Misleading Statistic Used In Editorial Against San Leandro Measure N

-

In an editorial in opposition to Measure N, a school bond for the San Leandro Unified School District, the editor recognized that the school district had significant facility needs. The editor, however, opposed Measure N asserting that the size of the bond measure, $198 million, was too large. Combined with earlier debt approved by San Leandro voters, the total debt if Measure were adopted would equivalent to $58,000 per student.

The $58,000 per student statistic is meaningless as school districts are limited by law as to how much bond debt they can issue based on the assessed value of all property in the district. The San Leandro Unified School District will be under the limit and in compliance with state law even with the passage of Measure N. The statistic is also highly misleading. It is based on the false assumption all bonds, past and present, adopted in San Leandro schools are just for the 9,000 students in the school district today. The classrooms and facilities that were built with the past bonds adopted by the community and the ones that will be built under Measure N are for multiple generations of students. These structures will last for at least 60 years or longer.Thus, if we want to divide the cost of the school district's bond debt per student, we should use not 9,000 students attending San Leandro schools in 2020 but the likely 50,000 students that will attend our schools over the next 60 years. If we did that, the cost per student would be $10,300. But even that number doesn't mean anything. Bond measures are set based upon the facility needs of the school district. The school district conducted a comprehensive facility needs assessment in 2016. The price tag for the work identified was $300 million. The district started on this work with Measure J1 - set at $104 million. The work has come in on time and on budget. The district is now seeking to finish the work identified in the 2016 facility needs assessment with Measure N. That is why the bond is set at $198 million. The editor recognized that San Leandro schools have significant facility needs and implied he would have supported a small bond measure. My response to that is, no, that's not wise. We don't need or want a bond measure this year for $100 million and another bond measure in four years for another $100 million. With the strong local economy, construction costs are escalating. If we delay finishing the work needed, the cost of a third bond to complete the work would not be $100 million. It would be significantly higher. Finally, keep in mind the school district's earliest bond measures will be paid off entirely in the coming years, significantly reducing the district's overall bond debt. The 1997 Measure A bond ($53 million) expires in a few years followed by the 2006 Measure B bond ($109 million). San Leandro is a safer and more prosperous city than it was 20 years ago. A significant reason for this is that we as a community have invested generously in our local public schools over the past twenty years. We should be proud of what we have accomplished as a community.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Looking Back: Measure B Transformed San Leandro Public Schools

-
Image
Our tax dollars can make a real difference in the lives of our children and prosperity of a community. Twelve years ago San Leandro High School was grossly overcrowded leading to discipline problems and undermining academic performance, no theater in the school district existed for student performances, and many restrooms at schools were in such poor condition that the students would not use them. That all changed in August 2006 when the School Board voted to place Measure  B on the ballot. The largest school construction bond in San Leandro’s history, Measure B received overwhelming support and led to the physical transformation of San Leandro public school (combined with the passage of two subsequent bond measures and one earlier measure). With better public schools, San Leandro has become a more desirable city to live, helping attract and retain families who previously would have never moved to San Leandro or moved away when the children were in middle school. Here is a
Read more

How Juan Gonzalez won the San Leandro Mayor's office at the end of the counting of votes

-
Image
On November 18, 2022, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters released the vote count for nearly all votes cast in the November 2022 general election. After being behind for the entire vote count, Juan Gonzalez effectively won the race.  How did this happen? First, from election night through 11/17, the Registrar had reported a total of 13,746 first choice ballots in the Mayor's race. On 11/18, the number of votes reported increased by 6,436 to 20,185 total votes. That was a nearly 47% jump in the reported votes. Another way of looking at the data is that prior to 11/18, all previous vote counts released by the Registrar did not include roughly one-third of the votes that were cast in the race. Second, Gonzalez  decisively took the lead in the the first choice ballots that were released by the Registrar on 11/18. Gonzalez took these votes by 39% to 33% margin. With the exception of the first vote count released by the Registrar on election night right after the polls closed when Br
Read more

San Leandro's Unsustainable City Budget

-
Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the San Leandro City Council Finance Committee. The committee consists of Mayor Santos and Councilmembers Prola and Gregory. Gregory was absent. In short, if significant action is not taken, the city will burn through all of its reserves, including eventually reserves for natural disasters and other emergencies. By 2015, San Leandro could join the City of Vallejo in declaring bankruptcy. Summary of Finance Committee Presentation Perry Carter, the Interim Finance Director, gave an update on the budget. In analyzing a budget, you need to examine at least three years of data - the previous, current and next fiscal years. Carter first reported on the "preliminary actual" numbers for the fiscal year which just ended on June 30, 2009. Illustrating how quickly the city finances collapsed last year, the original city budget for fiscal year 2008-09 assumed $76.2 million (hereafter simply "M") in revenues and $81.6 M in expenditures.
Read more