Measure I1 projects moving along in 2020

Does anyone else besides me think that $7.6 million is just a little excessive for a management fee?

Bry

“ A groundbreaking ceremony for the project is scheduled to be held this Friday (Feb. 14), starting 11 a.m. at Lydiksen Elementary . . .” Remember, Lydiksen does not provide needed new capacity. It also was never considered for remodeling rather than a tear down.

“The resolutions, **which do not impact election results or district funds,* declare the district’s support for Proposition 13, a proposed $15 billion bond measure for fixing the state’s public preschools, K-12 schools, community college and four-year academic institutions that PUSD said “will also provide funds for matching Pleasanton USD bond funds, allowing for addressing more facility needs.’” The first part of the sentence doesn’t agree with the last quote. If Prop 13 passes, the district stands to qualify for $44MM in reimbursements (assuming proper paperwork, etc.).

Bryant, I think $7.6MM was chosen because that is what is allowed (some percentage of the $270MM I1 bond).

So why is PUSD borrowing money at 5% for Lydikden?

It’s on tomorrow agenda for approving the Rober A Bothman contract. It’s in the attached addendum.

So we voters approved a $270 million bond measure, and the district still goes out to borrow more money at 5%!!!!

Also, I don’t recall anywhere in the bond language on the ballot or in the resolution stating that a significant amount of $ would be spent for a management fee.

It was to build a new school and update classrooms for a 21st century learning experience.

Just 2 more reasons to vote NO on measure M

Bry

Are there any bond measures or tax increases that PUSD does not endorse? No, I didn't think so.

This article is vailed attempt by the Weekly to influence voters, that there is activity from Measure I1.

Michael, you are 100% correct. the timing of this article is questionable. the main argument i hear against M is that they have not spent the money they got prior. so an article from weekly comes out "detailing" (actually still light on details) the spending of the last bond.

the ironic part is all it did for me was reinforce my no vote. they need better planning and estimates before I give them more money.

To be fair to the Weekly, I believe this is regular coverage of upcoming meetings (board is tonight). They do this for the city council too. Doesn’t change my vote on M—no—Lydiksen was the wrong priority.

Measure I1 specifically stated it will "Provide up-to-date science labs, science equipment and learning technology to prepare students for college and modern careers"

When is that going to happen? Yes, there are a few new high school classrooms being built but what about the ~2 dozen existing science rooms (at the high schools). Before the vote there was all this talk about how the science classrooms would be remodeled and updated. From what I can tell, the plan is to do ZERO work in the existing classrooms. Hardly meeting what was promised in the bond measure.

the focus seems to be no portables but no concern about lab equipment, supplies, etc. What’s wrong with manufactured buildings anyways if the are more cost efficient?

Also, I don’t recall anywhere in the bond language on the ballot or in the resolution stating that a significant amount of $ would be spent for a management fee.

“The resolutions, **which do not impact election results or district funds,* declare the district’s support for Proposition 13, a proposed $15 billion bond measure for fixing the state’s public preschools, K-12 schools, community college and four-year academic institutions that PUSD said “will also provide funds for matching Pleasanton USD bond funds, allowing for addressing more facility needs.’” The first part of the sentence doesn’t agree with the last quote. If Prop 13 passes, the district stands to qualify for $44MM in reimbursements (assuming proper paperwork, etc.).