14, 2018 at 11:58 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

Snowflake, Language is so important.

The bond language: “To repair and upgrade aging classrooms and facilities at local schools; provide 21st-century learning technology and facilities; improve school safety and security; update science labs; improve energy and water efficiency; renovate, construct, and acquire classrooms, equipment and facilities; ***and construct a new elementary school,*** shall Pleasanton Unified School District issue $270,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, with independent citizen oversight, annual audits, all funds used for local schools, and no money used for administrators’ salaries?”

See also page A-5 of the Resolution, a legal document: Web Link which spells out the new elementary.

It absolutely is a promise to build a new elementary and it says so in your own quote: “This measure provides that its proceeds will fund projects that include, among others: . . . and construction of an elementary school.”

The rest of your quote had no specifics tied to it, so it could be applied throughout the district. The $35MM, however, was very specific and only applies to a school as voted on by the board.

Without that commitment, the board and district will lose what little trust they currently have and nothing will pass in the future.

4 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 14, 2018 at 12:11 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

To others who posted here, you can remain anonymous on the survey. Please Provide your feedback!

5 people like this
Posted by Pleasanton Parent
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 14, 2018 at 5:54 pm

Survey seems weighted to the "benefits" of the items we don't want. There are two sections that ask to list the benefits of either existing expansion, or K-8 expansion, and only one section to describe the same for a new school.

Depending on how you group the data, it could look like their is "overwhelming" benefits for expansion and not as much (quantitative) for a new school.

Make sure to reference - need for new school in the benefit sections for the expansion areas, that message needs to stand out in all responses to prevent any partitioning of data to show a favorable response to expansion over building a new school

Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 15, 2018 at 1:25 pm

Simple: Pleasanton needs new schools ! Keep up the good work Kathleen on correct information! Will do the survey and hope we get action on new school classrooms, and get out of the aging portables!

Like this comment
Posted by PleasantTruth
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 19, 2018 at 9:11 am

Research shows the K-8 model is superior to the elementary and then middle school model.

Like this comment
Posted by Livermore Parent
a resident of Livermore
on Jun 19, 2018 at 11:05 am

Plenty of empty school space in Livermore. And we have Superintendent Kelly Bowers who makes $378,664.91 as of 2016.

8 people like this
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills
on Jun 19, 2018 at 11:26 am

Kathleen Ruegsegger is a registered user.

PT, please show the data or link to K-8 models being superior. Please be sure it included recommended school size. Then please explain where K-5 students will attend middle school if Hart is K-8 (it would impact at least Donlon and Fairlands). Will we bus the students to the, also overcrowded, 6-8 schools, Harvest Park and PMS? Except we don’t have buses. So I guess parents or Wheels? And there is the idea being floated of expanding all elementary campuses, which will also impact the two remaining 6-8 campuses. We need to be looking at the district in its entirety and stop piecemealing temporary solutions together. These are our community’s children. Any child deserves better thinking for their futures than what is being presented.

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

Be the first to know

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

Premarital and Couples: "Our Deepest Fear" by Marianne Williamson
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 966 views

District elections will be problematic
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 711 views

Fly the flag, it’s “Flag Week”
By Jeb Bing | 3 comments | 334 views


Nominations due by Sept. 16

Pleasanton Weekly and are once again putting out a call for nominations and sponsorships for the annual Tri-Valley Heroes awards - our salute to the community members dedicated to bettering the Tri-Valley and the lives of its residents.

Nomination form