|
|
|
Uploaded: Friday, January 27, 2012, 1:16 PM
Survey shows support for new school bond
Mountain View Whisman district likely to place measure on June ballot
|
|
by Nick Veronin
Mountain View Voice Staff
A new public opinion survey has local education officials feeling fairly confident that there is enough support from local voters to pass a $196 million bond measure.
In a December 2011 phone poll, more than 60 percent of local voters said they felt that the Mountain View Whisman School District had at least some need for more money and that they would support the proposed bond, according to a report from Gene Bregman & Associates, the research firm that conducted the survey.
"We're extremely pleased," said Craig Goldman, Mountain View Whisman's superintendent. "It certainly validates our belief that Mountain View residents understand the importance of strong schools for the benefit of children and the community overall."
The survey questioned 400 local registered voters. It found that among those voters most likely to go to the polls during the upcoming June election, 64 percent would vote yes on the bond.
Of those voters who were likely to turn out in the November election -- a presidential election -- 66 percent said they would vote yes on the bond.
Gene Bregman, along with a few other employees from his firm, presented their findings to the Mountain View Whisman School District's board of trustees on Jan. 19 -- recommending that the district file paperwork by early March to get the bond measure on the June ballot.
"It looks like June would provide a great opportunity for us in terms of the support of local voters," Goldman said. "Unless the board decides otherwise, we are likely to recommend moving forward on a June election."
With the district still stretched thin financially, and with the probability of further state education cuts looming, Goldman said Mountain View Whisman could use revenues generated by a bond to help pay for projects identified in its master plan.
The district's Student Facilities Improvement Plan calls for construction and renovation projects at all Mountain View Whisman schools. The plan is meant to address health and safety requirements, enrollment growth and failing infrastructure, as well as accommodate new educational programs and make for a more energy-efficient school district.
The bond will be supported by up to $30 per $100,000 of assessed property value and require only 55 percent of the vote to be passed. It would come on top of Measure C, the eight-year, $3 million voter-approved parcel tax that went into effect in 2009. Depending on parcel size, property owners are assessed anywhere from nearly $150 to over $1,000 a year under Measure C
Steve Nelson, a very vocal and regular attendee of local school board and city council meetings, voiced concern over the proposed bond measure at the Jan. 19 meeting of the Mountain View Whisman trustees. He later told the Voice he felt that the entire process seemed rushed and that the district had not provided enough time for community comment.
Goldman disagreed and noted that should the bond be approved, a citizens' oversight committee will be formed to ensure that the Mountain View community will have ample input on all projects the bond intends to fund.
The superintendent said the sooner the bond can be passed, the better. "We hope that voters recognize that a continued investment in our schools is a continued investment in our community, and the long term value of their homes and the great livability of Mountain View," he said.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm How much of the school budgets are going to pay for pensions (for administrators, and teachers)? With all the six-figure pensions, it's no wonder they need to keep asking for more money. How much actually goes into teaching students? Until that's fixed, VOTE NO!
Instead of taxing homes, why don't we have a "pension tax" where we tax pensions above $50k/year?
|
|
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 2:33 pm This is based on the master plan put forward by the love-struck clown Maurice Ghysels!
That alone should make taxpayers weary.
|
|
Posted by vfree, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm NO MORE TAXES!!!!!
|
|
Posted by kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm Hmm, i was never called. The schools just got the added money from the Redevelopment agency being closed. Now they need more money? What about the lottery, isn't that suppose to provide money for the schools?
I agree with the posters here, NO MORE TAXES.
Someone really needs to audit what these schools are doing with all the money.
How can they replace a teacher when the teacher that is leaving is being paid the same as when they worked?
Something is really screwed up with this system. And until the people have had enough, all they will do is beg for more money.
|
|
Posted by George, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 5:49 pm Oh Boy.... if it passes, they will have hearings so that the public can have "INPUT" into the spending spree. "INPUT" is one thing, but the "committee" will follow the Admin's recs, and it will be spent where the Admin wants it to be... Public Input will be just that... "input" without any change from plans.
In this crushing economy, I suggest that "NO" is a good word on this issue.
64 [ercemt said "YES" ??? I doubt that... This firm is paid by the MV School Board... Jeeze... do ya think it might be biased ?
Georg
|
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm Looks like Mountain View Whisman has several retirees making $135k+... as pensions (which means they had even higher salaries when they were working).
Those rates are equivalent to a private sector employee saving up ~$3.5M by the time they retire. Until we're no longer handing out millions in retirement bonuses, VOTE NO TO MORE TAXES.
I agree that this survey sounds flawed, and thankfully doesn't sound like it will pass based on these comments.
|
|
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:08 pm MVWSD $100,000 retirement club to date:
ARCHIBEQUE, MODRITE $137,948.16 MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN
JAQUITH, ROBIN A $100,904.40 MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN
YICK, ELEANOR G $134,639.28 MOUNTAIN VIEW WHISMAN
Plenty more on the way.
Web Link
|
|
Posted by yolanda, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2012 at 9:35 pm I don't mind paying for this bond, but I think it would be worth if MV-Voice actually made an article on how the bond will be used.
I saw the master plan and it seems fine. But I am not sure how much validity is in comments that the bond money would be used to fund pensions... could MVWSD even do that legally?
|
|
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 7:56 am They are always crying for money for the children, and then spending it on themselves behind our backs.
At the rate we are going, their will be 10-20 initiatives between June and November to raise our taxes. Enough is enough.
|
|
Posted by Solution man, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 8:22 am I heard a number thrown around that the schools are shy 180 dollars per student.
Solution: It's about time to have parents pay for there children education.
No more free lunch. This way the parents would make sure there money is used wisely, seeing how the school officials have no clue on how to balance there budgets.
|
|
Posted by Ray, a resident of the Castro City neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 8:57 am Parents already pay for after school programs at Castro to the tune of about $120 each... er, at least the parents that feel they should contribute, and that is a significant number. The rest, well, they just take it for granted.
|
|
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 10:21 am Yolanda, I've been following this at meetings since May 2008. I would not vote for the June Bond (and I've studied over 300 pages on documents on this and have kids in MVWSD). On the 23rd I posted a discussion question on the "Town Square Forum" "Schools ad Kids" sections on why. It mainly involves lack of community prioritization via a "7-11 Committee"
(how do you use 200 dollars to get a $432 project done?) and no school for Whisman/Slatter.
The Patch (AOL's local version of the Huffington Report) has an appropriate headline "Bond Measure Likely to Pass Regardless of Election Date". There is plenty of time for "best practice" citizen input.
MANY OTHER POSTERS - you really should study how our local government can work. But be informed, or you will have almost 0 effect.
|
|
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 10:50 am Yolanda, your intuition, or recollection, is exactly right. This Bond $ cannot be used for pensions. There is a way of switching Bond (capital) to operations, at Slater and Whisman this involves turning over neighborhood schools to other organizations. Another way is use Bond $ to buy your own solar energy system (part of Measure A at the high schools) and use the savings in electricity expenses to fund classroom operations. The smart guy at the high schools (Joe White) has saved more than $500,00 this cloudless year through the new solar arrays. In this MV plan - you would have to spend down to the 'third priority' to get solar (almost the total $432 M laundry list).
|
|
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm Steven:
I do admire and respect your knowledge regarding the schools and city. But some of us DO know how local government works, but maybe perhaps in a more negative light. For example, two of the three MVWSD administrators cited above retired at over $130,000 "legally" by spiking their salaries to end up getting MORE in retirement than while working! Thankfully Brown seems to be doing his best to make such spiking illegal in the future, but it's by no means guaranteed. Then take a look at how the last round of top admin city retirees a few years back who retired and then immediately went back to work because they were so invaluable. We even have a retired police captain who retired and claimed a disability in the eleventh hour to save on his taxes. But then you then find him biking to Sacramento with the ex-MVWSD Superintendent who was moving his mistress around to better positions while making her one of the highest paid principals before he got fired. And according to the SJMerc we also have some of the highest paid employees in the county. Their pension liabilities are going to destroy this city in the future. Yes, some of us know all too well how local government works.
|
|
Posted by Eric, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm We can complain all we want, but the beast will be fed! And then come back for more. It's for the children after all.
|
|
Posted by Nick V, Mountain View Voice Staff Writer, on Jan 31, 2012 at 10:19 am
Nick V is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online Yolanda:
I put a link in the story to the master plan (see hyperlinked "master plan"). The money will be spent on projects within that document. The district, in drafting the language of the bond measure, must be very specific in what it intends to spend the money on and may not legally deviate from those stated intentions. That language has yet to be drafted.
|
|
Posted by Nick, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 31, 2012 at 3:42 pm NickV and Yolanda -- obviously the bond will highlight the most voter-friendly items (feeding sick kittens or whatever), and it will legally need to be used for those purposes, but it's naive to not look at the full budget. If these items are so critical, they could use their existing budget and cut lower priority items that they don't want you to know even exist.
So until overall spending is sustainable, and blatant abuses are under control (e.g. the lavish multimillion dollar retirement packages), VOTE NO.
|
|
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 26, 2012 at 9:26 am late comment - Nick hit it exactly (above). Note the next MV Voice articles on the June Bond. Buried in the small text at the end of the proposed legal ballot language is "District Office". Administrators would not have all the money to do the $240 M Priority One tasks, but the Administration can go down to a Priority 3 task for their own offices? "Student Facilities" ??
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
