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.]

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 3,136 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,103 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,038 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 716 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 67 views