|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Los Altos School District is asking voters to approve a $150 million bond that would help to fund a new school site and additional school facilities to deal with growing enrollment in the district, particularly in the area north of El Camino Real.
The bond would cost district taxpayers a maximum of $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. Opponents say the district’s plans are too vague, and won’t spell out what the money will be used for. Others think the school has plenty of room to expand enrollment at existing school sites.
Last year, the district Superintendent’s Enrollment Growth Task Force found that enrollment is the highest it’s been in 40 years. The key difference is that in 1970, the district had 12 schools to house the over 5000 students in the district, whereas now the district only has nine.
The task force recommended the district pursue two school sites — one to house Bullis Charter School and one for Los Altos School District students. The recommendation went on to say that it is “difficult to imagine any solution for garnering school sites (and) facilities without some level of taxpayer funding.”
Since the report, student enrollment has increased faster than expected. This year’s enrollment is at 5,380, which is more than 100 students above projections made in May. Schools are quickly approaching or exceeding “target” enrollment at school sites across the district, according to Randy Kenyon, assistant superintendent of business services.
Right now the district has more than 1,000 students on the Egan Junior High School campus, and more than 800 at the Blach Intermediate School campus. Kenyon said said Santa Rita Elementary is also quickly approaching 600 students, and will likely get even more crowded if more housing is added to the area north of El Camino Real. The result, he said, is that both campuses are crowded and traffic is problematic.
The district has since established a 28-person Facilities Master Plan Committee to identify potential projects for the Measure N funds, and will provide the school board with recommendations for how to prioritize those projects. Kenyon said the committee understands and agrees that the No. 1 priority is dealing with enrollment growth through a new school site. Following that are other improvements on existing campuses, which the committee has since started to prioritize.
The committee includes district parents and residents from Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, as well as representatives from Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View and the Greater San Antonio Community Association.
The school board’s “planning direction” to the committee states that the preferred option is to build one new school at a new site and modify existing schools. Though the enrollment growth task force last year recommended two new schools, the school board has since determined that acquiring two new sites is too “cost prohibitive,” Kenyon said.
According to the “Yes on N” website, supporters of Measure N include the Bullis Charter School Board of Trustees, the Los Altos Education Foundation and eight of the district’s Parent Teacher Associations. Individual supporters include Mountain View Mayor Chris Clark, as well as the mayors of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills.
Opponents of the bond include Los Altos School District resident David Roode, Los Altos Hills parent Robert Fagen and Mountain View City Council member John Inks. The ballot argument against Measure N states that Measure N is too vague, and needs to have detailed, site specific plans for how to spend the money. It goes on to say the Los Altos School District already has over 110 acres of space, and could accommodate enrollment growth at existing sites.
In an op-ed to the Sept. 26 issue of the Voice, Roode said it’s not clear the district is willing to focus as much of the $150 million as possible on enrollment growth. He said the list of capital improvements proposed so far, which totals $350 million, are “heavy with those not increasing capacity,” and that the district may limit spending on the new school site for improvements at current schools.
The ballot argument against Measure N states that the district doesn’t need to acquire more land for a new school when it could expand existing school sites and use them more efficiently. District schools are “50 percent under-utilized on a student-to-acreage metric” compared with other school districts, according to the ballot argument.
Roode said that the Egan and Covington campuses, the latter of which currently houses the school district office, could potentially house a second school because of the size of the sites.
Mountain View City Council member John Inks co-signed the argument against Measure N due to worries that the school district may try to use eminent domain to seize land for a school site.
In an email, Inks said the bond measure does not specifically rule out eminent domain, which has caused some concern. He said attorneys for the Pear Family Trust wrote to the school district and confirmed that their properties were not available for sale, and that they were strongly opposed to acquisition by eminent domain.
Kenyon said the board has no plans to use eminent domain, and believes members would be reluctant to exercise the option as anything but a last resort.
Other opponents include the president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, Mark Hinkle, who said he opposes the property tax on district residents. He said the $30 per $100,000 of assessed value adds up, and on top of other property taxes poses a burden to property owners in the area.
Decisions depend on new school location and size
A new school site north of El Camino Real would be the preferred option for the Los Altos School District, but it might also be the most challenging area to find a spot for a new school. Normally the city, in this case the city of Mountain View, would have a park or some other city land they could dedicate to a new school. But that’s not the case in the San Antonio area.
Lenny Siegel, a council candidate and the leader of the Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View, sent a letter to the Mountain View City Council and the Los Altos School District calling for both parties to collaborate on ways to build a school site in the San Antonio area. Clark responded with a letter in response, dated Sept. 8, and said staff from both agencies have talked “several times” about properties in the area and the precise plan process. He said he believes the city is open to contributing developer open space fees for a field or other open space areas associated with a school.
Superintendent Jeff Baier said the city of Mountain View has also acknowledged the prospect of a school in the area in the draft of the San Antonio Precise Plan.
As it stands, the district would likely have to acquire expensive private property in the area to build a school in the area. Depending on the number of acres, a lion’s share of the bond measure money could be committed to land acquisition.
And number of acres matters in the context of what the district does next. If the acreage of the school is anywhere from 8 to 10 acres, the district could use the school as a large neighborhood school, or it could house Bullis Charter School and free up space at the district’s junior high schools. If the acquired site is only 6 acres, it would likely be too small for the charter school and would likely be used as a magnet or “choice” school.
The district is also considering shifting to a K-5 model for elementary schools, with sixth-grade students attending the two junior high schools. Kenyon said if Bullis Charter School were to be relocated to a new site, the extra space at middle school could accommodate sixth grade students and decrease enrollment at all the elementary schools.
Sure, let see that would be 150 dollars more tacked on to a 500,000 house where the property tax is already 5000 dollars. For someone on a fixed income, that can mean a lot.
How about the parents pay for their kids educations a little? !00 dollars a head that would be enough.
David Roode and Rob Fagen are opponents of Measure N? Rob Fagen, David Roode, and Jill Jene run EACH, a PAC that continually sends out misleading and false statements about LASD schools. EACH is responsible for all those No on N signs placed on side of the roads? Jill Jene is on the Facility Master Plan Committee. If EACH is supporting the opposition to Measure N, then why is Jill Jene even on the one committee whose purpose is to enact Measure N?
@Hmm: Right, because the community has NO interest in an actual functioning school system.
Get back to us when you actually think things out.
How about Google scratch a 150 million dollar check for this. Or better yet the 350 million which is probably closer to what a whole new school and property would cost. I would guess in reality 400-500 million. It is mostly Google’s employees children who will be going there.
If they have 110 acres now whats all this about eminent domain?
They could build the school on the site of Google’s first class “private” sports complex or the beautiful green (what drought?) semi-private park next door to them.
Vote “NO”
It seems like the insiders know what is really planned for this $150 million. They are telling everyone else to “trust us” and “vote yes”.
I’m really reluctant to do either. The last bond didn’t have stellar results for everyone. Remember ‘Got Milked?’.
I also find it appalling how much has been donated to ‘Yes on N’ by architects, contractors, and parents who live outside the district. They won’t pay the tax, but they’ll reap the benefits.
They want a new school because of the population growth North of El Camino. When you get a building for a new residence a portion is set aside for the fire department to expand a little, the school district to expand a little, the police department to expand a little. When this money adds up the government is supposed to going into these savings accounts and get the money and build up the infrastructure appropriately. WHERE’S THE MONEY??? Don’ tell me the builders and developers putting the monstrosities of the El Camino didn’t pay.
This school district has a bad record for closing schools instead of renting out the campuses or mothballing them.
Why did they sell Carmel?
Why did they close Hillview?
Why did they close Eastbrook?
Why did they close Portola?
I agree with David Roode’s anonymous postings above. We need to fight against anything that would allow the school district to meet our requirements for a unified campus without closing one of the public schools. Without a major disruption, then how can we get our revenge? They closed our precious school and we will not rest until one of theirs gets closed and their students pushed out.
So, vote No on N!
It is interesting that the crazy anti charter school group would rather sling mud than and attempt to polarize the community with their lies and cheap shots.
Let’s look at the facts.
The LASD school continues to serve the teachers union administration at the expense of the teachers and students.
The current LASD school board was hand picked by the Teachers Union.
The animosity against BCS is driven primarily by the teachers union who see a highly successful school as the enemy. The fact that the children benefit from the teaching methods employed at BCS is immaterial to the union.
It’s unfortunate that we allow an anti-choice group derail honest conversations about a serious issue. And raising 150 million dollars with no plan is a serious issue. The fact that the school board has promising 300 million dollars in spending if the bond is approved is a serious issue.
It seems a reasonable request for the school board to be more transparent with how they plan to spend the money before I vote to approve a bond.
What a huge waste of money! I am voting NO!
I’m surprised that the No on N people haven’t organized themselves better to inform the community of the downside of passing the bond measure. The parents of school aged kids are more in the know regarding the vague/ deceitful plans for the bond money but the older folks think that voting for the bond just means they support the schools. The Yes on N crowd is spending lots of money mailing their propaganda as well as aggressively phoning voters. It needs to be counteracted so that the community is better informed of the real story.
The idiot up there speculating about the identity of previous posters is not relevant. The fact is that this measure is being sold as dealing with growth, and at creating two new different schools. When you look at their planning though, they are doing things like spiffing up the “finishes” on existing school sites and increasing the side of their multipurpose rooms to 6000 square feet. This is not really dealing with growth. This is California and most of the time they hold assemblies for the whole school they WANT to be outside anyway. They are also increasing the size of school libraries to 4000 square feet. Again, this is 2014, the libraries are visited by one class at a time. They don’t need to be monstrous. The argument that the funds are needed for growth are lies.
Measure N is unwise.
The state education funding has been healthy. LASD parcel tax is already among the highest in Silicon Valley. Future parcel tax increases should be reserved for rainy days. Don’t abuse the goodwill of our residents.
In terms of money for new school sites, that money is supposed to have been collected from new housing development projects. Developers pay LASD certain amount of tax for each new square foot of new housing. The tax is supposed to be used to expand school capacity to accommodate projected new students.
Where did that money go? All disappeared? Mismanaged, again? Paid into pension funds???
And now the school districts comes back to ask more from the residents?
The campaign for this bond measure has raised at least $83,000 so far. The largest contributor was Blach Construction at $10,000. Blach was recently awarded a $2 Million no bid construction contract at the district, using money that didn’t come from a bond measure. But still, isn’t this a pretty big conflict of interest, to have this future project be backed by a potential contractor? There are other such contributions, some coming from the LASD lawyers. The district architect contributed $7K and there was a $2K contribution from an engineering design company that works with architects and a $1K from another such company–adds up to $10K from the architect and related. Hmmm. Lots of vested interests funding this campaign.
The No on N robocalls were sponsored by the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association (www.svtaxpayers.org). If you take a look at their website they have recommended “no” votes on every single school parcel tax and bond measure in the bay area for this election. This is obviously not a group who is looking carefully at the issues involved but are just reactionary no on any school taxes folks. What a great group to be associated with (Steve Coladonato!)