Town Square

Post a New Topic

Sequoia board approves $265M bond measure for June ballot

Original post made on Mar 8, 2014

The June 3 ballot will include a bond measure asking voters for $265 million in capital improvement funds for the Sequoia Union High School District.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 6, 2014, 10:43 AM

Comments (4)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 8, 2014 at 8:27 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Note that the outstanding General Obligation Bond debt of the District as of June 30, 2013, is already $336,340,000.

The total requirements to amortize through 2044 these General Obligation Bonds outstanding as of June 30, 2013 is $558,520,819.

Now add $265 M more in debt which would take $530 M to retire and the DUHSD would now have a total amortized debt of $1.08 BILLION !!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peninsula resident
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Mar 9, 2014 at 10:31 am

> "We want to be as lovely and attractive to all audiences
> as possible" and, toward that end, "to analyze and slice
> (data) in order to figure out how to target messaging,"
> Mr. Weiner said.

Why do I have a feeling that the slicing and dicing of data will "slice" out the over 1/2 BILLION dollars of bonds already owed. If this were to pass, the district would have over a BILLION in bond debt, and not even have another full high school to show for it.

I will lend my full support to NO. And I will be happy to help fund a NO on this measure.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by debt
a resident of another community
on Mar 10, 2014 at 11:33 am

Ravenswood High School: 1958-1976 (18 years)

San Carlos High School: 1960-1982 (22 years)

Does the district hold any debt related to these high schools that were closed two decades after opening?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 22, 2014 at 4:23 pm

Seems like my earlier post following Peter has been removed. It went something like this: And that doesn't include matching funds from the state. But then, local taxpayers don't pay for that. Or do they?
[Editor's Note: If a post of yours has disappeared it was done by an outside force. We don't show that anything you posted was removed.]


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Standardized Test Prep: When to Start and Whom to Hire?
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,380 views

King of the Slides
By Cheryl Bac | 4 comments | 1,255 views

Finger Food and a Blood Lite?
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,015 views

Where the Sidewalk Ends
By Paul Bendix | 3 comments | 456 views