|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View Whisman’s school board is weighing its options to fund the purchase of the land its teacher and staff housing project is built upon. But in the search for available money, some have raised concerns over the potential that school improvement projects could be delayed to free up cash.
At a Thursday, Feb. 13, meeting, the board members heard a presentation from staff that outlined various ways to finance the purchase for the 1.8-acre site along Shoreline Boulevard, where the district has built 144 subsidized apartments.
One possibility drawing parent pushback was pausing a project to plant trees and create more outdoor learning spaces on campuses, which is being funded by the Measure T bond that voters passed in 2020. Parents from multiple schools sent emails, signed petitions and spoke at Thursday’s meeting to urge that the campus “greening” project moves forward.
District officials stressed that no decisions have been made yet about how to fund the land purchase, that a combination of different options could be used, and that it isn’t even certain yet whether the school board will ultimately decide to purchase the site.
Two school board members also expressed opposition to the idea of pausing bond-funded projects to pay for the land purchase.
District seeks to buy land under teacher housing
The discussion around financing comes as Mountain View Whisman pursues the option to buy the land underneath its employee housing project. While the school district owns the building, it had been planning to rent the land for $1.9 million annually from a real estate developer. That cost would escalate 2-4% each year based on inflation.
That could now be changing. Last month, the school board agreed to enter into an “option to purchase” agreement with the developer, which gives the district until June 30 to negotiate a deal to buy the land. The sale price would be subject to those negotiations.
The apartments were completed last year and the district is in the process of accepting and reviewing applications from potential tenants. Out of 144 units, 123 are reserved for the school district and the city of Mountain View gets first dibs to 20 for its employees. One unit is set aside for a property manager.
When the staff housing project was first considered several years ago, the developer wasn’t open to selling the land itself, according to district officials. That changed when the district inquired again more recently.
The question now facing the board is how to put together the money, should they exercise their option to purchase the land.
On Thursday, Chief Business Officer Rebecca Westover presented the board with multiple options, including financing tool through “certificates of participation” to borrow money; reallocating expected savings from current bond projects; cancelling or delaying planned bond projects; and using existing district funds.
“Today is really just a brief introduction into what options are available,” Westover said. “I’m sure we’ll have many conversations over the next few months about this.”
Some of the options, like certificates of participation, would take time for the district to secure, meaning that a decision on funding would need to be made ahead of the June 30 deadline for the district to exercise its option to purchase, Westover said.
Parents, community members push back
Eight public speakers addressed the board on the purchase plans, most objecting to the potential that school greening and outdoor learning could be cut to pay for the land purchase.
The district has been pursuing a roughly $15 million initiative to plant more trees and add outdoor learning spaces to its school campuses. This was one of the Measure T projects that the district included on a list of possible options to eliminate to pay for the land purchase. It’s estimated that $13 million could be saved if the project was cancelled.
That prospect has led to opposition from parents, teachers and community members in recent days. Ahead of Thursday’s meeting, the board received dozens of emails urging it to retain funding for the initiative. These messages included a petition from the Vargas Elementary School community with roughly 225 signatures, as well as another one from Stevenson Elementary School that had over 100 signatures.
Vargas Elementary parent Hazel Bourget urged the board on Thursday to preserve funding for school greening, which she said students were excited to see move forward. She noted that she wasn’t against teacher housing, but rather in favor of retaining the greening program.
“The Vargas community is deeply invested in this project and we believe it will significantly enhance our children’s learning environment, wellbeing and connection to nature,” Bourget said. “We are a community that hopes the board will stay committed … and see this project through to completion.”
Vargas is the district’s newest campus and its smallest, sitting on just 4.7 acres. Unlike some other campuses, much of Vargas’s outdoor areas are concrete and the field is artificial turf.
Another parent who spoke at Thursday’s meeting asked the board for more transparency, noting that parents hadn’t expected to find the possibility that outdoor learning could be cut when the option was buried within a larger presentation about teacher housing.
“This should be a public discussion about what matters to our community, why we want outdoor learning and hearing diverse voices from all of our schools,” Stevenson parent Jenna Kingkade told the board.
In addition to the concerns about outdoor learning, a few parents on Thursday raised broader objections to the employee housing project itself. At recent meetings, some parents have argued that the district has mishandled the project, and in some cases have advocated for pulling out of the endeavor entirely.
Board members weigh in on the options
After hearing from the community, board members Lisa Henry and Devon Conley both said they did not support eliminating Measure T bond projects to pay for the land. The greening and outdoor learning initiative is one of these projects.
“There is a huge amount of community time that has gone into the outdoor learning project over the years,” Conley said. “I think people were really surprised that it’s something that could be removed or paused or halted.”
Beyond cancelling projects outright, Conley was also opposed to delaying them because construction costs are expected to rise more quickly than the interest costs to borrow money for the land purchase.
“We may as well put money on the floor in the board room and light it on fire,” Conley said.
In contrast, board President Bill Lambert said that he was supportive of pausing Measure T projects for the time being, while the district considers its options to fund the land purchase.
Lambert told his colleagues that the staff housing project currently poses a financial risk to the district, with a 90% occupancy rate needed to break even. Buying the land would give the district substantially more financial flexibility and protect the district’s general fund from being tapped to cover costs, Lambert said.
He also urged the district to hire experts in real estate investment to provide advice on financing the land purchase, and said that he wasn’t qualified to make those decisions himself.
“This is a $100 million project going onward. We need to treat this seriously,” Lambert said. “I’m not going to make decisions as an amateur that have such a huge financial impact on the district.”
Conley questioned whether there is enough time to find a team of experts to advise on the project, given the June 30 deadline and the need to set financing options in motion ahead of that date.
In response, Lambert said that he would abstain from voting if expert advisors aren’t brought in, and that he would personally look into finding outside consultation.
“I don’t know why ever since I came on this board, every time we do something with teacher housing, it’s always a rush. Everything is imminent, everything is too late,” Lambert said. “It’s just not the way to do business.”
In response to Lambert’s comments about needing a 90% occupancy rate, Conley noted that the employee housing project is structured such that if not enough Mountain View Whisman staff members are interested, the district can open it up to neighboring school districts and then to members of the broader public who meet income requirements.
“That would fill up in a heartbeat. There are huge waitlists for affordable housing,” Conley said. “When we take a look at the financial risk of this site, I don’t think we’re going to get into a position where we can’t fill our units.”
Once again, excellent reporting by MV Voice…kudos to Ms. Morgan.
Board Trustee/ex-President Conley has instigated a very well organized Greening Initiative support program! “There is a huge amount of community time that has gone into the outdoor learning project over the years,” Conley said. “I think people were really surprised that it’s something that could be removed or paused or halted.”
But, many of us ‘have been really surprised’ that this Greening has diverted over $10,000,000 from the Priority 2 survey-and-repair of greater than 50 year old sewer and supply underground pipes (and leaking roofs). Imai was closed for a day for just one old-pipe sewer leak and Graham MS had one old water supply pipe leak fixed at about $45,000 within the last two or three months. Wow! Just what the taxpayers expected / old pipes & roofs not fixed? Conley’s Dream fully funded on a Rush Basis?? (finished ’25-’26 / before Conley’s next MV City Council run?)
Rational community taxpayer spending might be: support small and limited outdoor landscape project ‘promised in Boand/Facilities campaign. And Leave Conley’s inspired but massively expensive GREENING Initiative for a future bond to pay! (inflation will also rise real-estate and tax revenues for a new bond -> In The Future)
Steve, I don’t think the Greening initiative is massive. I think the budget for each site is under a million, which doesn’t get you much in Mountain View. For comparison, the Magical Bridge Playground cost….$7 million dollars.
Sorry, I was wrong. It’s just over a million for each site. (I had 800k in my head). Still small numbers. I think the HVAC renovations cost more for each site!