SUHSD $265,000,000 Bond Measure, State matching Funds and Grand Jury Report | Town Square | Almanac Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

SUHSD $265,000,000 Bond Measure, State matching Funds and Grand Jury Report

Original post made by Jack Hickey, Woodside: Emerald Hills, on Apr 10, 2014

How much debt will the Sequoia Union High School District incur if the voters approve their $265 Million Bond measure? How will the money be used?

This excerpt from from minutes of SUHSD Feb. 26 meeting provides some insight:
President Weiner said that facilities planning would be an ongoing process, and the stakeholders are at the school sites. In response to a question posed by President Weiner, M-A Principal Matthew Zito said he has led M-A through bond measures in 2004 and 2008; and once the dollar amount is known, staff will work with the architect on a master plan. In the past, most work is done after the bond has passed. The total amount of the bond will not be the total dollars available for construction because the district will leverage state-matching funds, and the total funds available
will probably double".

How will the bonds be issued?
The 2012-2013 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury reported on CAPITAL APPRECIATION BONDS: TICKING TIME BOMBS
Web Link

Comments (4)

Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm

The issue of State matching funds needs clarification.


WHEREAS, if the project to be funded by the bonds will require State matching funds for any phase, the sample ballot must contain a statement, in form prescribed by law, advising the voters of that fact, and the Board of Trustees finds that completion of all or a portion of certain projects listed in the bond project list will not require State matching funds not yet received by the District;


By approval of this proposition by at least 55% of the registered voters voting on the proposition, the Sequoia Union High School District (the "District") shall be authorized to issue and sell bonds of up to $265 million in aggregate principal amount to provide financing for the specific school facilities projects listed in the Bond Project List, and in order to qualify to receive State matching grant funds, subject to all of the accountability safeguards specified below.

What will they do with the State matching grant funds which are not required for "...completion of all or a portion of certain projects listed in the bond project list...".

Like this comment
Posted by Jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm

In February of 2014, SUSHD began Community Input meetings using this Powerpoint presentation:
Web Link
The following bulleted items were included on the next to last page:

***A facilities bond will be placed on the ballot either in June or November of 2014. A decision on the election date will be made this month.
•**The Board will be discussing polling results at its February 12 meeting.
•**Parents across the district are beginning to organize a campaign.
This is an electioneering communication that "is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.(or Measure)" See:Web Link
Placement of a Bond Measure on the ballot was already a foregone conclusion.

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 20, 2014 at 3:54 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

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 !!!

I am all for supporting education but this is financial craziness. Note that none of these funds can be used for operating purposes. IF they get this money and build these facilities then they will have to ask for voter approval for parcel taxes to pay for the staff required by this expansion and for the operation of these facilities.

Now is the time to say NO MORE.

Like this comment
Posted by jack Hickey
a resident of Woodside: Emerald Hills
on Apr 20, 2014 at 4:06 pm

And then there's the state matching funds which don't cost local taxpayers anything. Or do they?

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


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

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Los Altos's State of Mind opening NYC-inspired pizza shop in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 16 comments | 8,281 views

Flying: How much is enough? It's personal.
By Sherry Listgarten | 14 comments | 2,818 views

Wait, wait – we’re working on it
By Diana Diamond | 18 comments | 2,466 views

My Pet Peeves
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 7 comments | 1,914 views

Goodbye toy stores
By Cheryl Bac | 7 comments | 1,220 views


Short story writers wanted!

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 27, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

View Details