|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Earlier this fall sports season I wrote about the amazing, new athletic facilities at Livermore and Granada.
The updates brought the two Livermore schools into line with East Bay Athletic League schools Monte Vista, San Ramon Valley, Dougherty Valley, California and Dublin with high quality facilities.
Glaringly missing from the list are the Pleasanton high schools, Amador Valley and Foothill.
They are far behind as there is no money to cover the vast project’s needed for these EBAL schools. If I had one word to describe the athletic facilities at Amador and Foothill it would be “embarrassing.”
The community has jumped into the fray getting involved in Measure I in the upcoming election. It is a $395 million general obligation bond that would help a nearly $1 billion needed for facility projects across the district.
It would include a new gym at Amador, an upgraded gym at Foothill, and new synthetic track and fields at the three middle schools in town.
There are more than just athletic facilities in the projects as all aspects of school facilities would be targeted for improvements.
It will be a tough road for PUSD, as school bonds don’t have a history of doing well in Pleasanton with only one being passed in the last 20 years.
That was measure I1 in 2016 and we are still seeing projects from the bond being completed. The last attempt came in March of 2020 when Measure M fell short of the needed 55% needed to approve a school bond.
The feeling of many Pleasanton residents, myself included, has been a lack of trust that the money promised to be used for projects will not go in those directions.
The people involved with promoting Measure I in the community stand firmly that will not be the case.
“(Opponents) think the district can do whatever they want with the money but that’s not true,” said Todd Utikal, one of the co-chairs for the ‘Yes on I for Pleasanton Schools’ group. “People associate the bond with the distrust of the district and the city. This is just the city of Pleasanton. The people you dislike might be gone in a couple of years and then you will hate yourself for not voting for it.”
Utikal also founded and runs We are Pleasanton, a group that has helped raise money for and seen completed, a badly needed shade structure at Amador, as well as the new ADA compliant ramp for the Foothill football stadium.
Bill Butler, a former Naval Academy athlete and a father of Pleasanton students, is the other co-chair along with Utikal.
I have spoken at length with both about the bond. As mentioned above, I carry a dose of distrust of PUSD and cringe at what might be done with some of the money should the bond pass like more ill-timed raises.
Utikal is quick to point out that there are systems in place to keep that from happening. For starters there is the Citizens Bond Oversite Committee that includes Chairman Arne Olson and local businessman Doug Miller.
The committee monitors every dollar.
“I fully believe they will spend my money accurately — every bit of the money remains in Pleasanton,” said Utikal. “They make sure the money that was promised to the voters is spent accordingly. Bonds equals buildings — it can’t go to salaries.”
I have done my diligence on Measure I, seeking out both for, and against opinions.
One major point of concern for the ‘No on I’ group seems to center on the lack of a 10th elementary school that was part of the I1 bond.
“The big beef is with the last bond and the 10th elementary school,” said Utikal. “When school enrollment is down across the state, you don’t build a new school. The bonds have not been sold for the 10th school — the money has never been used.”
Another element is that it is just too much money. If the bond passes it will include a $49 assessment per $100,000 of worth on your home.
“Many neighboring communities are paying higher than we would be paying,” explained Utikal. “It is $49 per every $100,000 your house is assessed in value, not what you can sell it for. That’s a big difference.”
The price tag for the bond has also concerned many.
“People think we are trying to sell a billion dollars in bonds — it is actually $395 million,” said Utikal. “We have taken the initial proposal for I from $450 million to $395 million.”
And he added that it doesn’t mean all the money appropriated needs to be spent.
“Measure I1 is either done or will be done. Right now, they have done an amazing job and are $8 million under budget on that bond,” said Utikal.
One more point being raised among Measure I opponents appears to revolve around the $35 million to be spent construction of a new Amador theater. The feeling the theater can refurbished for $5 million for what is being called a historic building.
“In regard to the Amador theatre – no decision has been made. We can’t even discuss it until the bond passes,” said Utikal. “It is not a historic building as some claim. If it can be renovated sufficiently instead of having a new one built, then that would be great!”
I would suggest you take the time to visit both websites — those who support Measure I, as well those opposed.
Do your diligence and be well informed before making your final decision.
One statement that had me shaking my head when I was reading the Measure I opponents’ website.
Under the ‘More info’ tab there is a question as follows: “A website visitor asks: If you are so proudly anti-bond, why not name who you are instead of hiding behind anonymity?”
It’s an interesting question as a visit to the pro bond web site reveals there is a long list that continues to grow endorsing the bond. There are names, and in several cases, what their profession involves.
Nothing exists on the “no” site. The answer given was ridiculous.
“The people who are behind this bond are parents in the district who are concerned about any retribution people from the schools, or the district may take against their
children,” started the answer. “There are also people who work for the district. There are people in the community who are known and do not want to respond to questions about their private vote.”
How can you substantiate the statement without names? We are left to take the word of one person that there are a multitude of voters that oppose it.
Believe in your convictions and have the courage to stand your ground. Who knows, some of those names may swing voters who are sitting on the fence.
Further, I do some work at a school and regularly talk with the district office. I was very vocal about my No vote on Measure M and did not suffer any “retribution,” from the district or the school. Nor did my wife who has been at a school for almost 20 years now.
This leads into the way I investigate complex issues. Simply “don’t be part of the problem, be part of the solution.” In other words, if you oppose Measure I, then offer a solution.
If the opponents of I feel there is a better way to bring the poor facilities up to an acceptable standard, then offer a solution.
There is no doubt the schools need help and if we are presented with only one valid solution, then our choices are made for us.
My biggest frustration right now is few if any of the opposition have taken the time to tour the schools and get a first-hand look at what needs to be done. You can contact PUSD School Board member Steve Maher who has continually offered to host tours.
I have been in Pleasanton since 1967 and have been lucky to raise seven kids in this town. I challenge anyone to find a person that loves this town any more than I do. You won’t.
Pleasanton is highly thought of as it pertains to the school system and giving our students facilities equal to the reputation shouldn’t take any thought — it’s a gimme.
Traditionally I have not been a big fan of bonds but if I want to see the future generations of kids growing up in town to have the same opportunities, I was incredibly fortunate to have, then there is no other action to be taken other than to vote yes on Measure I.
It seems that support of the bond is gaining momentum, but there seems many out there not willing to do their diligence before making their decisions.
At that may be the key.
“If we lose this it’s because of misinformation,” said Utikal. “All the projects are Tier 1. This is about our kids having a belief and pride in their schools.”
NO vote here!
So much to say here. First, the biggest opposition is to the language that gives the district free reign to do what they want—Inclusion of a project on the bond list is *not a guarantee* it will be completed (even if there are funds to do it). Who gives $792,000,000 (estimate with interest) without a guarantee?
The elementary school argument is weak at best. To add, as a board member stated, 3-5 classrooms to all nine campuses—campuses that have little space and are subject to other state laws for play space—is equivalent to 27-45 classrooms. That is a four or five strand new elementary school. The notion that this is required is also a misstatement. The state includes renovating current classrooms, not new classrooms. And this is while neither TK or K require attendance. And you neglected to mention the housing in the planning phases for Stoneridge Mall. Or the fact that Donlon and Fairlands, and Lydiksen are planned for up to 900 students, particularly with adding classrooms, when 700 is the promise. This is about administration for sure, administration that wants to have funds for raises like the superintendent’s 6.6%.
As to people not signing their names to the web site. This is a grassroots effort. It includes people who are parents, teachers, and other community members who have their reasons for keeping their votes private. And I, at least, will respect that choice.
Then there is the cost, $49 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, but no one on the yes side is saying anything about the fact that is *on top of* the $49 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
As to solutions—the district has $70,000,000 yet to spend, not counting the $35,000,000 for the school. We are a mere six years into a forty year bond. How about we address the absolutes first: Village High School (not a two story structure as proposed) and the high school gyms. Then the district can come back for more as those are completed.
I should have said *on top of* the $49 per $100,000 of assessed valuation . . . we are currently paying for Measure I1.
I’d like to also register one complaint. No on Measure I is grassroots and has spent less than $500. But, the yes campaign has access to parents emails and is sending regular messages. We can’t get access, even if we paid for it. They have also taken funding from PTAs on votes of 8-20(?) people at a meeting. Why have they not sent an email to their parents asking for a vote on that spending—money parents gave for their students?
I don’t understand your complaint. Why complain about PTAs? You have a great forum here to voice your opinion. Regarding School Bonds and Other Ballot Measure Campaigns a PTA is absolutely well within its right to spend a portion of its funds on election issues that have an impact on the education, health, or well-being of children and youth (Legal Guidelines for Campaign Activity).
Secondly a PTA may also assist in raising funds or soliciting individual donations for coalitions or election-issue campaign organizations without reporting the amounts as PTA income, provided that all donations are strictly voluntary, and the funds are given directly to the campaign organizations.
I guess it’s how you interpret the language because one could now argue that PTAs are not “grassroots”. That could possibly come across as offensive to many PTA supporting families.
Anyway if you have any further comments or questions regarding any specific school site PTA and their use of funds maybe contact the unit directly.
>> Village High School (not a two story structure as proposed)
Are you fully aware of the parcel dimensions that will be left after selling the DO acres?
Do show us how a single story will fit all the needs in what amounts to a tiny parcel with elevation changes?
btw, as noted there isn’t $35m sitting in an account someplace. And if they did as you suggest and spent the money (if subscribed) on something else; wouldn’t that be exactly what you and those who oppose are worried about?
I’ll probably vote for it, not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. However, if voting against brings down property values, maybe that’s a good thing. Housing is way to expensive in Pleasanton.
Easy No for me.
Ultimately it comes down to trust – if I actually thought the board would deliver on its marketing, I might be swayed. But history has played out, and actions during the pandemic have showed lack of transparency, double talk, and that the interests of the administration are put in front of students, teachers, and taxpayers. As a result, we need stronger bond language to ensure the students and teachers actually get what is being marketed.
this board refuses to listen to the community for reasonable terms on which it wants the community to fund. I’m sorry – you don’t write the terms in which I provide you money.
No. And I hope a No vote will then drive these changes so we can fund them responsibly next year.
Ugh…..timeliness of this conversation is interesting, just got my property tax bill. Already have $622 on it for school bonds.
The PTAs are sending multiple emails out in support of this bond, but they can’t send an email to parents to ask if they are willing to vote to spend the money on supporting the bond campaign? I think that is a bit convenient. So 8-20 people decide. Unfortunate.
Village doesn’t need two stories—it’s everything else they want to add to it.
Trustee Mark Miller here with some clarifying information and a rebuttal to the claim that your PUSD Board doesn’t deliver on its commitments.
I am proud of our Board’s performance relative to fulfillment of measure I1 promises. But you don’t need to take my word for it. As Mr. Miller points out, there has been plenty of oversight on I1 bond spending, so the public should be very confident money has been spent as committed. The one caveat people might point to is the 10th elementary school, which we elected not to build when faced with sustained declining enrollment and inflating construction costs. I hope taxpayers agree that was the most prudent decision.
Some clarifications:
– The remaining $70MM from measure I1 has been committed for completion of HVAC and roofing projects, a key promise from the I1 project list. In fact, it adds to the $8MM cost efficiency savings from other I1 projects to provide more necessary learning environment and long-term sustainability improvements.
– TK classrooms will be required at each elementary school. At this time, we expect that number to be 3 – 5 per school. Note: student/teacher ratios are much lower for TK, i.e. fewer students per classroom, and bathrooms will be required inside the physical space. Simple retrofitting of existing classrooms is not possible.
– School bonds can only be put forth during major, scheduled elections, which is why it has been almost two years since measure M before another measure was placed on the ballot. The next opportunity for a measure would likely be March of 2024.
– Measure I1 costs to taxpayers is currently $43.50/$100K assessed value. This is the lowest bond tax rate of any community in Alameda County. In comparison, Dublin residents pay $196.40/$100K assessed value.
– Bond money cannot be spent on salaries, other than those related to bond project construction management.
Interesting answers Mark. I believe you initially said the TK classrooms were in Measure I1, which of course was not listed. 3-5 classrooms at each school is still equal to a four or five strand new elementary school. And absent that argument, why would we add to Donlon, Fairlands, and Lydiksen—the biggest schools in the district even after/if you change boundaries. Saying it is not possible to retrofit doesn’t explain what was done to determine why it isn’t possible to retrofit for TK-K, especially because they do not require attendance. And why are we doing 3-5 classrooms if enrollment is dropping?
Had you listened to the upset over Measure M, the board would have taken out the language that guarantees the district’s autonomy and does NOT protect the taxpayers who would be handing you $395,000,000. And you would have made it for a much smaller amount—the gyms and Village first. Then in two years, the next most important items. And so on. To be clear, Measure I1 was a $270,000,000 bond, of which there is still $105,000,000 left, including the money for a new school. And one more question, why isn’t the $8,000,000 in savings being added to the funds for a school?
I don’t think most people care what other communities are paying, but let’s get the facts. We will pay (now) $43.50 per $100,000 of assessed valuation ON TOP OF Measure I1’s $49 per $100,000 – so nearly $1,000 per $1,000,000 of assessed valuation. And like any mortgage, our community is actually going to pay nearly $1,000,000,000 (again, on top of Measure I1).
Bond money cannot be spent on salaries as you note.
I received the latest large glossy mailer today for the yes campaign. The yes committee is certainly pushing very hard for this measure to pass.
I forgot to mention the large flier has very few facts, a list of names, and NOWHERE does it say $395,000,000. False advertising or at least convenient advertising.
>>Village doesn’t need two stories—it’s everything else they want to add to it.
Says you? Based on what details? Show us how a single story building can hold all the programs Village HS has today. Please note the acres ‘left’ from the sale will be very small and oddly shaped.
A different perspective , and one I can’t necessarily answer
This bill as written is going to be disproportionately paid for by the Asian/Indian population in Pleasanton. It’s been the fastest growing population in the last 5yrs which has coincided with increased housing prices, which will have a higher assessed value.
SHale, I have seen the dream drawings in PUSD presentations. Here is just one of them. https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/meetings/TempFolder/Meetings/A.%20FMP%20Presentation%206-9-22_286173v0t0032txilnqojryvj5vjug.pdf They have changed over time. I don’t say things just to say them; I try to have facts for you and anyone else reading them.
I understand we need a new structure for Village, and the district could have chosen Village and the high school gyms and then come back in two to four years for the next priorities. The district has $105,000,000 left of a $270,000,000 bond, including the elementary school funds that haven’t been bonded, yet. We are six years in to a 40 year bond. And the district still has funds to spend. There is no need to be greedy or foolish to upgrade our schools.
>And the district still has funds to spend.
You’ve said that several times here. You also state one of your chief complaints about the current bond is you are ‘worried’ they can spend dollars as they please. That seems to be a contradiction?
Back to Village HS. You haven’t stated your facts that lead to your opinion Village could fit a one story building in the sq feet left over from the DO land sale. It is simply not possible, unless the boundaries of the parcels are modified and wouldn’t that take county interaction?
Facts are powerful.
Shale99 your commentary is also one of opinion and not supported with facts, your approach is also extremely aggressive and polarizing perhaps a moment of reflection on how these attacks are not constructive discussion but instead targeted harassment. Please discuss with respect
I am concerned, rightfully so, by the language in the Resolution. It states the district can do what it wants, or not, even if they have the funds. I’ll let you look it up, page 11, last sentence in the long paragraph.
I am saying we do not need the two story building as proposed and shown in the link I posted.
>>your commentary is also one of opinion and not supported with facts,
Where did I go wrong in regards to Village HS ‘facts’?
I do think this thread will be closed soon, so do try and keep it civil. k?
I understand your interest in having a new school, but it isn’t two story now and does not need to be as far as I can see. Even I am interested in a new structure for Village and new/renovated gymnasiums for the high schools, just not $395,000,000 all at once, and likely with the hope of another $450,000,000 or more soon after.
>>but it isn’t two story now and does not need to be as far as I can see.
Have you viewed the satellite photos, google maps? The classrooms are spread over 4 buildings. Two of them very long buildings. In addition you have the office/admin (another building) and the MPR etc.
Now find the photo of what will be left when the DO acres is sold. Then tell me a single story would fit.
don’t forget to include PVA, Transitional Adults, etc (each have a building currently).
Unless the boundaries will be changed, a single story building won’t fit.
I can look. Trouble still is $395,000,000.
Seems like the district pulled a fast one on us. Selling the land gets the bureaucrats spiffy new offices in the Hacienda business park “at no cost” because of the land sale, but at least doubles the cost of Village HS replacement.
>>>Trouble still is $395,000,000.
If you do look check the master plan, They need close to a billion dollars.
So be happy? 😉
but, good luck fitting Village into a single story building on the same property greatly reduced by the DO acres being sold (at some point).
>>but at least doubles the cost of Village HS replacement.
Unclear how selling most of the DO land causes Village HS rebuild to double?¿
Yes, it’s called a Facilities Master Plan. I think $1,000,000,000 must be full of things that aren’t needed. Let’s say we rebuild every elementary school (other than Lydiksen), at $35,000,000, that’s maybe $280,000,000. 3 middle schools at maybe $50,000,000, so $150,000,000–now we are at $430,000,000. Two high schools at $100,000,000 each. Now we are at $630,000,000. And Village at $70,000,000. It is $700,000,000. And then let’s pad that with another $300,000,000. Then you could hit $1,000,000,000. The district is not being realistic.
>>Unclear how selling most of the DO land causes Village HS rebuild to double?<<
Selling the land reduced the footprint so that a 2 story building is required.
Kathleen, I appreciate your passion over Measure I. Healthy democracy, even the local level depends on open discussion and debate. In one of your many posts you mentioned that nobody in favor of Measure I has talked about the tax impact. Here are some thoughts that hopefully address your concerns and potentially the concerns of other residents.
Prior to the only bond, Measure I-1 (2016), that has passed in this community in the last 25 years, there were school bonds passed in 1988 and 1997. I presume those two local school bond measures did benefit many of the kids for today’s seniors in Pleasanton who now haven’t had kids in the schools for 20 to 30 years. I believe the data below can provide important and relevant historical context. The current property tax rate per $100,000 of Assessed Value (AV), is $43.50 which predominantly supports Measure I-1 (and still a stub from the 1997 bond). If our community does nothing (i.e. votes not to pass Measure I), that tax rate will fall to $41 by the end of 2023 (the 1997 bond is finally ‘off the books’ as of the end of next year). If Measure I does pass, the property tax rate is expected to be somewhere in the high $80s, likely $86/$87 per $100,000 of AV when the majority of the Measure I bonds are issued by the school district and the Measure I-1 bond is still being paid down. Remember, similar to a home construction project, you don’t pay all of the money to the builder up front but rather make payments over time. How does this compare to property tax rates when our seniors were in their 30’s or 40’s? Here you go:
In 1989 – $98 per $100,000 of AV
1990 – $101.70
1992 – $108.30
1993 – $108.70
1997 – $121.10 (this was the peak between 1989 and 2022)
2001 – $94.20
2005 – $93.50
2007 – $72.10
2011 – $89.10
2013 – $96.30
2014 – $91.60
2015 – $69.50
2016 – $23.90
2017 – 22.40 (this was the low between 1989 and 2022). The Measure I-1 bond passed in 2016 and no bonds had been issued yet.
2018 – $67.20
2022 – $43.5
I have seen so much false information and way too much liberal use of the numbers (i.e. the facts) by folks opposing Measure I. The above numbers are the facts and similar to your own home, if you don’t “replace/modernize deteriorating plumbing, roofs, electrical/HVAC systems” over time, its value is substantially lower and it isn’t worth spending much time in. That is what is trying to be done here with Measure I. I would argue every one of the projects in the Tier I priority list set to be modernized and/or replaced by these funds all have significant issues with the above. The district is only allowed to use 75 words on the ballot, nothing intentionally worded to be ‘vague’ but rather provides them the flexibility if ahead of budget to go after more projects on facilities or “classrooms, science labs, performing arts, physical education facilities/spaces, and alternative high school facilities” that all have these issues. And when completed, they will be facilities our students, teachers, and community will be very proud of.
And one final, separate note regarding interest rates, do you know what the Total Interest Cost (TIC) was associated with the first (series) bond issued with the 1988 bond? 7.70 percent. In fact, the total interest cost for the vast majority of the 1988 and 1997 bonds were at or well above 5.5 percent except for the last series bond issued in the recession associated with the Tech bubble in December of 2002 (4.33 percent). How does that compare to what has been issued by Measure I-1?
2016, Series A (10/25/2017) – 3.97 percent
2016, Series B (9/5/2019) – 2.65 percent (the all time low)
2016, Series C (6/24/2022) – 3.99 percent
Bottom line, smart financial communities should invest in infrastructure projects when rates are or will be lower especially when the need is great. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for all of your support.
Some additional thoughts on how Pleasanton compares to our neighboring communities.
Our Pleasanton schools have consistently ranked high in the state and are a primary driver for new families coming to Pleasanton. We are dead last in Alameda County for bond funding. And when compared to Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, we rank 76th out of 80 school districts.
Pleasanton residents currently have one bond measure on our taxes now for $43.50/$100,000 (the lowest of any surrounding city and 76th out of 80 in the East Bay). We also don’t have any parcel tax on the books. We are currently not paying large amounts of tax and even if this bond passes we will only move up minimally compared to the other cities.
We have only approved one bond in the last 25 years.
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
>Selling the land reduced the footprint so that a 2 story building is required.
Yes, a two story IS required as I stated. However, show me where a 2 story is double the cost of say a single (larger/same sq feet) single story?
Details count.
Difficult to find construction information like that, but I believe it is in the square foot pricing, so going up is more expensive because there is a second floor. The bond is much more about language and $395,000,000 than anything else.
Kathleen – It is actually opposite of what you said. Building a two story building is more efficient and saves money. Per square foot, a one-story building is more costly to build than a two-story building. There is a larger footprint, meaning more foundation building and more roofing materials. And because the plumbing and heating/AC systems need to extend the length of the house, you’ll need bigger (and costlier) systems.
Jonas, a lot of passion in your posts as well.
The “vague” portion is the sentence that allows the district to do what it wants *or not* even if they have the funds to do the project.
What other districts pay is based upon their voters and what they are doing with their funds. It is not important in the Pleasanton debate.
Nearly $1,000 per $1,000,000 of assessed valuation is important. Saying it is just $40ish is how the district makes it seem insignificant.
I am not wrapped up in the two story Village debate—they need a school, but not for $395,000,000.
Come back with a proposal that takes out the offending sentence and for a smaller amount (say high school gyms and Village), and I will vote for it—as I did for the first three bonds that passed. Then the district can come back for more funding. As has been stated, this proposal is politically tone deaf.
Jonas, thank you for adding these facts. Very important.
Kathleen, I really do appreciate your thoughtful questions and responses regarding Measure I. We are all better off discussing this bond openly and honestly. We may have different positions, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have an open and honest dialogue.
I have a different view on the Measure I bond language that you consider “vague.” I think you are referencing the statement “Inclusion of a project on the bond project list is not a guarantee that the project will be completed (regardless of whether bond funds are available.)”. This was put into bond to protect you and I from the district spending available funds for projects no longer needed. A great example of this important protection was the 10th Elementary School that was part of Measure I1. The 10th elementary school was promised as part of the previous bond and wasn’t built – due to the drop in enrollment there is not a need at this time and the bonds were never sold, so taxpayers haven’t had to play for that portion. If there is a need for a 10th school, then the bonds can then be issued. No matter if you are for or against Measure I, I think we would all want the language that you called out included in the bond, so that money is spent responsibly, if Measure I does end up passing.
I do believe what other communities are doing to very relevant to this discussion. Families are choosing to leave Pleasanton and new families are opting to buy houses is adjacent communities because of the neglect we have shown to our schools. What other communities are doing to approve school bonds is relevant to the conversation because it will have an impact on all our house values in Pleasanton. If we continue to neglect our schools, all our property values will fall. People and families choose to live and buy in communities with excellent schools. In my opinion, voting down Measure I will have a long-term negative impact on our property values.
The bond assessment is tied to the value of your home when you bought your house. The current property tax rate per $100,000 of Assessed Value (AV), is $43.50 which predominantly supports Measure I-1 (and still a stub from the 1997 bond). If our community does nothing (i.e. votes not to pass Measure I), that tax rate will fall to $41 by the end of 2023 (the 1997 bond is finally ‘off the books’ as of the end of next year). If Measure I does pass, the property tax rate is expected to be somewhere in the high $80s, likely $86/$87 per $100,000 of AV when the majority of the Measure I bonds are issued by the school district and the Measure I-1 bond is still being paid down.
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.
I share your opinion that Measure I is covering a lot and the size of the bond is significant. Sadly, our community has chosen to not pass smaller school bonds over the years. We’ve only passed one school bond in the last 25 years. Measure I is necessary because the list of real needs for our facilities has grown and gotten worse over time. I have provided as many facts as I can to support Measure I, but I am just resident and father. I’m not a politician or lobbyist. I understand your concerns, but Pleasanton didn’t make up the idea of school bonds, this is how it works in every other community in our state and most other states. The difference is that our community that takes such pride in our beautiful town has chosen to not support these bonds. The Measure I projects are very specific, so everyone should have comfort that the money invested will address these needed projects for our schools and our children.
Thank you again for caring enough to ask critical questions.
Jonas –
Although your argument regarding the prior tax measures is interesting (and we owned a home in town in our 20’s when the ’97 bond was passed, so I’ll forgive you for calling me a senior), it’s really about the cumulative impact per household magnified by the lack of requirement that the District do what it says it will do with the $$ we give them that is sort of galling. The people (like me) who have lived in this town for 25 years are not some sort of open pocketbook. Many of us still remember PPIE asking for $$ for smaller class sizes and then reneging once we all gave in reliance on that promise.
Jonas, There has not been a smaller measure put to a vote in Pleasanton. I have been clear that I will not vote yes on $395,000,000 to get Village built for $70,000,000.
Just Another Resident – Didn’t mean to infer that you were senior. In terms of cumulative impact, the Pleasanton community has invested far less than other communities. There is no doubt a cumulative impact related to any new cost. It is difficult for any of us to determine what should be supported or not. I can only speak from my experience that our schools are very neglected and that the capital improvements outlined as part of Measure I are needed.
In terms of how the Measure I money is spent and what it is spent on. The District has developed a detailed Facility Master Plan (FMP) document that details Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that have been incorporated into the Bond Resolution language. As the district completes Tier 1 projects, it will evaluate if there is funding available to implement Tier 2 projects. This was successful in Measure I1, where the district used nearly $8 million in savings to complete additional projects needed to support the district and included in the bond language. Similar to Measure I1, where the District has implemented the planned improvements contained in that bond measure, the same will be done with this proposed measure. Similar to Measure I1, an Independent Citizen Bond Committee will ensure the funds are expended on the work listed in the Bond Resolution and not on non-bond salaries or general operational expenditures.
Kathleen – I believe Measure M (2020) school bond measure was $323 M. I can try and research the other school bonds put forward over the last 25 years. From what I have been told by the city, all the previous bonds were smaller than Measure I.
For the Tier 1 priority list for Measure I, it is $39 M or a little less than 10 percent of the overall bond to improve Village High School. Measure I covers so many items, it isn’t just Village High School and a new gym for Amador Valley High School. The District has developed a detailed Facility Master Plan (FMP) document that details Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that have been incorporated into the Bond Resolution language. All of these projects are needed.
The insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. Measure I isn’t perfect, but no school bond will ever be perfect. Measure I is well written and very clear on what it will cover and support. A perfect school bond will never be written to satisfy all parties. Voting Yes for Measure I delivers real value to our community and safety, access, and security to our children.
It could be closer to perfect. There were two other bonds in 1988 and 1997. Measure M at $323,000,000 is hardly smaller by most people’s measurements. I’m talking about $100,000,000. $39,000,000 is, I believe, Tier 1, not the entire project. This is the problem with how the district frames their discussions—start with little truths and only expand if necessary.
For instance, the district has yet to bond the $35,000,000 (and could also have added the $8,000,000 in savings), but I don’t believe they can “not” bond it for much longer. What is happening at Lydiksen’s rebuild? What happens to Donlon and Fairlands when we add 3-5 classrooms? Why are students being overflowed to Valley View rather than, say, Mohr, which is smaller and closer? There are many issues.
Oh, and CBOC only confirms what is done. I understand that is state law, but I wouldn’t hold them up as watching the money before it is spent.
Kathleen – If Measure I doesn’t pass, we’ll have another school bond measure on the ballot in 2 years that will sadly be even larger because we continue to defer maintenance on our schools. The insistence on perfection often prevents implementation of good improvements. Measure I offers good solutions to real problems.
By anyone’s measure, $395 M is less than $323 M. $72 M is no small matter.
Yes, the $39 M for Village is Tier 1, which 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.
Kathleen, You are correct, the district did use nearly $8 million in savings from Measure I1 to complete additional projects needed to support the district and included in the bond language. The District has implemented the planned improvements contained in that bond measure, the same will be done with this the proposed Measure I.
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. The remainder of the projects will consist of security upgrades to the alarm systems, camera installations at the elementary schools, installation of new fire alarms at various sites (all sites will have new alarms at the conclusion of the bond), the continued modernization of SDC classrooms, roofing, and HVAC upgrades, and the district’s continued efforts towards water conservation.
After the summer of 2022, the district will have roughly $65 million remaining for Measure I1. All these funds have been assigned to project budgets per the latest Board-approved implementation plan. Additionally, $35 M you mentioned will be outstanding in the Measure I1 Bond that the Board has set aside for a possible future 10th elementary campus.
>>the two largest projects remaining to be completed for Measure I1
I’d like to point out that I1 included installing cameras at Village HS. That hasn’t been done (at all) and seems to be in hover mode to see if I passes (or not).
Village also didn’t get that new fire alarms either (and appears not scheduled).
Measure I has language that protects the district with the communities funds. In two years, come back without the language and smaller. It is easily done. Several smaller bonds over time.
Again, we could likely rebuild the district for $1,000,000,000.
Interesting comment on TK. It isn’t in Measure I1, and Mark Miller has said it was and then was not in I1. So which is it? And why the two largest schools in the district? You will have nothing but no votes based on putting TKs at those schools. You are overflowing students from these schools to other schools. How many times do I have to ask the same questions?
How long does the district have until they have to bond the $35,000,000?
Hi SHale99 – Good call out. I believe the items that you mentioned are the list for Measure I1 and will cover Village High School.
The remainder of the projects will consist of security upgrades to the alarm systems, camera installations at the elementary schools, installation of new fire alarms at various sites (all sites will have new alarms at the conclusion of the bond), the continued modernization of SDC classrooms, roofing, and HVAC upgrades, and the district’s continued efforts towards water conservation.
Hi Kathleen – Measure I has language to protect you and the district. The only example you provided about the language that you didn’t like / agree with was the statement “Inclusion of a project on the bond project list is not a guarantee that the project will be completed (regardless of whether bond funds are available.)”. This was put into bond to protect you and I from the district spending available funds for projects no longer needed.
I don’t believe you will get your wish for a smaller bond with language that you desire. I have read through the Measure I bond and I believe it to be very clear and prescriptive to addresses real problems. If you have other examples of language in the bond that is confusing or that you dislike, let’s discuss and debate. If you don’t have other examples, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on how Measure I is written.
In terms of spending a $1 B to rebuild the entire district, I’m not sure that makes any fiscal sense or is grounded in reality. I’ve tried to provide facts in this dialogue, throwing a random number that has no basis in reality isn’t helping move the conversation along. The District has developed a detailed Measure I Facility Master Plan (FMP) document that details Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects that have been incorporated into the Measure I Bond Resolution language. FMP is based on budgets for build and repair that have been provided by experts in construction, not everyday citizens like you and me. It costs money to build and repair, arbitrarily deciding a build expense is too high, won’t change the actual cost of that expense.
I can’t speak for Mark Miller. I believe the state TK mandates came down after Measure I1 passed. This is out of my wheelhouse.
Jonas, that language does not protect the community. It could be rewritten at a minimum to say if a project isn’t needed or can be paid for by other means, the project will be dropped and the funds will not be bonded.
Yes, there is the FMP, which was put together by principals and others.
As for TK, why at the the two biggest schools?
Hi Kathleen – All we need to do is look at how Measure I1 was written and the same protective language. A great example of this important protection was the 10th Elementary School that was part of Measure I1. The 10th elementary school was promised as part of the previous bond and wasn’t built – due to the drop in enrollment there is not a need at this time and the bonds were never sold, so taxpayers haven’t had to play for that portion. If there is a need for a 10th school, then the bonds can then be issued.
The language that you are concerned about is the same language that is doing exactly what you want. “If a project isn’t needed or can be paid for by other means, the project will be dropped, and the funds will not be bonded.” This is what happened with the 10th Elementary School that was part of Measure I1. The school wasn’t built, the bonds weren’t sold, no taxpayer impact, and the school district has reserved that allocation for a 10th Elementary School if the need arises. Everyone is protected.
The FMP was put together by administrators, faculty, planners, and professionals (contractors) with expertise related to the projects covered in Measure I. These are exactly the people that should be contributing to master plan. There were also public reviews and hearings for the FMP, so that everyday citizens like you and I could provide feedback. Not sure what your concerns are with the contributors or the process. This is how a Facility Master Plan should be created and implemented.
Hi Kathleen – In regards to TK.
TK, also known as Transitional Kindergarten, is a grade level between preschool and kindergarten. TK came about after the Legislature approved the Kindergarten Readiness Act in 2010. Until then, children who were 4 years old on Sept. 1 could still enroll in regular kindergarten as long as they turned 5 by Dec. 2 of that year. The new law changed that. Beginning in 2012, children had to be 5 by Sept. 1 to enroll in kindergarten.
That left out about 100,000 kids who had to wait an extra year. In response, transitional kindergarten was established in 2012 to serve those 4-year-olds who would have previously been eligible for kindergarten. Currently, TK serves about 100,000 children, primarily those who turn 5 between Sept. 2 and Dec. 2. These students narrowly miss the cutoff for regular kindergarten. By contrast, the new $2.7 billion universal TK program will gradually be made available to every 4-year-old in California, eventually serving nearly 400,000 students. It will essentially become California’s version of a universal preschool program, available to all children regardless of income. Rollout of the universal TK program will start in 2022-2023 and be available to all TK aged children by 2025-2026. The state has earmarked about $490 million in the latest budget to build new facilities and make adjustments to existing ones, such as building out right-size water fountains, restrooms with appropriate toiles and sinks, and constructing new facilities needed. This is not nearly enough to fund all the TK facility needs throughout the state. The state will be placing a priority ranking system on the facilities funding they will provide, and it is widely projected that all of the funds will go to districts more disadvantaged than PUSD, leaving no state funding for this mandated new grade level for PUSD’s facilities.
Jonas, the district is holding out on not bonding the $35,000,000–there is a clock ticking on that bonding.
If I am a principal, I’m going to get everything I can for my school (I don’t blame the effort) and the professionals are all too happy to accommodate.
TK and K do not require attendance at this time. And you did not answer the question, why the two most impacted schools?
I wonder where you are getting your information and why it takes so much writing to avoid the actual questions.
I would like to point out the latest mailer *again* does not mention the $395,000,000 bond amount anywhere. It also does not mention whether those in the ad actually live in Pleasanton and can vote for this measure.
>If I am a principal, I’m going to get everything I can for my school
I’d like to point out here that the district did detailed surveys of all stakeholders when it comes to ‘what’ the schools need. Staff, students, parents etc.
They didn’t create the masterplan out of thin air.
I didn’t say they had created it out of thin air. And you skipped (I don’t blame the effort).
Hi Kathleen – I’m writing detailed answers out of respect for you. I’ve tried to answer all your questions to the best of my ability. I have read all the material provided about the bond and have reached out to as many people I can to get informed. I am just a resident and have nothing to do with the Measure I bond, beyond supporting it.
$35 M for the Measure I1 Bond has been set aside for a possible future 10th elementary campus. I’m not aware of the time limit that the Board must activate on issuing bonds if the need arises for a 10th Elementary school. I would guess that they have until the duration of the main Measure I1 bond. I can make some calls Monday and find out for you, if that information would be helpful.
You are correct, the professionals in charge of schools and the other professionals they have hired are the main folks that have constructed Measure I. These are the exact people that we should all want informing Measure I. As Shale99 pointed out, every citizen in our community has also had a chance to participate in the process, whether folks took advantage of the planning process is completely their choice.
Rollout of the universal TK program will start in 2022-2023 and be available to all TK aged children by 2025-2026. If I remember correctly, all school districts, not just PUSD, are starting the process to meet the state mandate. I don’t understand your question about the “why the two most impacted schools.” 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.
I don’t think there is a serious effort to balance enrollment. Adding classrooms to Donlon and Fairlands will keep them the largest schools even with boundary changes. If the effort was sincere, why are students being overflowed to Valley View rather than Mohr, which is small and closer. Then there is Lydiksen which has apparently been built to house 900 students. And you have the city working on housing at Stoneridge, which will impact all three of these schools.
So, no to a $395,000,000 bond.
Kathleen – Someone or some people have broken your trust with PUSD. I’m sorry that is the case. My experience as a resident and parent has been much more positive with PUSD. We’ve had challenges, but I have always found the district to be honest and dedicated the well being of the children in this community. I hope PUSD and your fellow residents can help build your trust in the future.
I have sat in on meetings regarding the balancing on enrollment. I can promise you that the effort of PUSD to solve this problem is sincere. The faculty and staff care deeply about the schools, teachers, and students. My children went to Valley View and we still have connections to that school. I know that Valley View has the capacity and willingness to take additional students at this time. I don’t believe Mohr has additional capacity.
I respect your ‘No’ vote of Measure I. Your opinion matters. Many of the points you have made over the last week in this forum are just that – opinions. I wish you the best Kathleen.
Jonas, I have explained the language, TKs, Donlon, Fairlands, Lydiksen, the amount being requested, and fliers that don’t mention the $395,000,000. They are all facts. Whether you choose to learn from the facts is your choice.
I trust the teachers and those who work at the sites. There are even good people at the D.O. The board, unfortunately, is not doing their number one job in my opinion, supervising the superintendent. The East Bay Times has said to vote no because the bond is “politically tone deaf.” I couldn’t agree more.
Let’s also think about the biggest contributor to the yes campaign is the construction/consultants currently working with the district.
>>>and those who work at the sites.
thank goodness for that (at least).
Kathleen – The biggest contributors to he yes campaign are parents and concerned residents. I have seen zero influence or contributions from “the construction/consultants currently working with the district.”
It is great to have an open discussion, but throwing our baseless accusations doesn’t help anyone make an informed decision.
>>It is great to have an open discussion, but throwing our baseless accusations doesn’t >>help anyone make an informed decision.
Amen.
I guess you missed this article Jonas: https://www.pleasantonweekly.com/square/2022/10/28/campaign-finances-show-thousands-spent-on-city-council-pusd-candidates
Not baseless SHale.
Seems like it’s time to shut this one down. Enough of the battle between SHale99 and Kathleen.
I’ve always found Kathleen informed and helpful over many years regarding PUSD.
Don’t see where SHale99 is contributing to the conversation.
And a thank you to Jonas for the facts he has brought. Much appreciated.
>>Not baseless SHale.
Your opinion, yes? Aren’t you the one who posted a comment here about the businesses that contributed to the YES campaign as if there was ‘something’ there?
Aren’t you the one who posted that a ‘new’ village could be a single story building that would occupy the sq feet left from the selling of the DO acres? Still haven’t seen that justification yet.
If you makes you feel better I think the bond will get > 50%, but less than the 55% required. However, what you don’t pay for now, will cost more later. Noodle that.
The businesses are those already working for the district.
Village deserves a new school.
The district needs to do the noodling.
>>The district needs to do the noodling.
They certainly will if the bond doesn’t get 55%. A new village HS is happening either way.
I mentioned the district will take money from other places to build Village.
>I mentioned the district will take money from other places to build Village.
the 35m from I1 still not drawn, perhaps?
Just to be clear there is no checking account where 35m is sitting around gathering dust as some in these threads seem to think.
I suspect I will not get 55% and the district will need to rethink selling as much DO land as they thought and using the money to rebuild Village, which would not require any voter ‘permission’.
The fact that building Village doesn’t require voter approval is unfortunate. As I have said the $35,000,000 is a ticking time bomb, it has to be bonded at some point, and I don’t think anyone believes it has been bonded and is gathering dust. If it is used for Village, I think the community will speak up loudly.
The district said they have Sycamore and Neal to use for Village.
>>it has to be bonded at some point,
Actually, no it doesn’t. However, no doubt there are laws that it would expire at some point and not be drawn on. I’m guessing term of the bond.
But that is neither here, nor there. You simply want a elementary school built, period. Would be a giant waste, but your opinion differs from mine. Rest of the taxpayers would agree declining enrollment does not equal a new school (at this time).
I have no doubt if I fails the district will certainly ‘try’ to slam Village HS into portables and carve out space. But at the locations you mention. They will be carved from one of the other comprehensive HS just like Dublin did….. A horrible outcome.
Guess will find out in a few days, aye?
Yes, we will find out. I thought I read the district has two years. I don’t want and elementary school “period”. I’ve pointed out the 27-45 additional TK classrooms equal a new school though. My problem is with the language and the amount.
>> I’ve pointed out the 27-45 additional TK classrooms
AND then it was pointed out to you that the TK policy was modified to allow earlier starts and that is what mandated more or converted classrooms. But not an entire school just for TK.
You know if Pleasanton would approve volume new housing, perhaps declining enrollment would reverse itself? Huh, another thread. This one is passed being closed. Maybe on Tuesday it will be retired.
SHale, I understand it is not an entire school for TK, but it certainly equals an entire school during “declining enrollment”. Convert rather than build new. TK and K do not have mandatory attendance requirements. And do not add classrooms to the largest schools.
I will hope the no votes will take Tuesday. The district and board need to clean up their acts. If nearly half the community says no, then there are voices to be heard and changes that need to be made. I certainly hope no one is believing the slick flyers coming out that do not mention the bond amount and say this is the most critical vote in 50 years. There have been three bonds in that time. What are they talking about? It is just pressuring voters, not educating them.
Just spotted this and it’s perfect: NOvember.