Redwood City elementary district seeks bond support

Those improvements could include upgrading or replacing aging classrooms, facilities and electrical, plumbing, heating and cooling systems, continuing to upgrade safety and security systems, improving playground areas, installing energy efficiency equipment and systems, building staff housing and creating an overall modern learning environment.

“We’re hopeful, we’re optimistic that our community will support us,” Trustee Alisa MacAvoy said. “Assuming this passes, we’ll prioritize what we do.”

But Chris Robell, who is leading the opposition campaign, has noted project details have been vague including which will get priority and how much those will actually cost. Given the current state of the economy, Robell said now is the time for the district to only seek funding for urgent needs.

The ask is especially concerning given that voters backed Measure T, a nearly $200 million bond, in 2015, Robell said. Another $22 million bond measure, Measure B, was approved by voters in 2002.

MacAvoy said the district has been lucky voters have supported bond measures in the past and argued they have always been transparent about where Measure T dollars went, noting the district website provides details on a number of projects at each school including upgrades for security and the American with Disabilities Act, and the development of modern two-story classroom buildings on select campuses.

“It will actually save the taxpayers and the voters money if we continue the work that we’re doing,” MacAvoy said, noting Measure T projects finished under budget and on time.

Not all sites have been upgraded, though, and Measure S would begin Phase 2 of an effort to complete many projects cited in the district’s Facilities Master Plan, a document completed in 2014, which identified $600 million worth of district improvement, MacAvoy said.

“The bond measure will benefit all public school students in Redwood City. I think this is the most important piece to many of us in support of the measure,” said Wei-ting Chen, a parent in the district co-chairing the Measure S Campaign Committee.

Robell questioned whether the upgrades were truly necessary, noting enrollment has been down in the district and that existing infrastructure is already highly rated according to district self-reports to the state.

Rather than focus on a “wish list” of infrastructure projects, Robell said officials should be investing in programs and support services that will uplift students, noting state data indicates a large portion of students are behind in math and English.

“Buildings are probably not the right area to be focusing on and they don’t really drive a dramatic improvement of student outcomes as much as investing in teachers and academic programs. But the money can’t be used for that,” Robell said.

Had the district pursued a parcel tax instead of a bond, Robell said he would have likely voted for the measure since those funds could support teacher salaries and programming, the district wouldn’t be taking on debt during a period of high interest rates and seniors and those living on Social Security could qualify for exemptions — a feature not offered under bonds.

“And the biggest point, the bonds affect everybody. People don’t think about this but tenants will pay for it too. The landlords are going to get hit and they’re going to raise the prices,” Robell said. “We do a lot of lip service and virtue signaling around equity and disadvantaged people and all that stuff but this truly is the worst thing you could do for somebody, for people who are young wanting to get into the housing market.”

Beyond the substance of the measure, Robell has also taken issue with how the district has campaigned for the bond. He’s accused district officials of illegally using public resources — the district’s website and newsletters — to broadcast biased information about the bond.

He has also raised concerns about how staff and its consultants have drafted the bond language that will appear on the ballot, suggesting the text misleads voters by only specifying bond funds cannot be used for administrator salaries when the funds cannot go toward any salaries, including for teachers, or programming.

District officials have defended their actions against Robell by hiring a lawyer to put in writing that the district’s actions align with state election laws. Meanwhile, trustees have lobbed complaints of their own against Robell’s opposition campaign.

Multiple complaints have been filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, a nonpartisan body tasked with ensuring fair and impartial elections, accusing Robell of either distributing campaign materials that theoretically could cost more than $1,000 without filing with the FPPC as required or not disclosing the FPPC number on the material.

Robell called the complaint a “witch hunt,” noting it was filed with the FPPC a day after he made his complaints public during a board meeting. No legal action has followed either complaint yet.

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106