Sequoia Union High School District eyes bond measure

“We are in a period of time where the most extended economic recovery in American history is winding down, people are coming off of the happy train, there is an awful lot of nervousness and concerns,” Trustee Alan Sarver said. “This is a time, I believe, to listen to the public’s concerns and say we will ask you for the money we need and we are ready to invest it appropriately for you.”

Recognizing existing financial uncertainty, trustees quickly ruled out the most expensive option — a $801 million bond measure with a tax rate of $19 per $100,000 of assessed property value. Instead, they debated whether to opt for a middle option of $680.5 million with a $16 tax rate and a lower option of $591.5 million with a tax rate of $14. A tax rate of $14 per $100,000 of assessed property value means the owner of a house assessed at $1 million would have to pay $140 a year.

Trustees Chris Thomsen and Shawneece Stevenson shared support for the middle $801 million bond proposal with Thomsen arguing the community has been longtime generous supporters who would be very likely to still approve the higher figure.

“We are bound and recognize that we live in a community that supports its public schools and sees them as essential. It also has the capacity to support it in what it does,” Thomsen said. “I think we need to put together a list that has essentials and things that will contribute in meaningful ways to the academics of our students.”

Similarly, Stevenson said the greater number would help achieve a greater number of key classroom improvements that would contribute to better learning conditions for students, including health conditions she said the community would be likely to support.

Stevenson also shared concerns the school community would struggle with campaigning for a more conservative bond because there would be fewer projects to talk about that could drum up excitement and support for the measure.

“We really want kids to be in the best learning environment as possible and I don’t think 14 is enough,” Stevenson said, referring to the $14 tax rate of the lower option. “I think people need to see the work and something our community can enjoy at our facilities that’s beyond our students and parents.”

The more conservative bond would still cover most of the cost of priority projects, including improvements to heating, cooling and ventilation systems and purchasing furniture and one large project at each campus. According to a draft Facilities Master Plan also discussed during Wednesday’s meeting, about $650 million would be needed to cover their list of top priority projects after accounting for 30% in cost escalation.

More than $1.3 billion would be needed to cover the cost of all identified improvements across district facilities after accounting for 30% in cost escalation, according to an incomplete comprehensive list.

Board President Carrie DuBois and Sarver sided with selecting the lowest bond amount after DuBois noted the district has received an outpouring of concern for taking out a bond measure and Sarver said campuses would have limited development capacity, giving the district time to come forward with another bond in future years when needed. Vice President Richard Ginn said he saw arguments for both measures felt “torn.”

Polling and surveys done by a consulting firm, TBWBH Props and Measures, found that public support for the lowest bond received strong support in the 70% range. The most expensive bond reached only about 55% after being challenged by one negative statement about the high cost of living in the Bay Area.

The bond would need support from 55% of voters to pass and the most expensive bond proposal would fall below that threshold after accounting for a 6% margin of error, TBWBH partner Joy Kummer noted before later on advising the board against selecting the higher bond amount.

The middle bond amount was never tested in surveys, Kummer said, and their most recent polling showed the public is growing more wary about the economy. Kummer also noted the lowest bond proposal was tested earlier in the year when the public was less financially strapped and predicting where the economy or public support for bond measures will be by this November is difficult.

Heeding Kummer’s warnings, trustees agreed to back the lower $591.5 million bond measure, shifting the district’s focus to establishing a campaign committee to champion the ballot measure.

“If we are very, very clear, you can stand flat foot and have your argument that people will understand,” Stevenson said. “What’s going to be very key is that we’re going to be able to stand flat foot, united on all fronts. Solid and able to make the argument for our students.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106