How does Pleasanton USD’s current bond tax rate compare with other districts in Alameda, Contra
Costa, San Mateo, & Santa Clara Counties?
While consistently ranked as one of the top school districts in the county and bay area, Pleasanton
Unified School District has one of the lowest bond tax rates in the Bay Area.
District Bond Tax Rate per Year
Dublin USD $196.40
San Leandro USD $173.20
New Haven USD $153.80
Oakland USD $120.20
Hayward USD $115.00
Castro Valley USD $97.00
San Ramon Valley USD $75.00
Livermore Valley JUSD $70.60
Sunol USD $52.10
Pleasanton USD $43.50 <------------------------------------------------------!

How we compare has nothing to do with the facts. PUSD could have taken the language out and gone for a smaller bond. But as the East Bay Times editorial stated the district is “politically tone deaf.” We need to protect the community’s money. We can do that and still support our schools.

So the arguments for the bond are the equivalent of….if everyone else jumped off a bridge would you….and the answer is supposed to be “yes “ now?

I really wish the board would have listened to the community. We wanted to invest in our schools and the language modifications would have been easy.

Now, those opposed to irresponsible spending are targeted as not caring or not wanting to invest. Simply not true. It’s actually the opposite, we want to guarantee the marketing actually results in delivery. Our kids and community deserve responsibly investment

I imagine that when Measure I passes, community members will celebrate knowing that fantastic facility upgrades will allow PUSD to remain a distinguished school district for the next generation. Excellent facilities for outstanding students and teachers.
However, if Measure I were to be defeated, I can't help but wonder what people that oppose Measure I will be celebrating. A lot has been said about some of the language of the bond (you know very well that bonds are only allowed a certain number of words) and that people that oppose this measure are not against the schools. Assuming that we could pass another bond with different language and a different amount 2, 3, or 5 years down the road is a mistake.
I would only hope that Kathleen will be the first person on the committee to write the language of the "new" school bond if it comes to that. She knows that bonds are the only way that facilities will be upgraded and maintained.
Please vote YES on Measure I. We've kicked the can down the road long enough and that's why there are SO many areas of need!

Why should Kathleen write the bond language?

She and others provided the specific feedback on what a responsible bond should state.

Please don’t harass and attack those with a valid argument against this bond, instead I’d invite you to write the pusd board and ask why they deferred these items so long or prioritized poorly. Why they didn’t take reasonable community input into the bond.

If the board doesn’t listen to the community today, what makes you think they’ll listen after they have the money. We can look at their historic performance and predict that. Point your frustration where it belongs. A board that’s not listening to its community

Who says that the board should be listening to what you want and not what I want?
Not meant to be an attack - meant to be a request. There are positive members of this community who are doers and have put lots of time and energy into making sure that students and teachers get an effective, functional learning environment. Then there are others who complain on the sidelines.
We will see what the community members want on Election Day.

So, not exactly Yes. Have you been to the new Lydiksen? Lots of problems there.

Complain on the sidelines. No. I have been to board meetings and said Measure I was a mistake. But the district and this board think they know better than mere voters.

We kicked the can down the road for . . . six years? I don’t think so. The district still has money to spend. $70,000,000 of a $270,000,000 bond to be exact.

Tear down a theater; build an entire school on other campuses; a two story replacement for Village; and more, with language that PROTECTS THE DISTRICT AND NOT THE COMMUNITY? Where is it you go and give your money and walk away?

No.

Kathleen, thank you for your post and your thoughts / questions related to Measure I. It is great that our community is having this dialogue and openly talking about this very important vote.

The way that Measure I is written and most school bonds, the language needs to outline projects covered in the bond, but there are no guarantees that all items will be done. I great example is the 10th Elementary School that was part of Measure I1. Based on declining enrollment and projections, the district made a good financial decision to not build the 10th Elementary School. This approach saves significant funds in operating a 10th campus and small schools. The current Board has set aside $35M from the Measure I1 bonds for a future 10th elementary school if the need arises.

The question about Amador’s theater is pretty is easy to answer. The theater has significant safety issues and access issues. It is a shame that there aren’t other options, but the school needs a new theater after years of decline and neglect. Village High School serves our most vulnerable student population, as well as adult education. Village High School is far more impactful than the 100 students you mention. Foothill High School has no theater and must rent theater space each year for their students. The new proposed Foothill Theater has been backed by faculty and staff. I’m assuming they understand the potential parking issues better than us but are still supportive of the plan.

There is a cost to Measure I, but as mentioned in other comments, the Pleasanton School District ranks incredibly high but almost dead last in terms of funding. Pleasanton Unified School District has one of the lowest bond tax rates in the Bay Area.

I will be voting “Yes” on Measure I and whether you have children in the PUSD, I think there are real tangible social, community, and fiscal reasons for every resident in Pleasanton to vote “Yes” on Measure I. If our schools decline, so will our house values.

This is not about letting our housing values decline. This is about a bond that openly states in its resolution it doesn’t have to do what they list even if they have the money. This is a non-starter. Tell me what you need, exactly, and I will vote for it, as I did for the first three bonds.

And $395,000,000 is too much. We don’t need to go whole hog. The district can’t spend the money all at once, as evidenced by the $70,000,000 they still have six years into the Measure I1 bond. And that does not include $35,000,000 for the elementary school. Then there is the new school with plenty of problems to fix, including design.

And building 3-5 TK classrooms on elementary campuses is equivalent to the new elementary school, not to mention that classrooms can be reconfigured. If enrollment is declining, why build new classrooms, particularly on overcrowded schools: Donlon, Fairlands, Lydiksen? Why is Lydiksen being built to house up to 900 students? Why are Donlon and Fairlands well over the 700 students promised? What about Stoneridge Mall housing? The students would attend those schools.

Being nice is fine; being ignorant of what is proposed is not. As the East Bay Times said, this bond is politically tone deaf.

The bond clearly spells out the projects that are targeted. The language you are referring to protects you and I. The example I provided regarding the 10th Elementary School is the optionality the school district to not complete a project that no longer makes sense based on enrollment. They chose not to spend money for the sake of spending money. This should garner some faith and trust in you and our community.

The amount of money covered in the bond is appropriate to the needed projects and the lack of money that this community has spent on schools over the last 25+ years. This money is needed. I'm happy to walk around the schools with you and show the extent of much this bond and outlined money is needed.

In terms of you TK concerns you raised. This is a different issue that will be tackled outside the scope of measure, which is dealing with needed capital improvements to our schools. From what I understand, the district is in the process of rebalancing all the schools to address some of your concerns.

No reason to call anyone ignorant. I have don't my research and feel very confident in the facts. We might share a different perspective, but can still treat each with respect.

Yes on I,
I appreciate your thoughtful/respectful inquiry.

"Who says that the board should be listening to what you want and not what I want?"

To answer this, I'd respond, you want the bond to pass, I want to invest in schools, the bond language as is prohibits my yes vote - but changing the language to ensure those items are delivered wouldn't necessarily change yours from a No to a Yes. Its in alignment with what I perceive you want. Its a win-win.

I hope that answers your question. Regarding complaining - I'm sure there are those that will complain regardless, and that's frustrating. For the most part, those "complainers" aren't the ones proposing solutions or attending board meetings. Those are invested members of the community that are passionate about ensuring our teachers and students get the items that are being marketed as part of the bond campaign. This is about trust, responsible funding, and accountability. These are not complaints, they're well founded concerns and with recommended solutions that are not unreasonable.

You wouldn't give a Ferrari to your son/daughter that crashed your Accord just because they need a car.

Not doing as you ask is not the same thing as not listening.

Trust me, they are not listening/hearing. People who show up often, regardless of the topic, are considered to be an annoyance. Ask Mark Miller.

>>I want to invest in schools, the bond language as is prohibits my yes vote

I believe that ship has sailed away. Once the state deadline for verbiage of a bond occurs there is NO way to change the 'wording'.

I watched the board meeting where they discussed and voted on the language; there weren't any public speakers there (at all).

The board understood the problem with the concerns mentioned for Measure M and used the language again anyway. Why would anyone show up?

Man this is like someone’s personal mission to prove a point or something. Talk about beating a dead horse …… I mean really! I keep reading “trust me” and “language” this and that. Is the language ever going to please EVERYONE???? No it’s not.

For the most part those opposed speak about the 35 million still standing in unissued bonds from 2016 and they are correct regarding that. That money is earmarked and can only be used for the construction of a new school site. The district’s response references the decline in recent enrollment thus it is not a necessary move at this time. Secondly yes the “language”. Agree or disagree it is a valid concern. With that said Pleasanton has exceptional schools and IS one of the many reasons many families DO move here. However, sadly the facilities are aged and in desperate need of upgrades …. ie ….. repaired and renovated. Thinking about how schools are funded in California with the majority of funds going towards salaries, and the negligible rates developers are required to pay in fees, this bond measure will drastically help pave the way to make much needed improvements.

It’s time to put personal egos aside and really think about what’s best for the kids as well as the staff. The arguments are obviously out there for both “yes” and “no” but words like “Trust me” are shallow to say the least.

The Valley Times is not Gospel either. Simply another individual or individuals using a plat form to promote an opinion / view for better or worse.

Ever think what perspective families think about the community when they read all the back and forth gibberish? Kinda a turn off. Unfortunately we live in an imperfect society.

See you at the polls.

Okay, I’ll take your point the language point has been made. Do you understand the district still has $70 million, not counting new school money? Do you understand 3-5 TK classrooms at each of the nine elementaries is equivalent to a new school? Do you understand the language allows the district to not build an elementary school and spend it somewhere else? I appreciate your point of view, and won’t tell anyone they are shallow or speaking gibberish or a turn off. But I will continue to point out the facts and will vote a No to your possible yes. I will vote yes when they remove the language and ask for a much smaller amount.

Former pusd family

…..interesting that you pointed out Kathleen’s usage of “trust me” as being unfounded after she’s provided numerous specific examples time and time again.

But you’re “all in” on a $400M bond with language that essentially uses the same justification with examples of poor stewardship in the past…..

We want the same thing - I don’t understand why having some commitment in that bond is so offensive and polarizing.

I mean explain 13 new tk classrooms to me but a new school isn’t actually needed. Seriously how are you reconciling that? Or are you just giving in because you don’t feel your voice matters to the board anyway?

"Do you understand the language allows the district to not build an elementary school and spend it somewhere else? ". My understanding is that funds can't be spent somewhere else. Only on listed projects. The state is expanding TK so new classrooms will be needed.

So question for someone that maybe could shed some light on this. Livermore and Sunol also have school bonds on ballot. PUSD says the language regarding "not completing projects even if funds are available " is standard and protects the district and public.

Do the other school bonds in our area have similar language? or is this just a Pleasanton thing?

Jimmy, the language—Inclusion of a project on the Bond Project List is not a guarantee that the project will be completed (regardless of whether the funds are available)—absolves the district of building a school. The board, at the time, said they would not bond the funds if they didn’t build, but the board is changing, and I believe they cannot hold out on bonding the money forever. So, they either have to not bond and let the money go, or they will bond it and then, who knows?

Resident, I know Dublin has not used the language on past bonds, but I don’t know about Livermore or Sunol. Easy enough to find their resolutions.

>>So, they either have to not bond and let the money go

once again needs to be said the bond funds have not been exercised. There is no account where the funds are 'sitting'.

To be clear.....

Sooooo, I said “The board, at the time, said they would not bond the funds if they didn’t build, but the board is changing, and I believe they cannot hold out on bonding the money forever.”

Yes on Measure I
We need to invest in the future of education in Pleasanton. I say this as a senior citizen whose children had the benefit of a good education in Pleasanton. To vote against the Bond because of wording or dislike of the current Board of Education is short-sighted in my view.
This Bond is planning for the future, when the previous bond monies are spent. It is clearly obvious to anyone taking the time to assess the physical condition of our schools that much is needed to make our schools a safe place for our children.
Please take the long view and vote Yes on Measure I.

Very important wording, Jan. And it is not about disliking the board, although I question their judgement on this bond. There is $105,000,000 left on Measure I1, including the elementary school. The intention is to bond the new monies as soon as possible, not when all of Measure I1 funds are spent.

Come back with a bond that guarantees projects will be completed—the gyms and Village, although not a two story. I would vote yes, as I have for the first three bonds. Then when those are nearing completion, come back for the next guaranteed projects. And so on. The district does not need $395,000,000 now; they can’t spend it all at once.

Kathleen,
Thank you for your information. I'm curious as to the money the Board is "sitting" on. Is it ear-marked? Why haven't they determined a use for it and spent it on the projects that are most needed, (in my opinion the Amador gym). I voted for the previous taxes (and that's what they are, let's be real), but am feeling like a fool for voting for such a large amount of money to go to PUSD when they claimed they would fix these things in the past but DID NOT. We've been waiting for these fixes for over ten years and my kids are now gone and graduated. I can't help but think of the old saying, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice and a third time, shame on me.

The district claims the money is earmarked—sometimes saying it is for 3-5 TK classrooms at Donlon and Fairlands, our largest schools. And then I have seen people say TK is coming out of this bond. I have not seen where I1 included TK classrooms. Either way, this bond indicates the gyms will be fixed with this bond. My problem is with the language that lets them choose not to do that or anything else on the project list. And I think it is too much money.

>>Village, although not a two story.

Do you feel the district and the county will re-draw the parcel boundaries and allow for more sq feet for Village rebuild?

AS-is, there is not enough room for a single story building to house the HS and associated programs.

I think we have beaten this part to death. I have a grown adult who attended Village—didn’t want to go back to Amador when given the chance. I have a lot of respect for what staff accomplishes, and there are many success stories. So this is, again, about other issues. $395,000,000 is too much to give just to get Village done. If this bond fails, maybe the district and board will hear the community this time.

Only a portion of the funds for Measure I $395 M bond would go to upgrading Village High School. I don’t want anyone to get confused and think that the changes to Village High School cost $395 M. For the Tier 1 priority list, it is $39 M or a little less than 10 percent of the overall bond to improve Village High School. From Measure I, this is the project allotment for Village High School improvements.

Measure I is very specific on where the money is being spent. Every member of the community can review the master plan. The money allocated in Measure I is clear and prescriptive to the problems that face our schools.

Hi Annoyed Parent,

The only money the board has that they are holding in reserve or not earmarked for a committed project related to MeasureI1 is is $35 M. $35 M for the Measure I1 Bond has been set aside for a possible future 10th elementary campus. The $35 M in bonds will be issued if the need arises for a 10th Elementary school.

The two largest projects remaining to be completed for Measure I1 are the TK expansions to Donlon and Fairlands. These two projects will be crucial for the district's ability to house the incoming TK grade level and ease congestion at these and other elementary schools in Pleasanton.

Rollout of the universal TK program will start in 2022-2023 and be available to all TK aged children by 2025-2026. All school districts, not just PUSD, are starting the process to meet the state mandate. All elementary schools will be impacted in the PUSD. There are elementary schools with higher enrollment, and I know the district is working on balancing out enrollments, so that none of the 9 elementary schools in our town are overburdened.

Jonas, everyone understands the $395,000,000 is what it will cost ALL of us to get $39,000,000 for Village’s Tier 1–and that it will cost another $31,000,000, or a total of $70,000,000, to complete Tier 2 and the Educational Opportunity Center, and for about 100 permanently attending students.

Donlon and Fairlands are our most impacted schools. The district has 9 elementaries. 3-5 TKs can go to Mohr and some other small enrollment school. And actually IF enrollment is dropping—and we aren’t being told where the students are: other districts, private, home school, moved out of Pleasanton—why aren’t we refurbishing classrooms instead. And there is the fact that TK and K do not require attendance. And there is the fact that TK classrooms are not in I1.

The $35,000,000 is a ticking time bomb that will be bonded at some point. The district cannot just let unbounded funds sit.

If you are just passing along information from the district, pass on the whole truth.

>>The $35,000,000 is a ticking time bomb that will be bonded at some point. The district >>cannot just let unbounded funds sit.

sure they can as the bond language and laws apply. The amount would simply not be subscribed and would expire (at some point).

It is not, as posted here at times, a pot of money sitting in an account someplace.

BTW, you are mixing and matching Village HS numbers again. Full time warm bodies is usually below 100. Pleasanton Virtual Academy has > 400, but rarely on campus if at all. The teachers and support staff are tho, and must have their space attached with Village HS. In addition to the Transitional Adult program which is another 2-4 classes.

The district will let $35,000,000 slip through their hands? I don’t think so.

As for the numbers, 100 is roughly the number of students at Village full time. Technically, the VA and TA programs can be at, say, the new DO. But either way, I cannot give $395,000,000 just to get this project. The district needs to come back, I hope, with a smaller amount that includes the gyms and Village. I have heard, however—and maybe you have better information—that Village will happen with the Sycamore Fund and the sale of Neal elementary property if the bond fails.

Kathleen,
Just curious. What do you think the District wants to use the 35,000,000 for? Or, do you think they want to have it for a slush fund of sorts? What's their motivation for not using it towards projects the people voted for?

The district says they want to hold the money for a TK-8 school. They were hoping to originally build it in the East Side development, but the City Council is reluctant to even discuss building there at this time.

What they could do with the money is anyone’s guess. They should not bond the funds, but I think they will. And then we will see. It seems to me it is just too much money to just let go.

And today, another yes flyer stating you must vote, and saying “It is the most consequential election in over 50 years.” Nowhere does it say why it is consequential, let alone why they chose 50 years. Nor does it say, anywhere, that it is a $395,000,000 bond. These are now scare tactics, and I’m going to say it’s because they are afraid they will lose, so they are going to divert from the bond amount and say other ridiculous things that have no basis in fact. Please vote no.