San Mateo Union High School District weighs potential bond

While no formal decision is slated to be made at the meeting, Superintendent Kevin Skelly said officials should begin laying the groundwork for pursuit of the measure which could be sought as soon as next spring.

“When you do the best work, you give yourself plenty of time to plan and think about it,” said Skelly, who noted the March 2020 ballot would be the earliest the district could float the tax to voters.

The upcoming discussion mirrors a similar examination last year which officials ultimately decided to drop in deference to other school districts which also were also considering pursuing taxes.

Reflecting on discussions last year, Skelly said officials ultimately deciding to not pursue a bond in favor of allowing San Bruno Park Elementary School District to move forward with a similar measure.

Recognizing the threat of crowding the same ballot with tax proposals benefiting education systems and overwhelming voters, Skelly said officials did not want to threaten San Bruno’s chances of passing a badly-needed measure.

But in the wake of the measure proposed to finance the overhaul of San Bruno’s aging facilities passing in the fall election, Skelly said officials are prepared to again bring back discussion of a high school district bond.

A priority for school board members will be determining whether they support pursuing the bond. And if so, the degree to which trustees are involved in the process needs to decided as well, said Skelly.

“The staff is ready and wants to do this,” said Skelly. “But what does the board think?”

For his part, board President Greg Land said he favored further exploration of the measure before making any decision on whether to actually pursue the bond.

“I think we should go forward, I just want to make sure we have done our due diligence,” said Land, who said he is reserving any final decision on the matter until he is able to discuss it with his board colleagues.

Skelly said it will be necessary to begin identifying the potential size and scope of the tax measure, as well as the specific projects which could be financed with the revenue.

Trustees could also express interest in forming the polling questions which would likely come in advance of a bond proposal, said Skelly, as the questions asked can offer a unique opportunity for insight into the community’s opinion of the district.

Skelly said the district does maintain some revenue from previous bond measures in reserves, but much of that will remain unallocated until officials get a better sense of the cost for building a new Peninsula Alternative High School campus.

Officials are in the process of moving the district’s continuation school from the former Crestmoor High School campus in San Bruno to a more centralized location in Burlingame.

Once the relocation is complete, officials are examining the opportunity to redevelop a portion of the campus into workforce housing. Questions linger over ways the district could finance the project too, as officials are weighing potentially selling a portion of the land to pay for construction. For his part, Skelly said it is unlikely officials would seek to use revenue from any potential bond to pay for housing development.

With the variety of details which still need to be hammered out regarding the district’s potential pursuit of the bond, Skelly said he believes it is wise to begin discussions well in advance of the earliest opportunity to float the measure.

“March 2020 is still quite a ways off. But also, it will be here before you know it so we may want to start talking about it now,” he said.

Land meanwhile said he believed the bond could help finance necessary facility improvements across the district.

“There is definitely stuff to be done and it’s good for the kids,” he said. “It is important work.”

In other business at the meeting, officials will also discuss amendments to the district dress code which were proposed by some students who felt the previous policy was sexist, said Skelly.

A district report detailed the intent of the changes, which aim to be more inclusive and less restrictive.

“The revisions included removing language that implied students would be reprimanded unfairly or inconsistently for dress code violations based on body type or gender-identification,” said the report. “Further, the administrative regulations outline how to appropriately and consistently implement the dress code across the school district.”

The San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees meets 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 7, in the SMART Center, 789 Poplar Ave., San Mateo.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105