|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton school board is set to consider approving a resolution on Thursday that would order a school bond measure election this November for a newly reduced total of $395 million.
District staff will be reviewing the reduced amount and other revisions to the bond language during Thursday’s board meeting so they can submit the resolution to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters’ Office and the clerk of the Board of Supervisors by Aug. 12.
When Pleasanton residents voted to pass the $270 million general obligation Measure I1 bond in 2016, about one third of the $856 million identified facilities improvement needs were covered, according to the district report. The district attempted to pass another bond in the March 2020 primary election; the $323 million Measure M earned just above majority support but fell 2.6% short of the 55% voter approval needed to pass.
Since Measure I1 passed, staff have been working on a Facility Master Plan update that would separate the facility improvements of all 15 school sites into a two-tier system to address areas of high priority first.
Tier 1 will prioritize funding for the gym and theater constructions at both Amador Valley and Foothill high schools as well as new classrooms at Vintage Hills Elementary. The second tier will focus on deferred maintenance, restructuring of the visual performing arts in high schools, cafeteria and air conditioning and heating equipment.
The bond that the school board is seeking to get on the November ballot would fund the first tier while the second tier would be funded through State Office of Public School Construction funds, the sale of the district office, state or local funding, or saved money from other construction bids.
The board approved the master plan at its June 23 meeting and originally endorsed a draft of the bond resolution that was asking for $450 million. But after re-evaluating two tier 1 projects, the funding for transitional kindergarten classrooms at Donlon and Fairlands elementary schools, staff resized the amount.
“The projects will be constructed as part of Measure I1,” the district staff report reads. “This was possible due to bid savings and relocation of available funds for increased capacity projects.”
The bond will now utilize a tax rate of $49 per $100,000 of assessed value, rather than the previously agreed $55.
Another revision to the resolution staff added was adding the word “continue” in the 75-word sentence that will be in the voter packet as a description of what the bond will address.
During the June 23 meeting, Board President Mark Miller and Vice President Steve Maher wanted it to be clear that while most of these projects in the master plan are new, some are continuations of work already being done with Measure I1. According to the staff report, most Measure I1 projects are set to be completed in the 2024-25 timeframe.
Other revisions to the resolution include: minor verb changes, a reference to students with disabilities, minor language changes to the project list descriptions and an expanded technology list similar to Measure I1.
If the resolution is approved and submitted to the county, the bond election will be consolidated with the statewide election to be held on November 8.
The next step for the district in the Facility Master Plan is to develop an implementation plan that will go into more detail on project and construction management as well as other planning regarding the phasing of the project.
“The sooner we begin this work, the better our position will be when the bond passes,” the staff report reads. “If approved, staff will bring a contract to support the Implementation Plan and other associated work needed to move this process forward.”
The school board’s open-session meeting is scheduled to start at 6 p.m. Thursday (July 27). Read the full agenda here.
In other business
* The district reached a tentative agreement with the California School Employees Association bargaining unit to give classified employees a 3.75% salary increase and more benefits.
If approved, the salary increase will be retroactive to June 30 and will also include a cost-of-living adjustment of 6.56%.
CSEA is the largest classified school employees labor union in the United States, according to its website. Classified staff are school and district employees who do not require certification like paraprofessionals, office staff, custodians, bus drivers and business managers.
Other items in the agreement include increased contribution toward health and welfare benefits, and contributions toward dental and vision coverage.
“The estimated annual cost of the 3.75% to the salary schedule is estimated at $1,021,790 annually,” according to the district report. “The estimated annual cost of the additional contribution to the medical is at $610,000 in 2022-23.”
* The board will review and look to approve amendments to employment agreements with Superintendent David Haglund and assistant superintendents Ed Diolazo, Julio Hernandez and Ahmad Sheikholeslami.
According to the staff report, employee agreements are reviewed and updated as part of the annual evaluation cycle for the executive management team.
Haglund’s amendment will be seeking approval to extend his term an additional year, creating a new four-year agreement that will end on June 30, 2026. His base salary will also be set at $369,780.
Both amendments for Hernandez, assistant superintendent of human resources, and Sheikholeslami, assistant superintendent of business services, include a base salary of $254,053 and a one year term extension that will create a new 3-year agreement ending June 30, 2025.
Assistant superintendent of support services Diolazo’s amendment will look a bit different from Hernandez and Sheikholeslami because of an item that will be presented to the board prior to the employment agreement discussion.
The board will consider updating Diolazo’s job description and renaming him to deputy superintendent. According to the staff report, the job description of the deputy superintendent is intended to function as an overlay to the existing assistant superintendent’s responsibilities.
In the new position description, Diolazo would serve as the chief officer of the district in the absence of superintendent Haglund.
If approved, Diolazo’s amendment to his employment agreement would then also include an additional year to his term, creating a three-year agreement ending on June 30, 2025 and would see a base salary of $259,134. He would also get a “5% increase over base salary and compensation for performing duties of deputy superintendent,” according to the report.
The board can decide not to go through with the deputy position job description change and in that case the amendment would revert to those outlined for the other two assistant superintendents.
No, no and no again to more bond measures for the PUSD. They are not good stewards of the money they have and they are not transparent. They are counting on new residents of Pleasanton to fall for this since those of us who have lived here for 20 years or more have heard this before.
The smallest age group in Pleasanton is the SENIORS.
Seniors will pay a minimum 0f 17 percent of this bond measures, upwards to a maximum of 26 percent of this bond measure.
The SENIORS are being taxed out of their homes; the SENIORS are being tax to end their life’s.
Absolutely not.
They’ve failed to deliver on the past promises of bonds. Where is our new school? Where is the district re zoning to better balance impacted classrooms? I’ll gladly invest in our schools when these board members deliver on all previous bond commitments…..don’t tell me you have when you promised a school and built a fence instead.
“Enrollment is down” – yet every house turning over brings in a younger family with school age kids……..not adding up.
No no no
This is about securing a revenue stream not doing what’s right for our students/teachers
Registration completed today, PTA asked for $250 to their general fund at Hearst. Everyone has their hands out, not sure where this money is spent, although I have seen numerous PUSD social media paid ads? Maybe that’s where the money goes? At this point we are considering pulling our 3 kids from PUSD and moving them all to private. Apparently we aren’t the only ones according to pleasanton weekly over 500 students have left PUSD elementary schools, since 2019. It just doesn’t make sense to keep pouring money into a district that is spending money on things like running ads on social media. School Board, do better, PTAs, please lower your ask.
We are going private as well
And there is the question, how many Pleasanton children have transferred to another district or gone private?
I hear often what great schools are in Pleasanton, students achieve in Pleasanton schools. Are those stories true? Or are those stories just stories.
I ask because I happen to know the PUSD board has been misaligned for more than a dozen years. The PUSD board has said one thing and done another, the PUSD board at times have maliciously been nontransparent.
When floating bonds PUSD board inserted language that stated what they intended the bond for is not true. The PUSD board and its leadership have fringed around violating the Brown act, have ventured into Brown Act violation.
Now the PUSD board and its leadership want to tax seniors out of their homes with this new bond. How criminal will we allow the PUSD board, and its leadership get before it is too late?
gosh, almost makes one wonders exactly who votes the board members in?
Oh, the voters do. 😉