7/13/06 SLUSD Special Board Meeting Notes

By Mike Katz-Lacabe

The San Leandro School Board held a special meeting at the district office on Thursday, July 13, 2006, to discuss the school bond measure that will appear on the November 7, 2006, ballot. The board is facing a deadline to approve and submit the bond measure by August 11, 2006. San Leandro High School was designed for about 1,800 students and currently serves about 2,500 students. The school district has identified more than $200 million in modernization needs and has designated about $61 million of modernization needs as the most needed. The district plans to submit a bond measure for the upcoming election to fund the construction of a freshman academy to relieve overcrowding at the high school and modernize the schools. The district also hopes to take advantage of state matching funds if a similar statewide bond is passed in November.

All board members were present. Trustee Ray Davis arrived about five minutes after the meeting started.

Superintendent Christine Lim began with a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Potential Facility Bond, Responses to July 5, 2006 Board Facility Workshop." The first part of the presentation summarized responses from the May 31, 2006, and June 19, 2006, community forums. A June 27, 2006, meeting with the Rental Housing Owners Association showed their priorities to be 1) classroom modernization, 2) overcrowding at San Leandro High School, 3) the 7th & 8th grade opportunity school, 4) Burrell Field renovation, 5) joint-use projects, and a 6) multi-purpose room at Jefferson. This was slightly different than the June 19 community forum, where overcrowding at San Leandro High School was the highest priority, followed by 2) classroom modernization, 3) the 7th & 8th grade opportunity school, 4) Burrell Field renovation, 5) multi-purpose room at Jefferson, and 6) joint-use projects. According to Superintendent Lim, the meeting was attended by John Sullivan, Tom Silva, a member of the San Leandro City Council, some School Board trustees, and a few members of the public.

Dana LeSher of Harris & Associates continued the presentation with nine different options for modernization, as had been requested by the School Board during the July 5, 2006, meeting. The modernization options ranged from a minimum of $27.4 million, which included replacing roofs, completing all ADA and fire life safety items, installing package heating and replacing and removing all restrooms, to a more comprehensive modernization package that totaled $61.8 million.

A third presenter showed an example of what the arts education center (performing arts center) might look like using drawings from a 650-seat arts education center built for El Cerrito High School. The arts education center would be about 26,000 square feet and included a drama room, dressing rooms, orchestra pit, band room with storage for instruments, choir room, classrooms, conference area, and restrooms for the public, dressing room area, and classrooms.

After the presentation, Trustee Ray Davis began with a question about ongoing cost savings from replacing lighting fixtures. LeSher said that new fixtures would result in ongoing cost savings and Assistant Superintendent Leon Glaster noted that $27,000 per year in savings resulted from light fixture replacement at McKinley Elementary School. When asked about the size of the gym at the freshman academy (9th grade) by Trustee Lisa Hague, Glaster and LeSher said that the gym wold be 10,000 square feet and would be big enough to accommodate an assembly of the entire freshman academy. For the new parking lot to be acquired from PG&E, Trustee Rick Richards asked that gates be used to prevent people from spinning "donuts" and bothering neighbors. He was happy to see a buffer zone between the lot and neighbors using trees and lighting that should minimize the impact on neighbors.

Trustee Stephen Cassidy asked for any data that could be provided on potential ongoing cost savings from the modernization, including removal of the portables. He asked about the cost differential for a 650-seat performing arts center and whether current estimated included complete landscaping in the area fronting the arts education center. LeSher responded that the estimate was for basic landscaping, since the planning was still in the preliminary stages. When asked about the budget for modernization of the existing career technology center, Glaster and LeSher responded that the budget for it at this time was very minimal. Cassidy expressed concern that the freshman academy was for 750 students and asked what happened to the idea of an 800-student capacity. Glaster responded that the 800-student idea had been floated but demographic projections showed that a 750-student capacity will be sufficient through 2025.

Trustee Linda Perry asked about what the community feedback results meant. Other board members and Superintendent Lim responded that the format for members of the community to indicate their preferences was different at each of the forums. When she asked about how much of the PG&E lot was being purchased, Glaster responded that all of the lot that was adjacent to San Leandro High School. When asked by Perry whether the Data Systems - LAN modernization item would allow teachers to access email and make full use of Edusoft, Glaster assured her that it would. Perry also asked about what effect the restroom modernization would have and LeSher noted that any time a restroom was touched, it would have to be brought into compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), which would result in less restroom stalls.

Trustee Louis Heystek about what Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln schools would get out of the modernization. LeSher noted that since these schools were already above the standard of most of the other schools, they would get less out of the modernization budget than schools like McKinley, Wilson, and Monroe. Like Cassidy, Heystek also expressed concern about the capacity of the freshman academy and sought assurances that the freshman academy will be of sufficient capacity such that portables never have to be used.

Davis also expressed interest in retrofitting the career technology center.

During the public comment period, Mike Katz expressed concern that the School Board keep in mind that matching funds from the state is not a sure thing given the failure of the library bond in the June 6, 2006 election. Katz expressed support for relieving the overcrowding by building a freshman academy, acquiring the PG&E lot, and expanding the high school library. He acknowledged that the performing arts center may be necessary to gain additional community support for the bond, it was important to complete as much of the modernization as possible to ensure that the students and teachers had an environment conducive to learning.

Morgan Mack-Rose asked the School Board to use the school bond to establish a legacy that overshadows the sale of Pacific High School, an "albatross around the board's neck" even though none of them were on the School Board at the time of the sale. She encourage the School Board to go for a school bond based on $40 per $100,000 of assessed value, which would result in a total bond of $103.5 million based on 5% average growth and and a 5.25% interest rate. Mack-Rose said that the School Board needs to appear united and well-organized in order to gain the trust of the community and give the bond a greater chance of passing.

Timmothy Felton said he agreed with the sentiments expressed by Katz and Mack-Rose and stated that the community likes to see concrete results for its money. He noted that a performing arts center would attract students that might otherwise leave for other schools. Felton encouraged the School Board to use as much of the bond as possible for visible changes and use any matching funds from the state bond to conduct less visible modernization improvements.

Jeni Engler noted that some students actually prefer the portable buildings because they have air conditioning. She said that heat is more of a problem than cold, because you can always put on a sweater when its cold. Engler wanted to make sure that the School Board lets people know that students at the freshman academy will still have access to music and advanced classes. With respect to the library expansion, Engler noted that appropriate technology should be used at the library, since students don't use books.

Tim Holmes echoed Mack-Rose's statements and said that the School Board should stay focused on getting a few things done well and not attempt to do many things half-way.

After public comments, the School Board began a discussion of how much money they would request in the school bond. Trustee Richards started with the results of polling performed by a consultant in November 2005. Those polling results, which were focused on Measure A and did not include the specific details of the bond, indicated that a cost of $54 per year per household would gain 61.6% support and a cost of $66 per year per household would get 55.2% support. Glaster noted that in subsequent discussions, the consultant said that a bond measure of $40 per $100,000 of assessed value is likely to pass.

Trustee Cassidy expressed concern about the amount of a bond that the community would support, noting that $40 per $100,000 of assessed value is likely the largest amount that could pass.

The School Board will vote on the bond amount and a project list at the its next meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2006. Public comments will be at 8pm or later and the School Board will discuss the bond after hearing public comments.