Voters living within the boundaries of the San Carlos School District will soon decide the fate of Measure H, a $176 million bond officials hope to spend on necessary infrastructure improvements but opponents say is a bad deal for the public.
Primary elections will take place March 5, the last day voters will have a chance to weigh in on Measure H. If approved by at least 55% of voters, the funds would help cover facility improvements identified in the district’s updated facilities master plan including new heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, repaired or replaced roofs, windows and doors, and the construction of new early learning centers and expanded transitional kindergarten spaces, among other potential projects, said one of two Measure H campaign chairs, Melissa Schmidt, in an email.
The 206-page document was drafted in collaboration with the public and identified more than $400 million worth of improvements across the district’s nine campuses meaning the new revenue would still fall short of covering all improvements. Still, Schmidt said local funding is vital for maintaining quality campuses.
“In the past, state funding has been available to support local school upgrades, but especially now, the district cannot count on this uncertain source of funding,” Schmidt said. “Moreover, to access state funding, school districts must generate local matching funds by passing a local school bond measure. Passing a local bond is the only way to qualify for additional state funding if and when it becomes available. There are no other sources of funding for major facility upgrades.”
A survey of 450 likely San Carlos voters found that the school district could successfully pass a new bond measure in March with about 59% of those surveyed saying they would likely or definitely support the measure. Similar rates of respondents said they’d back the measure if presented in November or if a smaller bond amount was requested, according to data collected by FM3 Research, a firm tapped to conduct polling, and presented to the board last October.
But Mark Hinkle, president of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, and John Hickey, a district resident, the two behind the primary argument against the measure, argue the money would be poorly spent.
Recommended for you
Specifically, they argue that any technology upgrades funded by the bond would be obsolete long before the loan is paid off. They also assert the district hasn’t proven it can spend the money in a way that benefits students given that between 40% to 48% of English learners failed to meet English and math standards in previous school years.
“San Carlos School District has failed its children and taxpayers but they want a reward, more money from your pocket,” read the argument against the measure. “No wonder enrollment declined by over 352 students since 2018-19 [school year]. Yet, district administration wants your hard-earned money to pad their salaries and fat pension plans.”
Schmidt responded to the arguments by noting bond funds legally cannot go toward salaries and asserting cybersecurity and bandwidth demands have increased, requiring the district to keep up with increased use of technology.
As for student performance, she noted state data shows about 80% of students in third to eighth grades are meeting or exceeding state performance standards in English Language Arts, up from 77% in 2021. And about 77% of learners met or exceeded math state standards, compared with 70% in 2021. More students with disabilities and those from socioeconomically challenged backgrounds are also beginning to exceed math standards in recent years, she said.
“San Carlos students continued to show progress,” Schmidt said. “We are proud of the results for our learners and see evidence of the work of our educators to accelerate learning for all students over the last three school years.”
Just vote No. The majority of, if not all, the money will go towards paying pensions and benefits. According to Schmidt, bond funds legally cannot go toward salaries but money is fungible. Just vote No.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(1) comment
Just vote No. The majority of, if not all, the money will go towards paying pensions and benefits. According to Schmidt, bond funds legally cannot go toward salaries but money is fungible. Just vote No.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.