Bond Set at $260M for November Ballot; Projects Still A Question Mark

After much discussion, the board of education decided against a second tracking poll as well as sticking with a $260 million bond.

When you go to vote in November, you'll be voting either for or against a $260 million school facilities bond. That much has been decided.

The Board of Education gave the thumbs up to staff to move forward with a bond notched at $260 million last week. The motion was passed 3-1 with board president Greg Marvel being the single "nay" vote. (Board member Paul Gardner had an excused absence from the meeting.)

Marvel's "nay" wasn't voting against the bond, which he wanted to make clear. "I'm not opposing the bond, I am opposing the dollar amount," Marvel said.

He wanted a higher number.

He brought up a bond closer to $300 million at the May 22 meeting and again last Wednesday night. At the May 22 meeting, the board told staff that the , with potentially moving that number up pending a discussion about sending out another bond survey.

The board also had that new survey discussion last Wednesday and it decided against sending out another one by a vote of 3-1, with board member Denise Jennison the lone supporter of the action.

"What we learned from the forums and our original poll is that the community needs more information about the need (of the bond)," Jennison said. "Once they get the info, they understand the need, they are supportive."

Board clerk Rachel Hurd disagreed.

"We don't need a tracking poll, we need to move forward and start a campaign and educate the community, which is what the campaign is," she said.

The district had already asking them, among other things, their feelings on a bond between $190 and $260 million. The survey came back that more than half surveyed would support a bond at that number.

"I think it's time for us to step forward,' board vice-president Kenneth Mintz said. "Yes we are ready to do this, ready to roll up our sleeves."

In his argument for raising the bond number, Marvel said he didn't feel there would be much of a drop off of support if the bond was closer to $300 million, therefore why send out another survey that would cost $14,000?

"The difference between 260 and 290 is going to be miniscule," he said, regarding support. "I want to push for a number as close to, but not over, $300 million as possible."

The other board members felt otherwise. The board told Marvel that if it decided that it truly wanted to go above $260 million, a tracking poll would be necessary. But the support of a bond north of $260 million wasn't there.

Now, with the price tag set, the board's next move is to determine exactly what will get packed into that $260 million.

The staff, along with the Facilities Advisory Committee, have identified and prioritized a list of projects equaling nearly $400 million. The board is now tasked with determining what projects will be included in that $260 million mark and what will be left off.

"Now we have to determine what is above and below the line," Mintz said.


Sam Clemens June 19, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Your fact may be right re who paid for Dougherty. Questions: 1. Has the developer paid all the cash for Dougherty...or is the developer making payments on a bond. I suspect the money is paying off a bond, that the SRVSD is on the hook for if the developer goes bust...I'm just guessing here...anyone know? 2. Even if their is no risk to the school district; the homeowners were charged for the school, and therefore overpaid for their homes in order to fund the "edifice".
Beau Hunk June 19, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Of course the home buyers paid additional for the school. The difference is that they were under no obligation to buy in the Dougherty Valley - it was their choice to buy and live there.
George July 15, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Marvel is abusing his position as President of the SRVUSD. This guy is now weighing in on the anti vaccination crowd. He wrote a letter on SRVUSD stationary in support of a propaganda film that opposes vaccinating children. Is this the guy we want in charge of OUR school district? http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/20/a-school-board-president-abuses-his-posi/
Sam Clemens July 16, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Same guy who authorized solar panels based on electric rates doubling in 3 years. Same guy who paid staff for two furlogh days (2 extra days of paid vacation); same guy who wants $260 million for brick and mortar but lacks the stones to address the real problem that costs nothing but effort to solve. (teacher's union)


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »