South City schools seek facilities bond

Measure T, if approved by at least 55% of voters Nov. 8, would charge property owners $60 per $100,000 of assessed value, generating about $27 million annually that the district could use on a number of infrastructure projects. The funds would cover about half of the $850 million worth of projects in the district’s updated Facilities Master Plan.

More details on which projects will be funded will be crafted during public engagement meetings if the measure passes but some high-level goals include repairing deteriorated plumbing and sewer systems and roofs, modernizing classrooms and other school facilities, upgrading electrical and heating and cooling systems and pursuing staff housing.

“What it really comes down to is our schools grew up with the community. In that post-war boom when South City was being built, when portions of San Bruno and Daly City were being built, the schools were being built at the same time and they were built really for a different era of education,” board President John Baker said.

However, the district has faced some pushback on its objectives. Marty Romero, the main opponent of the measure, notes the district has a history of poorly managing previous bond funds.

Romero sat on the oversight committee of Measure J, a $162 million bond approved in 2010 that has been a point of controversy for the district after issues with the contractor selected to lead the project. Those issues led to fewer projects being completed and the district going over budget.

Now looking at Measure T, Romero said the district is still trying to achieve its previous goals but argues the public has received little assurance the correct people are in place to prevent mishaps from reoccurring.

“The primary concern is the lack of expertise that the district has in handling such large sums of money like this,” Romero said. “When I saw what was happening, there was just so much waste and I don’t want to see it happen again.”

Officials in an interview acknowledged the mistakes of the past but noted those in leadership today were not with the district during most of the spending of Measure J. Superintendent Shawnterra Moore replaced former district leader Alejandro Hogan in 2015 after Hogan resigned following the bond mismanagement and a number of other controversies.

Baker was appointed to the board a year later, serving for a year before being formally elected to his position in 2016. Baker is up for reelection this year but has opted against running. And Ted O, the district’s assistant superintendent of Business Services, started with the district in 2016 as a director of Business Services.

To ensure funds are used properly, the officials noted a bond oversight committee will be formed, regular audits will be conducted and the public and trustees will receive routine updates on the bond progress.

Romero shared doubt the oversight committee would do much to prevent a repeat of history, noting he and other Measure J oversight committee members regularly shared concerns about bond management but had no authority to act on their concerns. Instead, he said officials decided to ignore the concerns.

“[The bond oversight committee] has absolutely no power or authority to make any type of recommendations or to stop construction if they see something wrong. I was on the oversight committee for Measure J and what I witnessed was a complete abuse of taxpayer funds,” Romero said, noting he would serve again on a Measure T oversight committee if asked but believed the district would not offer him the position this time around.

Beyond bond management, Romero also argued the district should ways to help programming and teacher salaries, areas he said would have a real impact on student outcomes.

Alternatively, district officials argue quality, modern district facilities play a strong role in supporting educators and keeping students engaged. Without the funds, O said the district would continue to spend up to $8 million annually on basic maintenance costs.

“We cannot wait,” O said. “Regardless of the bond passing or not, we’re going to have to address it.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Note to readers: This story has been changed to reflect that Romero did not explicitly support any parcel tax.