The Menlo Park City School District’s governing board approved a $123.6 million bond proposal to pay for facilities at their meeting on June 6. The district is seeking the bond to pay for improvements in four areas: school safety and security upgrades, replacing outdated construction, climate resilience and modern technology.
“I went through this, like everyone else, to make sure it captures our critical facility needs. So I feel good about it,” said board President Francesca Segrè during the meeting.
The board previously discussed the bond during its April 18 meeting.
“Our facilities require a timely response. We will need the funding as soon as possible,” said Superintendent Kristen Gracia in April. “As soon as possible in the world of bonds is the November 2024 ballot.”
“There is undeniable risk in waiting,” she added during a May 9 meeting.
Public approval
For the bond to pass, 55% of voters must vote for it.
In December, the district hired data analytics firm EMC Research for $30,000 to assess voters’ opinions about a potential bond; the firm found that voters were more cost sensitive than in previous years.
EMC surveyed 300 potential voters and found initially, when they were asked to vote, 59% voted yes. After EMC provided additional information about the need for a bond, 62% of respondents said they would vote to approve the bond. However, when EMC showed the same voters some potential arguments against the bond, approval fell to 52%, meaning a coordinated opposition group could sway voters.
School safety and security upgrades
In a flier mailed out to voters, the district highlighted the need for newer security measures such as access control, intruder detection, and fire alarm upgrades.
They estimate it will cost about $1.4 million for fire alarm upgrades, $654,500 for alarm and security camera upgrades, and roughly $2.5 million for electrified door access and key cards.
According to the district, a battery energy storage system is needed for command areas such as administration offices in case of an emergency.
Replacing outdated construction
At the Lower Laurel School campus, at 95 Edge Road in Atherton, buildings were built in 1959 with cinder blocks, following outdated seismic standards. Additionally, according to the bond measure, “Other aging buildings do not require new construction, but do require critical modernization, all of which is more cost effective than the ongoing costs of maintenance.”
Buildings at Oak Knoll, Encinal and Hillview schools need modernization to roofing, windows, insulation and structure according to the district.
Climate resilience
According to Gracia, 93% of classrooms do not have air conditioning. Teachers say this can hamper learning.
“It is so uncomfortable teaching in a hot classroom. On the days when it is so hot in the classroom, the kids are not learning. Teachers cannot teach,” said Marisela Ghahramani, a fifth grade Spanish immersion teacher at Laurel School, during public comment at the April 18 board meeting.
The district also wants to add a shade structure at each school but has yet to decide any specifics.
Modern technology
The district feels that the current audio visual systems are hurting student learning and seeks to replace them with more modern systems. The systems the district is currently considering would be integrated with the security system and would allow for officials to deliver visual and auditory messages into classrooms during an emergency.
The district wants to add up to 14 electric vehicle charging stations at each school. The district applied for the Peninsula Clean Energy EV charger grant program to help offset the cost. The grant can provide $5,000 per charger to a maximum of $90,000 per site.
The only item here with real merit is replacing the cinderblock construction at Laurel. As a byproduct the temperature/comfort levels of the classrooms gets address.
As a side note to readers, General Obligation Bonds (aka ‘GO’ bonds) never show up on the financial books of the school districts. What that means is that when they report on the ‘tax revenue per student’ that taxpayers pay, it NEVER includes these GO bonds that we are already still paying from previous bond measures.
So when the district mentions how much tax revenue it receives per-student, add a few thousand of GO bonds that taxpayers are paying to it, to get a real sense of what taxpayers are paying.