“To upgrade/construct classrooms and facilities to support science, technology, engineering, math, arts/music and accommodate growing student enrollment; improve safety/security systems; replace aging roofs, plumbing/electrical/HVAC systems; and improve access for students with disabilities; shall Pleasanton School District’s measure be adopted, authorizing $XXX,XXX,XXX in bonds at legal rates, raising approximately . . . with independent oversight, audits, and no money for administrators?”
Can anyone tell the differences in the ballot language of these two measures (I left out a couple tipoff phrases)? The essential difference is one was for $270MM and the other is asking for $323MM. Otherwise, it is not obvious what schools will benefit or really how they will benefit. Safety and security have included fencing. Upgrade how? Construct where? Growing enrollment is supposed to be covered by developer fees. Why does it only indicate “administrators” do not receive money? Why does one say salaries and the other does not?
If the new Measure (M) passes, we will have approved $593MM in a three-year period—and estimated to be $1.2 Billion to repay with interest. That, for a guess of 85,000 residents, is just over $14,000 for every person. It also doesn’t include anything the city might want to pass for a new city center.
Add to this the insult of another flier in our mailboxes, paid for by the district, called a “notice to voters” rather than what it really is, another campaign piece. (The last one was a four pager.) At best, the consultants are bending the law by referring to the first as an information piece seeking community input. The consultant’s contract calls for spending an estimate of $70,000; and at the time of my Public Records Act request, only four emails were received (no information was provided on whether they supported the new measure or not). I do not yet have details on the newest mailer.
I want to be sure I provide access to the district’s list of facts. A link to the Measure I1 resolution can be found on the district web site: Web Link
with project updates posted here: Web Link
The resolution approving a new bond (Measure M) can be found here: Web Link
It is item 12.1 on the linked page. The resolution is 2019-20.18-Updated.
More importantly, this new measure is too soon—way too soon. The community took a leap of faith three years ago. The district and board should not be asking for more at a point where there is little to show for what has been done so far, where most of the current bond money is still unspent, when there is not one square inch of new classroom space (capacity) added, and the items given priority have not addressed more important concerns.
The bond approved in 1988 was followed by a new bond in 1997—nine years apart and with plenty of completed projects to prove the district’s intentions were being met. I will vote no on Measure M. No matter how one chooses to vote, I hope everyone who does vote is armed with all the facts, not just the puff pieces (IMHO) being sent.