I and many others in this town would agree with you. Poor economy and so much waste in this town currently.

Michael, K-12 budgets have been roughly 85% personnel costs for as long as I can remember. See Figure 3: www.ppic.org/main/publication_quick.asp?i=1040 This is a relatively good summary of budget issues.

Bond money is for facilities, and can't be used for teachers or administrator's salaries.

Pleasanton parents strongly support aschool bond.

BobB,

I would not say Pleasanton parents support the bond as a blanket statement. Only some support it. I was surveyed and said I would only support if it was specifically listed what is needed and for how much and $60 dollars never came up in the survey. Based on what I know now I vote no.

Any taxpayer, including parents, is going to want a list of must haves vs wishes and nice to haves--and at a reasoned rate, not just an attempted money grab of funds because the tax base is there.

@Susan,

I don't know what the percentage is, but considering the last two parcel tax measures, I'd venture that that more than 50% of voters would probably support a bond measure without any of that. Don't get me wrong, I'd also like to see a list of needs, but I think a measure would pass either way.

Kathleen,

It may not be a money grab but that is what it appears based on the questioning. It's coming off like how much can we get and then what do we spend it on. When I asked questions of the guy who called he could not answer. I asked what we needed and why and he said we don't know yet. That is the opposite of how life is.

Susan, there is a Facilities Master Plan--3 years old. It list something like $500 million in what I will call wishes. It needs to be revised and maybe completely rethought before going to a vote.

BobB, a bond offers no exemptions to seniors (most likely to vote) like the parcel tax. $60 per $100,000 of Assessed Value (not market value)--the most the governance team can try for in a bond ($312ish million)--is going to be more than either parcel tax requested for most home owners. If a home's AV is $500,000, the bond would be $300.

While the threshold is 55% for the type of bond that is likely to be on a ballot, getting it passed is going to take a supportable list of projects, educating the entire community (not just parents), and a reasonable bond amount (not the whole $300 million). I wouldn't start victory laps just yet.

SENIORS ARE NOT EXEMPT IN BOND MEASURES:

"Bond money cannot be used for teachers and administrative salaries".

There are contractor employee costs:

When contractors bid or provide an estimate for a job they are factoring in costs of employee salary, which incudes Medicare, FICA, etc., compensation insurance costs, also can and may factor in employee paid holidays, although the contractor does not pay holidays, there are the hidden costs, permits, fees, etc.

If the district places a $300 million bond on the ballot and the voters approve it, how will the district manage it? Structures erected during the 1970's and into the early 1980's may have asbestos within the structure. Is the contractor factoring in that cost for removal in the bid or estimate, or is it an open end unknown that will balloon the costs 1000%?

How will the district manage what is being spent on material verses what is going to contractor employee labor costs and benefits? Will the district provide an updated account as construction progresses as what has been spent on material improvements verses contractors employee expenses?

Will the district be applying bonuses for the contractor?

Kathleen,

The last parcel tax did not exempt seniors and I believe that is the reason it failed. Seniors are already lining up against this bond issue. $600 dollars is a lot to seniors.

Susan, $300 IF the bond is for the full amount and not $600 unless the assessed value (different than market value) of the home is $1,000,000. I am nearly positive both parcel taxes exempted seniors (it is a major selling factor), but perhaps not those on disability.

Michael, any bid for construction requires walking the site and understanding all the possibilities in the project before bids are submitted. Most projects are limited to 10% for change orders. Staff to run the program can be paid by the bond. I have not seen bonuses awarded. There are laws preventing "gifting of public funds." The firms are paid well and handle their own employee salaries. There are organizations that monitor contractors

Kathleen,

The San Ramon parcel tax did exempt seniors. The Pleasanton parcel tax exempted those which were disabled and seniors could apply in writing for consideration why they should be considered exempt. If it had simply said seniors were exempt it would have passed. There is not a lot of trust around here Kathleen.

Susan, that is not how I remember the seniors exemption. In fact, I remember many seniors who were going to opt "in", because they wanted to help.

If you have a link to this, please share it, because I simply remember a blanket exemption.

There was not a blanket exemption. There isn't one in Palo Alto either, and maybe no district gives a blanket exemption. I can deduce several reasons why it's an annual renewal. PAUSD had families call that had inherited the house after a senior passed and wanted to keep the exemption. People move (perhaps to senior living space), people pass away, a few may elect not to take the exemption one year and need the exemption is some subsequent year--it is smart for a district to require annual filings. The form at PAUSD is simple, is online, and can be mailed in.

Susan, you are preaching to the choir about trust. However, if the projects are must haves, if the bond is smaller than $300 million (like half that), I will vote for it. The people who caused the major disruptions are gone. We can't continue to punish the new team for the errors of the previous teams. We don't expect people to take a job for less money, or benefits, or vacation because the person who had the job before was a screw up. I'm willing to bet on the new team with some of my money and see how it goes.

Building trust is a two way street. The ball is in the district's hands to show they understand and are fixing past mistakes. If that lesson is learned, I will trust their intentions are genuine and wait to see how they handle the money should the bond pass.

Michael, you may know of this site already. They are a very good source of information about districts throughout the state. Web Link

Sorry for so many posts. Others may find this helpful for the Ed-Data site. It's free but they require registration. Web Link

To help you get the most out of the new site, we are offering a free tour of Ed-Data on Thursday, April 7, at 10:30 am. This tour will include a special focus on the financial reports. Please scroll down for details on how to join the Ed-Data training.

Learn more
Online tour of Ed-Data
This no-cost training will walk you through the data and functionality on the site, including how to "drill-in" to a graph to see more detailed information, how to view the numbers behind the graphs, and tips for getting the most out of our powerful comparison tools. We will spend the last half hour (11:30 - noon) focusing on the financial reports, so if you're already familiar with the Ed-Data site but want to get some insight into financial data, feel free to log in at 11:30.

When: Thursday, April 7, from 10:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

The parcel taxes in Pleasanton did have exemptions for seniors. The item the district tried to change at the last minute was not requiring the senior citizens to have to re-register each year for the exemption. The ballot said they had to but then the district was telling people to not pay any attention to the ballot legal terms, they would not require re-registration (obviously illegal for them to say since it was not what was in the ballot language, and that is a legal document).

During the parcel taxes, the seniors were lobbied heavily to vote for the parcel tax. They were told to vote 'yes' since they would not have to pay it. I even saw John Casey telling seniors this directly.

Get the facts,

I am sorry I do not have a link but I do remember it clearly because opting out was not automatic and that is the major reason why my in laws voted no. Everyone was in and then you had to APPLY to opt out. It was not guaranteed you could get out. The San Ramon parcel tax specially states that seniors over 62 are excluded.

Personally I don't like the senior exemptions as long as the seniors can vote on it. Seems disingenuous to vote for an additional tax and know you will exclude yourself from paying for. In a "community of character" you would think that if somebody knew they were going to exempt themselves from paying a tax, they should not be voting on it. I can see the right to tax yourself but the right to tax others does not seem all that fair.

So glad the bonds do not, and can not, have those exclusions. Everybody pays if it goes through. That includes rentals since mostly landlords will pass this additional tax onto their tenants. The school district is going to have to give the entire public a reason to trust them and propose desired projects if they want this bond to pass.

Here is the Resolution language from the 2011 attempt for a parcel tax:

"Exemption for Seniors and SSI Recipients

"Pursuant to California Government Code Section 50079 (b), any owners of A Parcel used solely for owner-occupied, singe-family residential purposes and who are either (a) 65 years of age or older or (b) persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability, regardless of age, may obtain an exemption from the core academic instruction parcel tax by annually submitting an application therefore, by June 15 of each year, to the District."

Measure E Resolution (toward the bottom of the link): Web Link

Another reason the exemptions pose an issue (and should be an annual opt out) is if you pass a parcel tax for $100 million and senior exemptions add up to $250,000; the district must take the missing amount from the General Fund because of the promises (whatever they may be) made to spend $100 million. Can a parcel tax also cover existing programs (and thereby unburden the General Fund) ... sure. So you save $250,000 in GF expenses and still have to make up the exemptions, so it's a wash.

Kathleen,

What you wrote is exactly why no one trusts government. They MAY? Not can. Means someone could make a decision whether to except or not and secondly just just say what is being done here. By making it to where they must sign up annually by June 15tj or lose it is taking advantage of seniors by hoping they forget. Truly upsetting that this thinking would take place here.

May vs Can in that sentence is an insignificant difference. I have not seen a senior denied an exemption. The form at PAUSD is simple. Web Link Seniors are quite capable of remembering or a family member or their tax accountant can assist them.

All this applies to a parcel tax. It does not apply to bond measures.

So if this passes will we be paying on 3 schools bonds?

Susan, Yes. Here is what I posted last month: The projected tax rate for the outstanding bonds drops to about $20/$100,000 this year and to less than $10 for 2022 and 2023. So while we are paying on the two prior bonds, the amount we are paying has dropped significantly and will be gone in seven years.

We are actually paying on three bonds right now. The first two previously voted on by the residents. Then the district did a cash-out refinancing which put them over the previously authorized bond amount, in other words a new unauthorized bond.

Maybe we should wait 7 years for the the current bonds to be paid off. During that time the community can have some real input on what we think are good projects that will enhance our education system and we feel are worth the extra tax.

Seniors should only provide personal financial information when requesting freebies for themselves. When it comes to a new parcel tax, however, seniors should not have to provide personal financial info. Many might like to contribute, but it would be tight. There could possibly be an age line, since senior is sort of a wide-ranging misused word. Maybe there could be an age 70 or 75 line, 60s in this 21st century are not very senior. Many over 70 are still in their smaller houses because it is cheaper. Their savings keep them out of 'nice new city/govt projects', but their savings is earning nothing like they expected or need to live on, and are tightly budgeted. Many over age 70 and long time owners might want to help, but cannot. Sharing personal financials would be wrong....age brackets are realistic and good.. Any over 70, and comfortable enough, could opt in.
I think over age 70 & long-time owners should be exempt period,....without 'public means' evaluating.

Why should an exemption be on age and not means? There are people over 70 that are making a lot of money, including those on public employee pensions or with a lot of assets which produce income. There are younger people, maybe a new homeowner, that is barely scraping by. I never really understood why we have exemptions based solely on age.

Well there are plenty of long-time owner/seniors who DON"T !!! ! AGE is far more fair. Their situation was established 3-4 decades ago. The younger owners made their decisions recently....by choice!

sounds like you think this should be based on the number of years somebody owns a home. A senior could have purchased recently. Somebody in their 30s or 40s could have lost their job, become a single parent, etc.

There is no means test (financial check) for a parcel tax exemption. There is no length of homeownership test either. You own a property, you pay the fee (unless you are 65 or on disability, which has no age limit). I don't know whether the law allows a change to age 70 instead of 65. Someone posted that San Ramon's exemption is 62--it is not. Web Link

There are problems with this kind of tax. If one house is worth $3 million and another is worth $300,000 both will pay the same amount. And if the home worth $3 million is paid for and owned by a senior, they can exempt themselves. Meanwhile, the homeowner in the $300,000 home could be a single parent with a mortgage who makes $75,000 a year and still has to pay. And as someone else pointed out, the people or company owning a property with 300 apartments also pays the same amount.

All good info but we got a bit off topic. There cannot be exemptions for bond measures; the issue at hand. The bond payments are paid from the money collected from the property owners. If there were exemptions, the district would not be able to make the bond payments.

Kathleen that was me and I should have said 65 I'm San Ramon and it also says they are exempt not that they can apply once a year to opt out. That is bait and switch on seniors in my opinion and why it failed.

Susan, yes, San Ramon says one filing unless you move. I'd love to know how they keep track of those who move, own more than one home, or die. Seems like a lot of extra work or a potential loss of income.

We disagree on why the parcel tax attempts failed. The first may have been too much ($250) and was vague about where the money would be spent. The second ($99?) also was vague about where the money would be spent. At least anecdotally the common thread is lack of specificity. I don't think it was an issue for seniors having to file annually. I never saw that argument in the discussions that I recall.

I met some of the sweetest people that were 80 or older who came in pushing their walkers because they wanted to file in person (not at all required). Otherwise, for one forever stamp a year, they were getting a (now) $768 exemption. I don't think that's bait and switch. But as reg says, a moot point regarding a bond.

There are strong demands to BART to get their house in order before asking the taxpayers for more money. The measage should be the same for PUSD.

"This is a positive opportunity for BART to get its fiscal house together," said Pleasanton Councilman Jerry Pentin, standing with Glazer. Web Link

Will our local representatives demand responsibility from PUSD?

Simply enough. I didn't realize it was flat tax. If it's same for a senior with 400K vs 4 million, it is really simple. Big NO. Of course it's instant defeat. Crazy to even discuss the possibility. Do not waste any money on an election. Jury's in on such a giant injustice. Don't pick on small exemptions. We're not stupid. NO PARCEL tax. A townhouse same as estate...NEVER happen ! Subject CLOSED ! Surely there is nobody who doesn't get the reason for previous defeats. Asking a $400K townhouse parcel to pay the same as a 5,000 sq ft on a acre parcel is an insane fantasy.
No need to keep repeating and expect a different result.
Back to the drawing board!

The assumption would be that the owner of the more expensive home makes no other donations to schools or anything else. Their property taxes are higher; their fees to the city and school to build such a home are higher. And there is a price to pay for having great schools that make all of our homes more valuable. A bond is concrete . . . it puts structures in place. I would have a different debate about a parcel tax, but this is about a bond.

How concrete is a BOND that identifies maintenance and other items that are obligated to be covered by the general fund? Isn't that really a, 'move the money around' to free up money to be used toward salary and benefits, shell game?

Which is why we need a list of projects

It will require more than a "walk the site" to determine the presence of asbestos. A professional inspection and laboratory testing will determine the presence of asbestos.

How many locations will the district identify for upgrade? My point is, how can the district determine what is the cost to prepare each location for upgrade? How can the district determine what is the cost of labor in preparing the locations for upgrades?

How can the district determine the final result of how much money went into upgrades verses how much money went into labor costs in preparing the locations for upgrades, and how much money went into labor for the actual upgrades after preparing the locations for upgrades?

Technology upgrades will require equipment purchases, how will the district determine how much money will go into technology upgrades? How much money will go to salaries for the technology upgrades? Is the preparation for upgrades paid from the general fund as maintenance costs?

A bid for the work needs to be identified as how much is labor costs, how mush is actual material upgrade cost, how much is contractor profit?

Opinion: a bond measure does not exempt seniors. If a bond measure did exempt seniors, than seniors should not be allowed to vote on the measure. Renters should not be allowed to vote on a bond measure. Only registered voters that are property tax payers should be allowed to vote.

If a $300 million bond measure is on the ballot and approved by the voters, I predict the $300 million will be a three way split between labor cost, actual material upgrades, and contractor profit.

Finally, if there is a bond measure on the ballot, it must have a no cash out clause.

I hope you will share all that with the board members and/or superintendent, Michael. While I have seen all your concerns handled very well in PAUSD, they had people on board to set appropriate expectations. District staff should already understand areas where asbestos likely will be found and include that in a bid, for example.

Thank you Michael. Certainly renters should not be allowed to vote on such a measure. Mr & Mrs Voter would be required to present a copy of property tax statement for voter's address, to receive a page of the ballot...only property owners vote on property owner measure. NO exceptions.
No tax statement, no vote on that issue.