News

News

OVN editorial endorsements on OPINION page: Why No on Measure K; Yes on Prop. 15

10 9 Measure KMeasure K — the Ojai Unified School District’s $45 million bond on the Nov. 3 ballot — is not “all about the kids.” In fact, it’s not about kids at all. The school bond is about buildings. Not one dime of the $86.4 million the taxpayers will commit to paying over 30 years will go for educating students or paying their teachers. And most of what they do pay for will no longer be in use during the last 10 years Ojai residents will be making payments. With no crystal ball to predict how the pandemic will affect our community for the next two years, the bond effort is a swing and a miss for education in the Ojai Valley at this time.

It is hard to attract young families to our valley with public school ratings (www.greatschools.org) at 3 and 4 out of 10. The pandemic has taught us that enrollment predictions are way off, but if our past 20 years are a predictor of our next 20 — with no efforts to reverse the slide — there won’t be enough students to justify this bond. Refer to OUSD’s 2015 in-depth enrollment study:
 https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/282744/Enrollment_Projection_Study.pdf. The new enrollment challenge OUSD faces is the possible extreme effect of remote-working and remote-learning on families in the district. The needs we anticipate today for 2022 will surely be different from what we planned.
Measure K would make a total of three school district taxes we are paying for simultaneously. The 1997 assessment will be collected until 2032; the 2014 bond will be collected until 2039, and the 2020 bond, to be assessed in 2022, will be collected until 2053. The realities of the pandemic depression have just started to materialize with 5.5 million U.S. residents behind on their mortgage payments and 3.5 million behind on their car payments. Asking residents to tax themselves with interest for a bond rather than with a pay-as-we-go parcel tax is wrong at this time. Why speed this through the process if the collection of payments are to be delayed for two years?
Like much of the community, Ojai Valley News’ pet projects — a pool and sports field replacements — are, unfortunately, not mentioned in the bond language:
“To improve the quality of local schools; modernize and renovate classrooms, restrooms and facilities; upgrade outdated electrical, plumbing, and sewer systems; and make health, safety and security improvements.”
OUSD will be permitted to spend the bond measure as it chooses, ignoring the 2014 deficiency study for many projects. If we are going to be asked to pay for this bond for 30 years, the projects need to last for 30 years; these projects do not.
OUSD cannot use bond money for pool maintenance, but it will be allowed to buy real property, and it will be allowed to build a solar power station as the superintendent has expressed interest in doing. Solar power can be added to OUSD at no cost from state-approved companies such as SPURR, www.spurr.org.
There are few school districts able to go it alone on an aquatic center because the financial responsibility and upkeep are enormous. Cowboy-style will not be the successful model here. To make an aquatic center a reality, the school district leaders must be responsive and inclusive. They should bring the issue of an aquatic center to the public and the city for input and help, and initiate long-term prospects for collaboration. 
We could create an Ojai Valley park and recreation district and use a parcel tax (based on building square footage) to fund an earmarked communitywide aquatic center to be used for school activities and the community. We did not see OUSD build a pool in 2014 when the pool had already been unfit to share with the public for four years. We do not see any serious steps being taken toward a plan now. Our community cares about a pool. There was a serious community group of citizens, including Marc Whitman (who drew renderings), Rick Goeden, Joan Kemper and others who worked on this idea in the 1990s. It is a wasted opportunity not to re-engage these community members.
This is not the time and this is not the financial instrument. The best opportunity to improve our schools right now is Proposition 15. This is the chance to reverse the downward trend of California schools since Proposition 13 by repealing the part that helped businesses get out of paying their fair share. Forty percent of the taxes raised will go directly to schools. This proposition would actually help enhance and grow its educational programming (something Measure K does not address).

Read the Measure K resolution from the Ojai Unified School District Board of Education: https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/918332/Signed_Resolution_19-20-39.pdf

 

 

 

To view the June 29, 2020 school board meeting at which the board unanimously voted to put the bond measure on the ballot, visit the following website and, if you don't have a couple of hours to watch it, read the transcript below. 
 
Our June 29th special meeting of the
00:06
Ojai Unified School District Board of
00:09
Education ...
thank you that works us right into three
04:26
point one which is the discussion of the
04:28
potential bond I don't know that we have
04:32
a presentation on that we don't we have
04:37
the proposal that John and I worked on
04:41
the resolution which has numbers in it
04:46
that John and I put in as our best guess
04:49
but also placeholders for you to discuss
04:51
and so if you have questions
04:52
specifically around any of the numbers
04:54
why we chose those or would like to
04:55
change them we are available for that
04:58
discussion and then also thank you to
05:01
Adam and Alan and David for turning
05:03
around the project list which we had
05:05
been working on and keeping up but took
05:09
some work to pull that together so we're
05:12
available for any of those questions I'm
05:15
sorry I didn't notice there was a
05:17
project list is that the project list is
05:23
included at the end I'm double checking
05:27
here to make sure the project list is
05:38
that it's included in the resolution so
05:41
it says bond project list it's on page
05:43
10 of 15 exhibit a yes and if I'm a
05:52
Tiffany I'm happy to provide just a
05:54
quick overview of the resolution and
05:55
just kind of the key elements of it so
05:59
this resolution really has three
06:01
different components - there's the
06:04
resolution itself that provides the
06:06
legal authority in the legal direction
06:08
for the district to call an election to
06:11
be held on the November 2020 it directs
06:14
the Registrar of Voters to conduct this
06:16
election on your behalf it also
06:19
establishes some of the parameters by
06:21
which a bond would be governed
06:24
specifically that this particular bond
06:27
is being played under the rules of prop
06:29
39 which is what the district did
06:32
measure J prop 39 rules essentially
06:36
essentially established that you go on a
06:38
regularly scheduled election date that's
06:40
why it's this November or wait until
06:43
2022 it establishes a tax rate cap of
06:47
$60 now we've got a tax rate that's
06:51
significantly lower I think an
06:52
acknowledgement of what's been going on
06:54
right now with just everything
06:56
coronavirus etc it also requires a
06:59
detailed project list independent
07:02
financial and performance audits and
07:06
essentially those are kind of the key
07:08
you know
07:08
parameters if you will that work that
07:11
we're conducting in this collection so
07:12
that's the resolution itself when it
07:14
gets submitted to the county or if it
07:15
gets submitted to the county it gets
07:18
submitted to the county and then they
07:20
also have these exhibits or these
07:22
appendices that go with it
07:24
I should add one more requirement under
07:27
prop 39 is that you have two-thirds of
07:31
the sitting board and for you guys
07:35
that simply means four affirmative votes
07:37
or for yes votes it's not how many
07:41
people are in the room or how many
07:43
people are on the call but if you have a
07:45
five-member board and currently you do
07:47
now you need four yeses okay the three
07:52
appendices that are part of this the
07:55
first of which is the detailed project
07:57
lists these are the this this section or
08:01
this component of the of the resolution
08:03
is part of the sample ballot one other
08:07
or I should say the last part of prop 39
08:09
is that you provide a detailed project
08:12
list now this is different from when the
08:14
district went out to voters in the late
08:16
1990s where all you had was a
08:19
seventy-five word ballot language what
08:22
was it one little paragraph here's how
08:24
I'm going to spend you know millions of
08:25
dollars prop 39 said hey we need to let
08:28
people know more detail on how we're
08:30
gonna spend those dollars and that's the
08:32
requirement of a detailed project list
08:34
this appendix a is printed in the sample
08:39
ballot so any voter who wants to know
08:42
hey what am I getting my money are we
08:44
spending this will have this
08:46
by which to evaluate now this is kind of
08:49
a legal basis of course the district has
08:53
its you know kind of you know facilities
08:55
master plan and its existing project
08:57
less and they've got a whole lot more
09:00
detail so that's obviously important but
09:04
from a legal perspective it's this
09:06
detailed project list in appendix and
09:09
you also have what's pendeks B which is
09:13
I we kind of characterizes a legal slash
09:17
political disclosure and that's the
09:19
ballot language and so these are the
09:21
types of thing this is this is what the
09:24
voter will see if they don't look at
09:26
their sample ballot and if they simply
09:29
go and vote and they see oh measure K
09:32
and here's 75 words do I want to vote
09:35
YES or do I want to know key elements of
09:38
Appendix B or as follows a summary of
09:42
the projects and of course like 75 words
09:45
you just do your best
09:46
but we've highlighted what we would
09:48
consider to be you know top priority
09:51
projects you also are disclosing the
09:53
total amount of the bond the tax rate
09:57
the estimated total debt service on an
10:00
annual basis and the duration of the
10:03
bonds
10:04
so there's a lot switched into this this
10:07
question this ballot language that
10:10
simply says shall the district you know
10:12
shall it be adopted this bond for this
10:15
amount for these projects of this tax
10:16
rate with this debt service over this
10:18
period of time so what gets squished
10:20
into that but that's the only thing on
10:22
appendix B again that's that's quasi
10:24
legal because if push comes to shove and
10:27
the Oversight Committee says hey Tiffany
10:29
I didn't see anything about windows or
10:33
HVAC systems in the 75 words the
10:36
district would of course default to and
10:38
say well in Appendix A the sample ballot
10:42
it does disclose HVAC and that's really
10:45
what you're hold into it what your
10:47
governed by okay and then the last piece
10:50
Appendix C is what's known as the tax
10:53
rate statement this to buy approval of
10:56
this resolution would be included into
10:59
the
11:00
sample ballot for voters to make their
11:03
decision and it provides the estimate of
11:06
the tax rate of what is expected to be
11:09
in the first year what is the average
11:11
tax rate estimate over the life of the
11:14
program when the last bonds are sold and
11:18
what the total combined debt service is
11:21
for the entire financing and then there
11:25
is you know kind of a disclaimer at the
11:27
bottom that does say hey these are only
11:30
estimates it's subject to assess the
11:32
value obviously as a district we cannot
11:34
control assessed value so that tax rate
11:37
is subject to change but we generally
11:40
put together these conservative bond
11:42
programs so that and I think this is
11:44
true Jay so that the tax rate is
11:47
generally below what we estimated to
11:51
voters okay so that's kind of an you
11:54
know an overview if you will of what
11:57
this resolution entails happy to take
12:00
questions on the resolution and then of
12:03
course the discussion is yeah your name
12:05
and considerations we did as Tiffany
12:09
mentioned spent some time together to
12:12
discuss what we thought would be an
12:15
appropriate tax rate and bond program
12:19
again the district could go up to a
12:22
maximum of 60 dollars for the 100,000 of
12:25
assessed value but in this scenario we
12:29
essentially said let's target $39 3 939
12:34
dollars as an acknowledgment of where we
12:38
are you know certainly in this in this
12:40
climate 39 dollars would generate you
12:44
know quite a bit in proceeds in this
12:45
case sixty nine point seven million
12:47
dollars but any change by the board
12:52
assuming an approval of this resolution
12:55
we would need to change the tax rate and
12:58
we would need to change the bond amount
12:59
throughout so if the district wanted a
13:02
higher tax rate we would need to run
13:04
some numbers and provide those for you
13:06
if you wanted a lower tax rate we could
13:08
do the same thing and for context
13:10
measure J for those of you that were
13:13
around you know
13:14
measured Jay the tax rate was $36 per
13:17
hundred thousand our survey show good
13:21
support for 59 59 59 but but of course
13:25
that was pre pre coronavirus so that's
13:30
that's the overview I think of the
13:31
resolution and can you remind me if I
13:36
know you asked about the tax rate did
13:39
you ask about the total bond amount when
13:42
you did the survey only in the sample
13:46
ballot language so when we asked voters
13:50
let me read you the 75 word sentence and
13:56
there we did ask that question as part
14:00
of the 75 words now and there I want to
14:02
say that the total bond was 85 million
14:06
perhaps so this is a lesser number than
14:09
then that is of course but that's the
14:12
only place that we asked that question
14:14
we did not separately ask hey what do
14:17
you think of this dollar amount how
14:19
about this bond amount how about this
14:20
bond amount it was just part of that 75
14:23
words then what approval rate did you
14:25
get on that question to remember yeah
14:29
give me a second let me just pull this
14:30
up real quick I'm just concerned because
14:33
this is double what measure J was you
14:37
know I don't want to have sticker shock
14:39
yeah it's a good question but the
14:41
reality is is the sticker shock comes
14:44
from the tax rate and and I think if you
14:48
were to just survey anyone on the street
14:50
and said hey how much do you think it
14:53
cost to renovate all of our schools I
14:55
think you would get as low as you know a
14:58
couple of million dollars right there
15:00
maybe a hundred million I know we need
15:02
the money it's just I don't want to not
15:06
get thirty five million because we asked
15:10
for 70 million yeah I would I would say
15:14
and just in my personal experience and
15:16
doing this 20 plus years it is rare that
15:18
the dollar amount of the bond ends up
15:23
hurting the district again it's more
15:25
like okay can I afford
15:27
$9.00 a year 400,000 okay that's good
15:29
how much does that get me Oh mmm is that
15:32
it you know do they need that mic who
15:34
knows you know so I've never downsized
15:37
the bond because of fear of sticker
15:40
shock on the bond amount I have on the
15:43
tax rate like we did with measure J
15:45
right if the tax rate was let's bring it
15:47
down to 36 but I hold up the survey
15:50
again remind me the question Oh what was
15:52
the support at 18 2.5 million we had and
15:57
the question simply was if the election
15:59
were held today would you vote Yes to
16:02
approve or no to disapprove fifty seven
16:05
five seven fifty seven percent said yes
16:07
three point five percent were leaning
16:10
yes twenty nine point seven were no with
16:14
one point two percent leaning no and
16:16
then five percent undecided so-called
16:19
651 33 with about six percent undecided
16:23
and we need 55 and we need we need 55
16:28
correct so can you answer me just so
16:31
what you're saying cuz I too had sticker
16:33
shock at the at the 70,000 but you're
16:36
saying at $36 per 100,000 we were able
16:41
to do bonds for 35 million but now for
16:45
$39 we'll be able to do 67 million
16:48
correct change in the tax rate your tax
16:51
base yeah your tax base in the last
16:53
eight years since seeing you know really
16:55
good growth so the assessed value has
16:58
gone up pretty significantly I think
17:00
you've had back-to-back five or six
17:02
percent years and so when you interest
17:05
rates impact that interest rates to some
17:08
degree to thing we're going to be
17:10
conservative on on our interest rates so
17:13
we're using a discount rate of about
17:16
4.25 believe it or not I just sold bonds
17:20
in Mesa last week at to two percent so
17:25
you know we could be leaving a little
17:27
money on the table but at the same token
17:29
we're in the lowest interest rate
17:30
environment in history and I would
17:33
rather stick with more historical
17:36
interest rates than than be too
17:39
aggressive because
17:40
to aggressive the tax rate goes up if
17:43
we're too aggressive in our AV
17:44
assumptions if we're too aggressive in
17:46
our interest rate assumptions the tax
17:47
rate goes up but if we're too
17:49
conservative the tax rate goes down
17:52
that's that's not a bad you know result
18:00
I'm curious from from board members if
18:03
anyone had a chance over the weekend to
18:05
reach out to other stakeholders and get
18:08
input or the temperature on this I will
18:14
admit that that I did a small amount I
18:18
had already planned to be out of town
18:20
for most of the weekend and I so I tried
18:25
but got a little bit of feedback it was
18:27
mixed reviews so I'm just curious what
18:30
other people found if anything I also
18:34
talked to a few people I did in fact
18:37
also talked to Bob daddy who does not
18:41
mind it being known that he would be
18:42
strong only against and I did speak to a
18:47
couple other people that were both
18:48
negative I have to say I'm surprised
18:53
John to hear you say that
18:56
people look at the rate the 3.9 cent per
18:59
100 because I looked I looked directly
19:02
at the 69,000 number and that's what I
19:06
thought boy if you told me 45 50 I
19:10
wouldn't I'd go yeah okay
19:12
but the 69 kind of hit me as big yeah
19:17
it's just you know like I say ever
19:20
I think everyone kind of knows what the
19:21
tax rate means to them I think less
19:24
people have a grasp on how much
19:27
facilities and school improvements cost
19:29
you you you probably have a little bit
19:32
more of an advantage because you you
19:34
know measure J how much it cost you know
19:37
you're probably you know as a board
19:40
member just more sensitive to what
19:42
you're asking and the tax rate but again
19:46
you know I've worked with so many
19:47
districts and in particularly say a
19:49
basic aid district you might have a
19:52
basic a district with two schools
19:54
they'll do a 40 million dollar bond for
19:56
two schools and and yet the tax rate
19:59
might be twenty dollars just happens to
20:02
be that they have a tremendous amount of
20:03
assessed value and so a twenty dollar
20:06
tax rate for these voters is like of
20:08
course yeah I can afford twenty dollars
20:09
and it's like you realize forty million
20:11
for two schools in my opinion seems
20:13
outrageous but again most people don't
20:17
have a sense of you know what what
20:19
things really do cost or what it should
20:21
cost so there may be some folks that I
20:24
you know might have sticker shock but
20:27
again in my experience that's why we
20:29
don't even ask the question on survey
20:31
that's probably the best way to answer
20:32
it is because people just don't have
20:35
context but they all have context on the
20:37
tax rate but that's something you guys
20:38
can decide on as well I mean if there's
20:41
a consensus that you want to ask for a
20:42
lesser amount that will lower the tax
20:46
rate and that's an option for for you
20:48
guys obviously and then I didn't see on
20:51
appendix B actually that there was a how
20:54
many years while bonds are outstanding
21:04
yeah there's not a specific and I'll
21:06
tell you why just like measure J nearly
21:10
every bond program that we create is
21:12
going to have estimates and anything
21:16
that we put in the seventy five words -
21:19
the bond amount itself and project
21:22
specifics which in this case are quite
21:24
general or are going to be estimates
21:27
approximations etc depending on what
21:30
happens with assessed values depending
21:32
on what happens with interest rates a
21:34
bond program like this that has you know
21:37
multiple bond sales similar to J that
21:40
are spaced two or three years apart
21:42
under the best of circumstances get
21:45
consolidated Mesa School District had a
21:48
bond program that was in 2018 they were
21:52
supposed to sell their last bonds in
21:54
2024 we sold their last bonds last week
21:58
consolidated because their assessed
22:00
value growth was good and their interest
22:02
rate was good so if we had told voters
22:05
hey it was going to be thirty five years
22:07
it's 29 ok well that's different and
22:11
that you'd say well that's not a big you
22:13
know that shouldn't be a big deal
22:14
because hey you're better off but for
22:17
districts that pass bonds in the Great
22:18
Recession expected to have all their
22:22
bonds sold you know within four or five
22:24
six years and I'll take santa pola as an
22:26
example santa paula pass upon the 2008
22:29
and they still haven't sold their last
22:31
series of bonds so in 2008 someone would
22:34
have said 30 years and now they're
22:36
looking at 42 so if you put 30 years in
22:39
here you're locked to 30 years so it's I
22:44
mean and again in the problem with this
22:47
little bit of disclosure and I hope I'm
22:48
not boring it too much of detail is that
22:51
it's really geared more towards special
22:54
taxes you know parcel taxes sales taxes
22:58
other things that are truly fixed
23:01
because you can say a parcel tax of 22
23:03
dollars for four years and that's that
23:06
is it it's easy it's locked in its best
23:08
you can say a sales tax of you know one
23:10
percent for seven years or eight years
23:12
all those things are truly fixed but
23:15
legislation was a little clumsy on
23:17
allowing this to be applied to bonds
23:19
when we are reliant upon assessed values
23:22
which go up and down and up 5% and down
23:26
4% so there's not a real good way to do
23:28
it other than to give these kind of
23:30
estimates and these kind of
23:32
loosey-goosey terminologies because
23:33
otherwise you're bound by that level of
23:36
specificity so that's why there's not a
23:38
specific dollar Earth's a specific year
23:40
or term like 30 years I'm sorry I
23:47
changed the subject Kevin and Shelly
23:50
though you know to say that Bob daddy is
23:56
against it and that's one person in the
23:59
community but he happens to own the
24:00
paper so if the paper turns against us
24:04
because we have no other way to have
24:09
this discussion
24:10
you know I'm Bob daddy was on the
24:12
citizens Oversight Committee and was
24:16
pleased with the work we had done and
24:18
our current members of the citizens
24:20
Oversight
24:21
has actually requested that we move
24:24
forward on a bond like this so I don't
24:27
know how the community finds out that
24:29
information verses from the paper and I
24:34
would hope that they could be fair but I
24:37
don't know if that would be the case so
24:41
I've only managed to talk to a couple
24:43
people and the folks that I talked to
24:46
actually were they liked the idea but
24:50
almost exclusive they were like now
24:52
because of Cova and the environment and
24:55
everybody is just very intimidated by
24:58
what they think has happened to the
25:00
economy and where people might be if
25:03
they see that they're going to have
25:04
another expense so when I mentioned that
25:08
this might mean it's you know off the
25:10
table for up to two more years or longer
25:12
then people like oh well and and it's
25:17
not quite not quite so definitive
25:20
anymore so that's a long way of saying I
25:24
didn't get a lot of help I kind of feel
25:27
the same way Michael they time if it's
25:30
off the table for two years then oh well
25:33
we should ask now because two years is a
25:36
long time if they say no now okay why we
25:43
can ask again in two years but two years
25:45
is a long time to not ask in my mind it
25:51
is the other thing I'm hearing is wages
25:53
right and that the bond wouldn't go to
25:55
wages and you know how would we make a
25:57
difference there and you know all I've
25:59
been able to say is that there was some
26:00
conversation about you know technology
26:02
and other stuff and I see that in the
26:04
resolution but that's a continuing
26:07
question for me is I'm not comfortable
26:11
doing two things because I think it's
26:12
you know splits our focus and stuff but
26:16
the more we could free up operating
26:19
money and I know it's it's a delicate
26:23
thing
26:25
I think the easier this might be I think
26:29
the solar projects would once they're in
26:33
place would free up operate
26:35
money and and you know it occurred to me
26:39
I I know the moratorium on drilling
26:44
wells in how I is in place but it that
26:50
thought just occurred to me does that
26:51
actually apply to why public agencies
26:55
and I think it might be worth asking
26:58
that question agency to is it in so Ted
27:05
more actually had come to me quite some
27:08
time ago with some talk around this and
27:11
we have not followed up but I think he
27:15
has some ideas around this concept yeah
27:19
so that would that would free up
27:22
operational money as well I think where
27:25
there's turf abatement or you know
27:29
making our field smaller so that we're
27:32
not watering giant fields there there's
27:35
some things we can do around water save
27:36
things for sure even without wealth
27:39
right so so I what what are we talking
27:43
about with wells I kind of missed that
27:45
the first time it went through and I
27:46
wasn't exactly sure we're talking about
27:48
like selling water or or just using it
27:52
for ourselves and getting off the grid
27:54
so to speak I think just getting off the
27:58
grid was okay my understanding I know
28:01
OBS recently did it with their lower
28:04
campus I'd be curious to see how what
28:07
you know if they're willing to talk to
28:09
us over there that was successful or not
28:12
part of our issue is that we continue to
28:16
have less availability of water each
28:18
year you know they lower the amount that
28:21
we can we can use without overages but
28:25
our fields aren't smaller and we have
28:29
you know we haven't done massive term
28:33
abatements but we pay overages at almost
28:37
every campus right David it's some point
28:40
and still our fields we get complaints
28:43
about our fields not looking good so we
28:45
pay overages and it's not even enough
28:48
to make the fields in kind of acceptable
28:51
shape to the community and so when
28:54
people come to us and say you know why
28:55
can't we have grass instead of weeds
28:57
we're like well we water what we have
29:00
and you know we're working on that but
29:03
there's a lot to do around fields and
29:06
field management that would make them
29:07
well it's better for the community
29:09
cost-effective and more water wise and
29:13
this district get hit by the caseta
29:15
surcharge because of the venturi lawsuit
29:18
I know I did I'm just wondering if
29:21
they've if the district is subject to
29:23
that as well and what that did to our
29:27
utility bill I don't know the answer to
29:30
that right okay I just brought up the
29:34
wells as part of you know how do we free
29:40
up more operational income and I I think
29:43
that if we spend the money right we can
29:46
probably free up almost as much
29:50
operational income with the Geo bond as
29:54
we could get with the parcel tax so I'm
29:57
glad you said that because that's what I
29:59
heard but I don't trust my math so
30:03
saying you're saying I mean because I
30:06
was here in two three maybe four hundred
30:08
thousand dollars if it was done
30:09
strategically and that that would be the
30:12
most that the parcel tax would likely do
30:16
but if we eliminate our power bills
30:20
potentially our water bills
30:23
we're able to do some things with
30:25
technology that can really add up yeah
30:30
yeah so John I'm hoping you can tell me
30:35
a little more process questions if we
30:39
did vote to move forward with this
30:42
tonight at what point do we have to pay
30:46
the county to put this on the ballot do
30:48
and what would it look like if we chose
30:50
in July to rescind this how much are we
30:55
spending to buy ourselves a month what
31:00
is
31:01
look like to be honest I don't know as
31:05
far as you know when do you pay the
31:07
answer would be at the at the conclusion
31:10
of the election collection Department
31:13
would send you a bill saying hey here's
31:14
your share I think we estimated to be
31:16
about eighteen thousand dollars again
31:18
I'm using Ventura as a template the
31:22
interest quote based on the number of
31:23
registered voters compared to you based
31:27
on your number of registered voters just
31:28
simple math puts you in the 17 1819
31:31
let's say twenty thousand maybe the
31:32
essence or a fixed fee but if you went
31:34
strictly size or dollar amount divided
31:37
by voters you'd be about eighteen
31:39
thousand I've never had a district
31:42
rescind resolution so I can't tell you
31:46
if they send you a bill I can't imagine
31:47
that they would send you though because
31:49
the absolute lion's share all the money
31:51
goes to printing printing sample ballots
31:54
printing the ballots themselves all that
31:57
information so all they're doing is
31:59
thank you very much stamping it saying
32:01
here's a calendar submit your bad
32:04
arguments someone's reading to make sure
32:06
that it's 300 words or less notifying
32:10
you of a rebuttal like that's that's not
32:12
a lot of heavy lifting so you know I'm
32:16
not the elections department but I'd be
32:19
shocked if they sent you a bill for
32:20
anything if you came back and you know a
32:22
few weeks and said I would change their
32:24
mind can we go back to the two year if
32:28
we don't do it now it's two years from
32:30
now because we have to wait for
32:32
governor's election or regular next
32:35
election where we're gonna and Alan
32:39
maybe David we're gonna still be working
32:43
on our current bonds in two years right
32:47
[Music]
32:49
we should be nearing the end of a lot of
32:52
our projects in two years right I mean I
32:55
think that available we're probably
32:58
about 2/3 of the way through our
33:00
existing bond as far as what's we
33:03
haven't spit all of that but you've got
33:05
projects that have committed like the
33:07
library and the kitchen and some things
33:09
like that so yeah I think two years
33:12
we're going to be
33:14
very close to the bottom of that barrel
33:16
yeah I agree a series of bonds which we
33:23
have right John three years to spend I
33:26
believe that's correct
33:28
until we sold our last series this year
33:30
we really have to be finished in this
33:33
year plus two more years and then in
33:37
terms of what's on people's property tax
33:39
bill there was the 98 measures at 1997
33:45
and that is over so they're not paying
33:50
that anymore no I think there's still a
33:53
few years left on that fact I texted
33:57
Kathy she had asked that very question
33:59
and I think the last payment on that
34:03
because keep in mind the 1997 had
34:05
multiple issuances right kind of like
34:08
measure J they're spaced out and give me
34:12
second hair I think I've got this here
34:38
okay the 1997 bonds go away in 2032
34:44
and the measure J goes away in 2039 and
34:49
even with those on there were paying 48
34:53
10 is that the combined tax rate right
34:56
now and that's what I'm reading on the
34:59
chart that you found resolution I took
35:02
the chart it's in the summary and they
35:04
took the charge on from your PowerPoint
35:07
that you gave to the bond where we are
35:08
to the board when we originally
35:09
considered this back in September
35:11
October right ex rates of everyone in
35:14
accounting so yeah so yeah so the voters
35:18
have been getting a pretty significant
35:19
discount again that's based off of you
35:22
know assessed values that have exceeded
35:25
projections from 1997 trying to get out
35:28
of the landing right for you guys sorry
35:31
so so yeah so I guess the like I said
35:35
those were the years and and then the
35:37
tax rate again is I don't recall what
35:40
the 1998 I could probably look it up but
35:43
it's probably maybe 20 dollars less than
35:47
what was estimated in combined total I
35:51
can show you the chart if you would all
35:55
like to see the chart that Shelly's
35:57
referring to hell are you saying it
36:00
would be 48 plus 39 right a new tax me
36:06
yes for to pass then yes it'd be 48 plus
36:10
39 and the other districts around us are
36:13
paying 158 and 144 120 this is the chart
36:21
from John's presentation that shows
36:25
essentially it's hard because the
36:27
elementary and the high school are
36:29
separate but you can see you know a
36:33
parks at 150 Fillmore 137 see me at 77
36:37
66 where these bottom three right here
36:41
and Ventura is going for parcel tax
36:44
correct in those correct and not a bond
36:49
I thought they were looking at both they
36:51
they were looking at both and then they
36:53
opted to push on the bond until 2022
36:57
their parcel tax expires this year and
37:01
so if they don't renew their parcel tax
37:04
they actually lose funding they have a
37:07
hole in their in their budget so for
37:10
them it was they just didn't want a
37:12
chance putting two on the same ballot I
37:14
think at the last meeting we talked
37:16
about I said they could put two on the
37:18
same dalit the parcel the Geo bond
37:21
probably passed the likely passes but
37:24
the parcel tax could fail and it was
37:28
just like it was just not worth it let's
37:29
just go with the absolute basic basic it
37:32
sounds like their hat there I'm assuming
37:35
working on the same logic that that way
37:38
unencumbered some of their general fund
37:42
well in this case the parcel tax is just
37:45
straight on
37:46
you know revenues that they can use for
37:48
any purpose well but I mean going for
37:50
the bond instead of the parcel tax
37:52
they're thinking the bond will be more
37:55
beneficial than the parcel tax was which
37:57
is where know they're going for a parcel
38:00
tax not a bond oh I had it backwards
38:03
sorry yeah yeah they I mean they're
38:06
gonna do it they're going to do a a bond
38:10
they just didn't want to jeopardize
38:13
their parcel tax in any way God and so
38:16
they said let's just give them a single
38:17
item to vote on similar what you guys
38:18
have talked about which is let's not
38:20
confuse it just put one thing forward in
38:23
their scenario an extension of an
38:25
existing parcel tax that wouldn't
38:27
increase the tax rate of what people had
38:28
pain they felt was you know as easy of a
38:33
layup as they could get if you use a
38:36
parcel tax for salaries or general
38:39
operating funds and then you lose the
38:42
parcel tax then addition to the cut in
38:45
state revenues that you would
38:47
potentially be experiencing right now
38:48
plus the increase expenses you would
38:50
have
38:50
other significant cut in local taxes
38:54
right wait correct yeah for them about
38:57
two million dollars and what as a board
39:02
do you all remember so we started
39:04
talking on Wednesday about the parcel
39:06
tax and we went away from it and I can't
39:09
even remember now six days later why we
39:11
went away from that part of it is is the
39:15
higher percentage of voter approval that
39:19
we would need and it wouldn't if we
39:23
could potentially offset as much the
39:26
general fund with a bond with a lower
39:29
needed voter approval it seemed like the
39:32
safer bet that's my memory yeah and so
39:36
how do we how do we get that information
39:38
out John that this the reason we're
39:40
doing this versus a parcel tax is for
39:44
savings that we can use on salaries
39:47
because I think a lot of people feel
39:48
like me they absolutely vote for money
39:51
for teachers and you know over and I
39:56
have to say part of the feedback that I
39:58
got was in the project list having you
40:03
know hey I hate to say this but the pool
40:07
has been such a draw in the past but was
40:11
actually pointed out as a drawback in
40:15
this scenario that if we have that on
40:18
there it feels like it feels frivolous
40:22
right now yeah I mean to the question
40:26
about how do you educate you know you
40:28
you just try to put forth information
40:30
via mailers depending on circumstances
40:34
you know you know we certainly walked
40:37
certain neighborhoods and had flyers
40:39
there is other communications things
40:42
that the district itself can do from a
40:44
purely factual standpoint
40:48
you can't advocate you can't say make
40:50
sure you support us though yes but you
40:52
can certainly say one of the reasons
40:55
that we're putting forth measure K is in
40:58
addition to our old facilities we also
41:00
believe that this would improve the
41:03
general fund
41:04
by offsetting expenditures that normally
41:06
get put towards technology to set the
41:08
other and that can improve and retain
41:10
teachers and programs and small class
41:12
sizes or what have you so it's just it's
41:15
just you know it's just the
41:17
communication it's crafting that message
41:18
and using the the normal distribution
41:21
channels to get that word out because I
41:24
do think that's an important and
41:26
important you know message for folks to
41:29
have here that that it's not just about
41:32
you know getting millions of dollars to
41:34
fix up your schools and making shiny and
41:36
new but there actually is a dual benefit
41:39
which is this you know opportunity to
41:43
improve your general fund bringing in
41:46
more kids more da da offsetting
41:48
electrical technology possibly water you
41:51
know those kinds of things so it's just
41:53
it's just it's just the communications
41:55
you know I'm finding the right people to
41:57
be those messengers as well to say yeah
41:59
as a mayor ho get behind you on this or
42:02
Chamber of Commerce or teachers union
42:05
president I'll get behind you on this
42:07
and I'll be a messenger to convey this
42:09
to my membership or my constituents and
42:13
I have to say emailed all of those
42:15
people and didn't hear anything back
42:17
from them so I'm not sure what to make
42:20
of silence or even mining
42:24
procrastination and not getting to them
42:26
in time but yeah I do have a question
42:30
about this what we're talking about the
42:33
you know to impact the general fund is
42:34
there an ability or theirs is there time
42:36
even for us to be a little more
42:39
intentional about that you know and a
42:42
little bit more specific about where we
42:44
think we're going to recover the funds
42:46
and like how much we think we can as
42:49
opposed to just a statement that that
42:51
you know this is something we want to
42:53
try I mean at least is you know maybe
42:57
down the road as we start marketing or
42:58
you know I mean right now it's it's it's
43:02
conceptual I love the concept the few
43:05
people that I've talked to if I was
43:07
going to turn their head I'd have to be
43:10
more specific I think so
43:13
that's I'm just wondering is can we get
43:15
there what can I shed a little light on
43:18
that
43:18
Michael for you we know just by looking
43:22
at our SCE bill what we could save with
43:26
solar and we know that we could save
43:29
some other money we've actually saved a
43:31
fair amount of money with purchases like
43:36
grounds and maintenance departments and
43:38
we also know that doing things like
43:40
replacing carpeting as we're doing this
43:42
summer in the elementary schools with
43:44
the LBT that you guys approved at the
43:46
last meeting that saves a bunch of hours
43:49
of custodial time so you know those
43:53
those all translate in some form into
43:56
you know savings to the general fund
43:59
they do but then there's that there's a
44:02
very tricky spot of we saved general
44:06
funds by putting people out of work
44:10
which is not a right well or we have
44:14
them do other things that benefit the
44:17
schools and then we're not saving the
44:20
money though right but the solar part we
44:22
would the blinds could help you know
44:30
things we've done in the past I think
44:33
we've done things in the past the
44:34
question is what are we going to do in
44:36
the future I going to your question Jane
44:40
about why we were moving against parcel
44:46
tax one of my concerns is we always lose
44:52
and I don't know that there was a more
44:55
favorable time than the first Obama
44:57
election to get it through and we came
45:02
really close but we still lost and I'm
45:06
I'm not sure that you know the election
45:10
environment is ever going to be any
45:12
better than that and we think our
45:14
demographics have changed since then
45:16
though well if if you think that I if if
45:21
I were going to bet on something I would
45:23
bet on the Geo bond over the parcel tax
45:27
though I'm also concerned about a short
45:32
term
45:34
a short-term tax and using that to
45:37
commit to salaries because as soon as we
45:40
commit to salaries then if it's only a
45:43
four year or six year and then if it's
45:46
not extended what would we do right to
45:50
me right exactly and then if you don't
45:54
have it I don't know what you would do
45:57
if it wasn't so the the length of time
45:59
of the parcel tax concerns me and using
46:04
that in our general fund I I think right
46:08
now we can offset general fund using the
46:12
Geo bond in a way that would allow us to
46:14
count on that for a longer term then we
46:17
would be able to with a parcel tax I do
46:22
agree with Jane in terms of I always
46:25
look at the big number and I know John
46:27
I'm sure you're right because you did
46:31
this all the time but it still makes me
46:35
nervous and I would probably feel more
46:37
comfortable being under 40
46:39
I think bear with me on this exercise
46:43
with that number right I appreciate that
46:48
but I want to just do this if the tax
46:51
rate was a dollar a month yeah does it
46:55
really matter if you get 10 million or
46:56
20 or 50 it's a dollar a month right
47:00
there's an affordability question there
47:02
and unless you're a true expert on what
47:05
things cost and no one's even arguing
47:07
that the district doesn't have these
47:09
needs but that's that's that's that's
47:11
it's it's an oversimplification of the
47:13
issue for really people just saying what
47:16
does this cost me
47:17
yeah let's fix up our schools and what
47:19
does it cost me the way to read it then
47:23
so that the $39 comes before the 67
47:26
million I've never done it that way it
47:31
would I could I could dial bond Council
47:35
and say do you care the order again just
47:38
the tax rate in the seventy five words
47:40
this is all new
47:41
since 2018 so prior to 2018
47:46
it was just projects bond amount and now
47:50
we have all these extra little things so
47:51
I don't know if there's an order but we
47:53
could certainly we could certainly ask
47:55
you know really fundamentally guys these
47:58
things boil down just to the you know
48:01
almost the gut reaction of do I want to
48:05
fix up my school this is the school
48:07
improvement measure do I want to fix up
48:09
the school do they need it do I trust
48:11
the board to take care of it and can I
48:13
afford it and I think most people will
48:16
sure yes we should fix up our schools
48:18
unless they don't like you or unless
48:19
your schools are beautiful and they
48:21
don't need to be fixed
48:22
Montecito is an example the district
48:24
that beautiful school they went for
48:26
fifty to five to fifty two million
48:30
dollars for one school to renovate it
48:32
and the voters said no well okay even
48:36
people even Montecito wins if that's
48:38
what they call them have their limits
48:40
but it does just about one person to
48:43
chip that in I know Oprah where are you
48:48
but that's really how these things go
48:50
and that's why it really is important to
48:54
give you that context of what are the
48:56
other people think you know the mayor's
48:59
elected officials the teachers union
49:02
these other people because if someone
49:04
says it's bad time that's a good excuse
49:07
to vote no for a lot of people even
49:09
though I want to support school someone
49:12
gives me the idea it's a bad time and I
49:14
respect their opinion that could be a
49:16
problem
49:17
no no but most people it's just this
49:19
ideological you're either anti-tax or
49:21
you're Pro schools and then there's the
49:24
in-between that says well let me get out
49:26
my calculator and see if I if I really
49:28
want the numbers to work but my grandma
49:30
she taught special ed for 30 years I
49:33
always vote further taxes I always vote
49:36
for schools I always vote for the kids
49:37
that's my grandma didn't matter what it
49:39
was didn't matter what the calculus was
49:41
my mom same way my dad was a little more
49:44
like let's see how much it's gonna cost
49:46
me but most and then there's the other
49:49
side of the spectrum which is I vote no
49:50
for all bonds you I'm sure you hear that
49:52
so you really have the ideological 's
49:55
and in your scenario you have enough in
49:58
the middle that want to do
49:59
we probably want something convincing
50:02
that they feel like this is very
50:03
affordable I like the fact that it's
50:05
less than 60 bucks I don't like the fact
50:08
that you know at least it was raised
50:10
that a couple of folks have been
50:11
negative I don't know if the negativity
50:14
means I'm gonna vote no but I'm gonna be
50:17
neutral publicly or if that means
50:20
actually I would fight it and and I
50:23
guess that would be a question for you
50:24
board members is the is the level of
50:26
negativity one of I'll probably you know
50:32
oppose you publicly I think it's that
50:34
bad of an idea or it's just I don't
50:36
think the times right I'm gonna vote no
50:38
I will say with the people that I got
50:46
negativity from was timing that this is
50:50
not a good time for me I would say this
50:53
I would say the same and and potentially
50:56
they would publicly oppose it I mean I
50:59
think we have a few things going for us
51:01
so we didn't last time right everybody
51:03
was very skeptical that we could handle
51:04
this responsibly last time because of
51:07
some prior Fiasco we've demonstrated
51:10
that that we can handle our money
51:12
responsibly you know and it was another
51:16
thing that was going for us I forgot
51:18
well of the fact that interest rates and
51:19
and everything or as low as they're ever
51:21
going to be and and potentially even
51:24
construction costs if we're coming off
51:26
of a vac ovid standstill
51:29
people are gonna they're going to want
51:31
business as opposed to when everybody
51:34
was doing a bond and construction cost
51:36
skyrocketed so I mean there might be
51:38
some positive things to say but timing
51:41
is still iffy putting our contractors to
51:46
work and there's I think that you made
51:50
last week about bringing in revenue by
51:54
having a lawn here bringing in workers
51:56
and at a time when we critically eat it
52:00
is a is a positive you know I hear the
52:04
negative to it but I think there's also
52:06
the positive side and it does impact our
52:09
economy I think there's also
52:12
I've been thinking about what you said
52:13
about the pool Shelley and and we might
52:15
want to reword the particular line about
52:18
the pool but if we don't have a bond and
52:23
correct me if I'm wrong Alan and David
52:25
but I don't think we will have a pool
52:28
and a water polo program in five years
52:32
right that's my understanding is you
52:35
know our pool is not CIF regulation so
52:37
that's a problem and the pool are our
52:42
fixes are not long-term as to the pool
52:45
they're our band-aids to the pool that's
52:48
correct
52:49
and band-aids without any real idea of
52:52
how long the last and I don't mean to
52:54
you know fear monger but we just don't
52:57
know it
52:57
we seriously could have a month left on
52:59
our pool or two years I mean you got the
53:01
county to let us open it by basically
53:03
begging right yes generally begging yes
53:08
we promised them that we were working on
53:10
it and that we were developing a plan
53:12
for the decking and equipment the
53:14
pumping equipment and the filters and
53:16
and the chlorination and acid controls
53:19
and all that so and they've seen us you
53:22
know we are doing those things we're not
53:24
lying to them but but it's it's been a
53:27
bit of a slow go and the amount of money
53:30
that we have to from measure J for the
53:35
pool is not enough to do the work to the
53:38
pool light for example building a deep
53:40
end so that we are regulation CIF for
53:43
water polo right like we we can probably
53:46
fix some of those things that we need to
53:48
the pool will still not be the pool that
53:51
we need for athletics Oh as I understood
53:54
it the money that we had was just enough
53:57
not to get it closed yes yeah we did
54:03
take a vote this spring or recently you
54:06
know last eight months I know I'm never
54:11
voting against it but it was putting
54:13
that money but it was it was to fix
54:15
those problems right now on those flow
54:20
that we're working with on the equipment
54:22
and
54:24
we have bids on the decking and things
54:26
like that but just as a as a note around
54:30
that are our fixes are not permanent
54:34
and at some point the pool will not be
54:36
we will have a pool and yes basically is
54:40
is really sick of dealing with us it
54:44
sounds like and and well we may be able
54:47
to have swim they have said that they
54:50
don't want us to have games in our pool
54:53
any longer it's what I remember hearing
54:56
at that meeting from months ago yeah
55:00
correct yeah especially for water polo
55:03
yeah
55:04
so that's the reason that the pool is in
55:07
there even though it may feel frivolous
55:09
it is actually intended preserve a
55:13
program at our campus that is popular
55:15
and you know I totally I get that and
55:20
and let me say that the people who I
55:24
have talked to who are who would be in
55:28
support of the measure are school
55:30
affiliated or school adjacent but those
55:34
who are not don't know that about the
55:37
pool and so to them it looks frivolous I
55:40
don't mean you know that I think it's a
55:42
frivolous thing I see how it impacts us
55:45
but I think it it tells me that where we
55:49
would have the most need for persuasion
55:53
would be with with obviously people who
55:57
you know aren't affiliated with the
55:59
school and don't have you don't know
56:01
anybody who lily is we got to get Thane
56:03
in the water polo team and swimmers out
56:05
there mm-hmm-hmm selling it you know it
56:12
is mentioned that it might be a
56:13
community asset as well right and that's
56:15
part of I guess the marketing as to you
56:17
know is there anything else that kind of
56:22
has a general community benefit and
56:25
Aquatic Center it's not going to matter
56:26
if you've got kids or not if it's also a
56:28
community resource is there other stuff
56:31
that we could highlight that way yeah so
56:35
then there's a
56:36
forming arts center right we we are in
56:38
need at the high school of a place in
56:42
which students can perform that's not
56:44
the cafeteria or that has seating and
56:48
those kinds of things so I'm not sure
56:50
exactly what that would look like but
56:51
there has been arrived for some time for
56:56
Performing Arts Center that could be
56:58
utilized which is other part of the
57:02
other reason for a higher amount right
57:04
if we're if we're thinking that we could
57:06
do a pool and Performing Arts Center and
57:09
the brick and mortar and I don't mean a
57:12
giant fancy Performing Arts Center but
57:14
someplace that that our groups at
57:16
Nordhoff could could utilize that it's
57:18
not the cafeteria you know then that
57:21
those are those are kind of crown jewel
57:23
big-ticket items that are not
57:26
inexpensive so looking at kind of the
57:29
overall need and what we might be able
57:31
to do and build as simultaneous
57:34
community assets I know it's not at
57:38
Nordhoff but we do have until aha we do
57:41
but the pool I don't know of any other
57:46
public swimming facility in the valley
57:49
and so they the entire community loses
57:53
that facility if we're not able to
57:57
rebuild I mean really his community had
58:04
access to it for the last several years
58:06
I don't think so we haven't opened it
58:09
during the summer the rec center was
58:12
using Villa because it's broken right no
58:15
I know it's not my point is that it
58:18
wouldn't be a loss to the community
58:19
right now because they don't have it
58:21
right now it would be a game and there
58:28
are a lot of issues with the Metallica
58:29
theater but I mean rewrite a Performing
58:31
Arts Center could I mean when you say
58:33
those words I think 30 million dollars
58:35
so for two million or something but I
58:40
think and I think that my feeling is
58:43
that would be a hard sell that would be
58:45
seen you know I would loved
58:49
have that programs but I fear that that
58:51
would be seen as right now in coated
58:55
economic crisis and it's more than we
58:59
can do as a valley I don't know yeah
59:03
Center is probably I think maybe
59:05
facility for both the pool and the and
59:09
the Performing Arts is a moral Center
59:13
implies at a large compound facility
59:16
right somewhat similar to maybe like the
59:19
current theater but a little bit bigger
59:21
so that we could have dance there and we
59:23
could have band performances there and
59:25
right reason that it's quite difficult
59:28
to have those at at Mattel ha because if
59:33
the practice schedule and getting kids
59:35
over there and you know there's a reason
59:36
that makes that problematic but most
59:40
high schools especially ones with
59:42
thriving performing arts programs have
59:44
someplace in which kids can really
59:46
perform for the community with seating
59:49
right we right but at that level it's
59:53
not a community asset that community I
59:57
guess to me community would be other
60:01
outside entities wanting to use it well
60:05
we build all of our and all of our
60:07
facilities are open to the community for
60:09
use right regardless of how big or nice
60:13
they are
60:14
theoretically chaparral right has a
60:16
stage and is open it's hard because
60:19
there's no seating and air conditioning
60:21
and heating which makes it somewhat
60:22
limited but you know that that's a
60:26
community use facility even though it's
60:27
not a crown jewel of any sort at the
60:31
moment so it was great in the 20s you
60:38
know just a little air conditioning and
60:40
maybe fixing the smell would make it
60:43
much more usable but I do know that when
60:47
Bob daddy was on the COC committee one
60:50
of the things that he was really
60:51
interested in it was you know restoring
60:53
that fool or repairing or saving the
60:55
pool and I don't know
60:57
you know what his opposition is at the
60:58
moment to a new bond but
61:01
it seems I know that was that was like
61:03
one of his pet things I don't I don't
61:09
want to speak for Bob but I will say I
61:12
think his overwhelming sense is just
61:14
that the timing is just horrible the
61:18
combination of the split role being on
61:20
the ballot as well as apparently one of
61:24
the water agencies is going to be having
61:27
some kind of a bond on the ballot as
61:31
well as in most importantly kovat I mean
61:36
just the
61:37
tenuous financial circumstances of so
61:40
many people in the community John if we
61:49
if the bond passes in November when
61:51
would people see this on their Texas
61:55
what would be the student that you would
61:57
say yeah it well it depends so it's a
62:02
good question because what I'm hearing
62:05
loud and clear is timing timing timing
62:08
the district the tax levy begins when
62:11
you sell bonds however there is some
62:16
flexibility and structure that allows
62:18
some deferral of let's say up to a year
62:22
because you could generate what's called
62:24
capitalized interest not to go too deep
62:27
into bond structures but that just
62:30
allows you to get extra money from
62:31
investors who actually make the first
62:34
debt service payments to other investors
62:38
before a tax levy is needed to be
62:40
levying so let's just take you through a
62:42
timing you could pass your bond now you
62:47
could sell bonds let's just say march of
62:53
2021 under normal circumstances the tax
62:57
rate would go on the ballot or go on the
62:59
bills for 2122 you could generate enough
63:03
to capitalize interest to push that off
63:05
to 22 23 so in some respects there could
63:09
be a break of a year or two if you
63:12
really wanted to get
63:14
it's not that creative but I mean just
63:16
for the sake of this discussion the
63:19
district could issue what's called a
63:21
bond anticipation note now you're
63:24
familiar with trans a lot of districts
63:26
do tax revenue anticipation note a note
63:30
is different from a bond and that it is
63:32
short term in its term in its duration
63:36
in the case of a bond anticipation note
63:39
you have up to five years to repay that
63:42
note so a district can sell you voters
63:45
could approve sixty nine million dollars
63:47
you could sell twenty million dollars in
63:50
a note in March and not increase or have
63:55
any tax levy for five years and in
63:59
twenty three twenty four twenty four
64:00
twenty five then you would sell bonds to
64:03
pay off the note so there are ways to
64:07
defer you know if if there's people that
64:11
are saying you know you should just wait
64:12
this out a little bit or give us a year
64:14
or two or three you could do that and
64:17
you could offer that up as a concession
64:19
if you will to voters that this will not
64:23
impact their taxes for the next you know
64:25
one year to year four or five years
64:28
depending on what you want to do
64:30
interestingly enough the note concept
64:35
you're it's gonna cost a little bit more
64:37
than not doing a note but interest rates
64:43
are so low it's it's almost
64:45
insignificant and it would be far
64:47
outweighed by the construction cost
64:48
benefit that you would be getting
64:50
through lower construction costs and and
64:53
certainly you know offset by the fact
64:58
that you could improve your general fund
65:00
health you get your projects done sooner
65:02
rather than later maybe bring in the
65:03
ADEA some of the things that we've
65:04
already talked about without having an
65:07
impact on voters more complicated right
65:12
when you just say well how do you convey
65:13
that to the voters I think you just say
65:14
bypass the most now we will not increase
65:17
the taxes for five years the end and
65:20
that's just becomes the talking point
65:21
anyone who really wants to get into the
65:23
nitty-gritty we can teach my fans how
65:25
the tool that is but again
65:28
for the most part people are just got
65:30
voters right it's just kind of like
65:32
alright well I support the schools and
65:33
if you're not gonna raise my taxes for
65:34
five years that's the excuse that I need
65:37
to support John something like that so
65:39
if if the bond were not to pass that
65:44
eighteen thousand dollars that we would
65:46
owe where does that money come from the
65:48
eighteen thousand comes from the general
65:50
fund that that's the cost of the
65:53
elections Department in Ventura County
65:55
who is going to conduct that election on
65:57
behalf of the district the cost of
65:59
printing sample ballots printing ballots
66:02
counting your votes etc etc that's what
66:05
the eighteen thousand or so goes to I
66:08
think like and obviously I'm sorry yeah
66:14
charge that to our current bond cannot
66:16
because because the voters from 2014 did
66:21
not authorize you to spend bond money on
66:23
a future election I think there's a big
66:27
value to the community and locking in
66:29
the current low interest rates and and
66:33
maybe we can't communicate that but I
66:36
think everybody benefits in the long run
66:38
from history with having both tsoumas
66:43
and Mesa wrapped up their bond programs
66:46
and and these are small bond programs
66:49
right nine million dollars each in each
66:52
of those districts because of the
66:54
extraordinarily low interest rates saved
66:56
over four million dollars in interest
67:00
because of the low interest rate this
67:03
year you know I and I think just kick
67:08
and I am I just want to be as black and
67:11
white as I can possibly be so I'm gonna
67:13
give you every every talking point and
67:15
every point of view that I can give you
67:16
here this is not a good time to be going
67:19
to voters politically speaking all other
67:23
things non-political it's a perfect time
67:27
and you're talking about our interest
67:29
rates you're talking stretching process
67:31
escalation you're talking about stimulus
67:33
to the local economy you're talking
67:34
about improving your general fund which
67:36
talks programs and teachers etc etc you
67:38
go down the list it's like wow you could
67:40
snap your fingers and pass upon
67:42
hi now is the perfect time to do it
67:45
however there's this little thing called
67:47
politics and it takes a real mature it's
67:53
only word I can think of mature voter to
67:56
look past
67:57
coronavirus and now this is bad timing
68:00
but if we're able to push that impact
68:03
out by a few years to say you know we
68:07
won't start tapping the taxpayers so to
68:10
speak until there's been an opportunity
68:12
for the economy to recover to me that's
68:15
pretty compelling we wouldn't even have
68:21
to do bands to do that would we John
68:23
well couldn't we just say we want
68:25
approval now but we're not going to
68:27
issue for three years yeah but then you
68:30
lose the purchasing power of
68:31
construction cost and locking in low
68:34
interest rates because you're assuming
68:36
three years from now we'll have the same
68:37
super low interest rates right but the
68:39
low interest rates would be on the bands
68:42
I'm the geo bonds so we'd be swapping
68:46
out the we'd be losing the low interest
68:48
rates if rates went higher that is true
68:52
yeah you would be subject to the future
68:54
interest rates but you would get the low
68:58
construction cost now if you were to do
69:00
it then but yeah you you're gonna prove
69:02
it now and then just do nothing for a
69:04
couple years not issue at all if you're
69:08
gonna do that though honestly I just say
69:09
well then just wait till 2020 to you
69:12
know it's probably more favorable thank
69:13
you it might be it works we don't we
69:17
don't know I mean I can't predict the
69:19
future that's why I think two years is
69:23
long enough for people to why if if they
69:28
didn't like it now it's long enough for
69:30
them to get over that to take a fresh
69:33
look at it what's that yeah just by
69:39
having the fact that it doesn't pass
69:41
till November we don't miss you the
69:43
bonds still March it doesn't go on their
69:45
taxes till that so you're talking about
69:47
a tax bill that's due in December of
69:51
2021 at the earliest at the earliest or
69:56
you could easily do 20 22 right and it
69:58
wouldn't that wouldn't change your life
70:00
at all Oh two years from now would not
70:02
get us on the tax roll in 2022 so we
70:05
could say that begins that tax shows up
70:08
in 2022
70:09
and but we could still sell the bonds in
70:12
2021 we just have to be able to convince
70:21
people at that that's a lot of
70:23
explaining to do yeah it's a lot easier
70:27
campaign to stay vote no because it's a
70:29
bad time coronavirus the economy's in
70:31
the toilet than it is for us to express
70:35
low interest rates construction cost
70:37
escalation saving the general fund
70:39
that's why you need a lot of messengers
70:41
you know a lot of like teachers and
70:43
other prominent community members to say
70:45
hey I've studied this the district's
70:48
onto something here we're gonna lock in
70:50
low rates we're gonna lock in low
70:51
construction cost we're not going to
70:53
make any payments for three years four
70:56
years I mean the argument could be made
70:59
but it's a much more difficult argument
71:01
to make because it's just it's more
71:05
complicated than just simply now is not
71:07
a good time coronaviruses that I'm not
71:09
so sure that it's that complicated right
71:11
I mean everything that we've said is
71:13
it's it's never going to be less
71:14
expensive to do what we want to do than
71:16
it is right now that's a pretty solid
71:20
message and you couple that with and
71:22
we're not going to ask you to do
71:23
anything for four years to give the
71:25
economy time to recover you know I mean
71:29
the timing is perfect for us and like
71:31
this compromise we try and adjust the
71:34
timing to make it better for taxpayers
71:36
as well I to me that's a pretty powerful
71:39
combo we get all of the the the market
71:44
benefits now and the taxpayers get a
71:46
chance to recover before they ever have
71:49
to deal with it I like that there's
71:53
nobody who's more of an advocate of the
71:56
public schools and and I am but I'll say
71:59
that you know an additional well a
72:03
couple things one we've got a budget of
72:05
$75,000 for our campaign
72:10
to support the measure I don't know
72:12
where that's gonna come from you know we
72:13
all know this town is a town where
72:16
things get done through drivers and I
72:19
have yet to find the driver who wants to
72:21
be the you know the force behind this
72:24
movement yes that's why I saw I think
72:30
the campaign committee fundraising on
72:33
page 2 says 25,000 wait so somewhere
72:37
somewhere else there was a reference to
72:39
75,000 ok I missed that even if it's
72:44
25,000 you know yeah the less the worse
72:46
right the more the more we can use that
72:49
the better chance we have and then you
72:52
know I think there are a number of
72:53
people asking lately what is the school
72:55
district gonna be post kovat there's
72:59
been so many discussions about
73:00
facilities and which are in play which
73:03
aren't which should be sold I think that
73:05
timing is also bad but I will support
73:08
you know if you guys all are supporting
73:10
it I certainly don't want to be in no
73:12
vote to add to the weight on this on a
73:15
negative side but I'm you know I have to
73:17
say I'm very you know concerned I I
73:27
don't mean to belabor the pool issue but
73:30
it I think it's a valid argument to say
73:35
if we don't do this
73:38
bond now we really won't have an
73:42
aquatics program not just not have water
73:44
fill open audits program five years we
73:48
won't have money to spend on the pool
73:52
repairs
73:52
you know actually real pool repairs not
73:56
just the patchwork that we've already
73:58
allocated and in five years I really
74:01
don't see the pool being viable for any
74:06
any sports program from what I'm hearing
74:12
from
74:14
No so I feel like not going forward on
74:21
this we're essentially saying we're not
74:24
gonna go we're not supporting a modest
74:26
program here and what would make a
74:30
motion or other is there another
74:32
district in the county that doesn't have
74:35
a high school pool more park where Park
74:39
is constantly working on they have a
74:43
committee and they're working to get a
74:45
pool and they partner with the Jim and
74:47
Jim just changed owners and I think that
74:50
more Park has a similar issue with the
74:55
ability to to run their aquatics program
74:58
and a very fired up community to try and
75:01
make that happen and I wonder how many
75:04
families we would lose from the district
75:06
by not having an aquatics program I
75:09
wonder though I mean I know David and
75:12
Allen you know we don't know exactly how
75:14
long these fixes are but if we could do
75:16
a bond in 2022 and start right away on
75:22
the pool it's not necessarily a vote
75:26
today not to have a pool yeah I think
75:32
the the pool the planning for the pool
75:34
how long have we been trying to get the
75:36
the plan Allen right now the $35,000
75:41
that it costs to have the plan for the
75:44
pool that's been in progress for months
75:48
yeah two and a half months probably and
75:50
we've at least but we've been talking
75:54
about you know what to do to the pool
75:56
and how to fix the pool and how to what
75:58
sort of band-aids to put on the pool
76:00
since I came here a year and a half ago
76:01
I
76:07
make a motion to move forward at 39
76:10
million where did that number come from
76:18
I don't want it no vote because of the
76:23
price and I just work for our community
76:28
I I like I said I kind of breaking up
76:35
saying I think you froze and it's
76:37
probably right about everything
76:39
can you hear me now yeah can you repeat
76:42
that just I I believe John completely
76:48
but I always read the headline and that
76:51
69 sounds like a lot to me for Ojai
76:54
Valley I don't want anybody else to
76:57
think well I I want to absolutely
77:00
maximize our chance of getting a yes can
77:06
you figure out what that tax rate would
77:08
be sure and I think that would keep us
77:12
under I'm under $100 on the tax right
77:18
right if we were at 39 million well what
77:24
do you mean under hundred you're gonna
77:25
be under a hundred with a $39 tax rate
77:29
with misunderstanding no you're right
77:33
see I told you you were right
77:35
I just that's how I feel that famous as
77:41
I wonder and I have I don't know how to
77:43
get this answer but um if we go out and
77:48
say we'll be able to use that to general
77:51
funds but we don't have actually enough
77:54
to do the projects that we need to do in
77:58
order to offset general funds so we
78:01
haven't kept that promise I don't know
78:03
where that break point is of how much is
78:06
enough to well we've spent five years
78:10
spending thirty five million so if we
78:15
need to ask for more money in another
78:18
five or six years I think that's okay
78:21
but I think it's gonna take us time to
78:23
spend money anyway I would vote for a
78:30
higher number I'm but I'm just that
78:34
would be a motion that I would put out
78:37
what's how would you feel about forty
78:39
five if there's consensus I'll go with
78:44
it
78:45
vote for me something under fifty feels
78:49
better but I don't know yeah I don't
78:53
know I'm I'm thoroughly confused by now
78:57
I I'm curious if if anybody that you
79:03
guys have talked to was negative because
79:07
of the amount of the bond or if it was
79:10
the bond it's in general no just my gut
79:14
feeling and the amount that we've asked
79:17
for in the past I think we did a lot of
79:19
research last time on the amount I Hank
79:23
went out and did a lot of meetings
79:24
mm-hmm he talked about a hundred million
79:28
option 70 million option 35 million
79:32
option there was a lot of effort that
79:35
went into that and the decision came
79:37
back what to do 35 yeah so I don't think
79:41
circumstances have changed that much you
79:45
know I think that there is some benefit
79:47
to sort of doing it incrementally as we
79:50
you know demonstrate they were able to
79:52
to do stuff right I mean I still
79:55
remember the skepticism that was around
79:57
measure J because of other stuff and you
79:59
know you people you people you people
80:01
and we people have now demonstrated that
80:04
not only do we know how to do it right
80:06
we've saved money in the process right
80:08
and so you know we're very responsible
80:10
and if we can't get it all in in in one
80:15
bite maybe we get a large portion of it
80:18
in a bite and again keep demonstrating
80:20
that we're responsible enough to to do
80:23
that but I think my concern still goes
80:26
back to whatever that number is it's
80:28
gonna need meaningful general fund
80:31
relief or or we'll sort of defeated the
80:34
purpose
80:36
well I think either 39 or 45 gives us
80:41
enough money for solar pool and
80:45
significant improvements in our campuses
80:50
so I know it doesn't fix all of our
80:53
problems on all of our campuses but I
80:56
think it makes a big enough difference
80:59
that people will see it and notice it
81:02
and feel that they did something good if
81:05
we could combine that with a deferred
81:07
hit on the taxpayer which i think is is
81:12
really important to overcome the why now
81:15
concerns I'd be comfortable with 45 I
81:19
mean you know really this 70 is is the
81:22
other piece of the original work list
81:25
right I mean lest we forget it was a
81:27
hundred million dollar work list but we
81:32
went at it at 30 plus and we got it and
81:34
we've demonstrated that we know what
81:35
we're doing and in fact in some ways you
81:38
guys have been superbly creative in
81:40
getting a stuff done and saving money
81:43
and if we keep demonstrating that maybe
81:46
a third bond won't be impossible to get
81:48
the rest of what we're trimming off of
81:50
here and balfour beatty way overpriced
81:52
on a lot of million so my last question
81:56
about that in relation to that Michael
81:58
is this doesn't preclude it doesn't say
82:04
we're talking about specifically
82:06
spending this amount on this campus
82:08
right because I know there was
82:10
discussion people were concerned that we
82:12
weren't spending money at summit because
82:14
of the closure up there until now now
82:17
we're spending money on that roof and
82:19
there are people who are calling for us
82:22
to close some campuses yeah you know we
82:27
haven't started talking about but this
82:30
doesn't say we're spending it on on
82:32
specific places correct yeah as a list
82:35
of the schools if you look at page or
82:40
two Penix sorry Appendix A it has a list
82:46
of the schools
82:48
of them but it does not have specific
82:50
school projects so we can all right
82:54
organize it yeah it also said it's there
82:56
that we may not spend the money on
82:59
everything on the list right yeah the
83:05
thing with the resolution is that it
83:06
precludes you from spending money on
83:08
things that are not on it but it does
83:11
not obligate you to spend money on all
83:14
projects obviously there's contingencies
83:16
things come up priorities change
83:19
budgets go too high so you're never
83:23
forced to do everything on the list but
83:24
if it's not on my lesson cannot do it
83:26
and if we're scaling back from 79 to 45
83:32
then we can't spend as much money as we
83:35
couldn't otherwise talking point against
83:44
but against the measure if we have
83:49
discussions about closing schools at the
83:51
same time we're asking for the bond I
83:52
would imagine there would be
83:55
neighborhoods of people who fear their
83:58
school closing and vote against the
84:02
district I thought I agree I'm not I
84:05
mean I don't know if I'm allowed to say
84:06
this I'm an individual board member but
84:08
I am not in favor of closing a school I
84:10
am just hearing people asking us to talk
84:12
about it so I just hadn't thought about
84:15
the consequences of that aren't you know
84:17
how the perception of that I guess right
84:21
between that and sell chaparral right
84:23
that's the other thing that people care
84:24
starting to say is you know sell the
84:27
downtown property so I'm also not ready
84:30
to consider I could support I could
84:37
support the forty five if if it's if if
84:40
we have the deferred tax strategy I
84:44
think it I think there's something to be
84:47
said whether it's rational or not it's
84:49
an emotional feeling there right now
84:51
that it's a this is a scary time to make
84:53
big commitments for people that's kind
84:58
of where I would be I think that
84:59
deferral of the tax in
85:01
act could could maybe make a huge
85:04
difference I agree wholeheartedly that
85:08
it's a very scary time I my sense is
85:12
that the nuances like the deferral are
85:16
going to be lost on most people and I
85:18
think a lot of people really encounter
85:20
these measures when they're in the
85:23
ballot box you know I don't I don't know
85:24
that a lot of people have the bandwidth
85:26
or the attention that they that we would
85:29
like them to have so the deferral
85:34
language into the language in the I mean
85:54
I mean you could put anything in there
85:56
right like I said before but what you
85:58
put in there is like legally binding hey
86:03
John granted I don't see a scenario
86:05
where you wouldn't be able to defer for
86:08
four years but John didn't you say that
86:13
based on your experience if we were
86:15
going to defer that you would just
86:16
recommend we wait till 2022 if you were
86:19
going to pass a bond in November and not
86:23
sell bonds at all until 2022 then yeah I
86:27
would say just wait guys but if you
86:29
wanted to take advantage of low
86:31
construction costs and help the general
86:34
fund by getting these projects done now
86:36
and bail out this I mean if the swimming
86:39
pool is an intriguing one because it was
86:41
truly like you lose your swimming
86:42
program you're almost forced to do a
86:44
bomb hate to say it but if you're going
86:48
to access dollars from that bond
86:51
authorization now then then of course
86:55
you should go now and we could defer the
86:57
payments but if the intent of you guys
86:59
is to just not sell bonds and get on the
87:02
tax roll at all for two year but just
87:03
pass it now so we've got in our back
87:05
pocket then yeah I would definitely wait
87:07
but I don't I think the the thinking's
87:09
evolved or at least my sense is that the
87:12
goal would be to get dollars today
87:15
because of those benefits I also think
87:18
how we spend the last money that we have
87:21
on the previous bond is impacted by
87:24
whether we have additional revenues
87:26
coming what he's suggesting well there
87:32
are things like we don't feel like we
87:36
have money for the pool right now
87:37
because we have these other priorities
87:40
to spend money on but if we had the the
87:45
follow-up bond coming in then we could
87:48
maybe allocate some of the existing
87:50
money to getting that moving by knowing
87:55
that we'll have enough for everything
87:57
well not everything but knowing that
87:59
we'll have enough for you know
88:03
everything that we're contemplating
88:05
right over the next few years well I
88:09
don't know Alan could answer better to
88:11
that but I I just think it would give us
88:13
some breathing room and allow us to be
88:15
more creative about how we spend the
88:18
last measure J money yeah it absolutely
88:21
is true thing because we have plans for
88:24
the cafeteria Nordhoff that we'd like to
88:26
move forward we would change the plan
88:28
for for redoing that kitchen and and
88:30
completely and there are and the solar
88:33
you know moving the head and the solar
88:35
of putting all the elementary schools
88:37
back on the list and and some of those
88:39
kinds of things would be you know
88:41
something we could jump all over with
88:43
both feet but we do have some caution in
88:45
the wind looking at you know what's left
88:47
and what are we committed to and and
88:49
what's the most important things to
88:51
spend money on from two standpoints one
88:54
standpoint is you know how can we save
88:56
the district money and their operating
88:57
funds with the dollars that we spend
88:59
from the bond and also from you know
89:03
looking looking down there down the road
89:05
where do we want to spend the money you
89:08
know you know allocated to the school
89:12
sites that are going to be the you know
89:14
the most likely to need it long term I
89:19
just remember and it probably doesn't
89:21
apply here but I with the 97 bonds at
89:27
the end of that
89:28
it just seemed like this the school
89:32
district was spending money willy-nilly
89:34
because they just had to get rid of this
89:36
last bit of money and I know we're not
89:40
doing that but it really irritated me
89:43
especially considering that we opened it
89:46
back up and found all the unfinished
89:52
yeah
89:53
and so I just feel really strongly about
89:58
having a long term plan and I think that
90:02
if we if we don't ask for the bond now
90:09
it kind of well I'm not saying this
90:14
about you I'm just saying it about me
90:16
that it it makes me feel like I'm not
90:18
planning for the future and you know if
90:23
if the voters say no I'm willing to
90:26
accept that but I think it's my
90:29
responsibility to ask Alan ran up a good
90:34
point
90:35
around planning for the future so for
90:38
example then Nordhoff cafeteria is a
90:40
really good example our current plan is
90:44
to do some retrofit our experience so
90:47
far in retrofitting things is that it's
90:51
never cost what we think it will cost
90:53
because as soon as we open things up
90:55
they're in worse shape than we
90:58
anticipated
90:59
and even if we redo the kitchen at
91:02
Nordhoff it really should be like we
91:06
have done with Mattila ha where we knock
91:07
it down and start all over again right
91:09
that that's what needs to be done in
91:11
that project but we don't have the money
91:14
to do that so there definitely would be
91:17
some things that we would potentially
91:18
the pool moat many of them at Nordhoff
91:21
in fact where we would we would do
91:25
something that's better and more
91:26
long-term if we knew that we had money
91:29
coming in in the future than what our
91:31
current funds allow us to do I'm
91:37
actually gonna I struggle with this a
91:40
lot and I'm sure there's a
91:41
a lot of people that are listening or
91:43
will hear about it that will choose one
91:45
side or the other and and quotes what
91:48
we've been saying tonight but I have to
91:50
say without Kovan absolutely this this
91:55
is a project that there are a bond that
91:57
needs to be moved forward that needs to
91:59
go to the voters that the district needs
92:01
and I you know right now been reading a
92:04
lot about how we can't we need to stop
92:08
living in total fear you know we have to
92:12
we have to be cautious using my masks I
92:16
don't think bars are a great place to be
92:18
right but I think I think we are I'm not
92:25
going to totally decide on the future of
92:29
what the district needs based on my
92:31
fears of today or you know the next
92:34
eight months or 18 months to get a
92:38
vaccine so I'm gonna make a motion to
92:41
prove putting a bond out for a November
92:44
vote of 45 million and so you would
92:48
actually be approving I believe Jane
92:49
this resolution so the motion would be
92:53
to ship with the modification of the
92:57
amount in forty to forty five million
92:59
and if I could also suggest I have two
93:02
updates to the current resolution just
93:04
so when you're approving it it's correct
93:06
re reframing the language around the the
93:11
pool and then also there's just a typo
93:14
where there's a question mark at the end
93:15
of those 75 words that would go so
93:19
approving this bout or this resolution
93:22
with those with the numbers typos and
93:26
and rewording the Aquatics in which
93:30
there is no typo just for the record it
93:35
is a clunky question it is shall it be
93:39
adopted so you're actually asking the
93:42
voters yes or no it's so bad so you keep
93:50
crashing American otherwise we have
93:52
there you go all suck and by the way
93:56
just you think you'd ask earlier but
93:59
just to give you an idea of the tax rate
94:00
required on that would be about $27 so
94:05
we go from 39 down to 27 feels good if
94:09
you wanted to do the 45 million option
94:12
saved us John what's that say the voters
94:19
already motion at this point and I'm
94:30
wondering about Michael's desire for the
94:34
different text I think that comes out in
94:38
how we market it versus being included
94:40
in the I mean I mean I certainly are the
94:45
resolution I don't know not part of the
94:49
75 word but maybe some part somewhere
94:53
else it'd be nice if I mean even if it's
94:57
a statement of intentionality it'd be
94:58
nice to go on record saying this is what
95:00
we intend in a way that's not part of
95:03
the marketing you know what I mean
95:05
because that's gonna sound a little
95:06
self-serving well I would have to say
95:11
four years seems too long to me I can my
95:15
concern
95:16
I like the concept Michael but if what I
95:19
my concern is that if tax rates go or
95:25
not tax rates if interest rates go up in
95:28
the next four or five years it could
95:31
hurt the community could we have a
95:35
statement that says the intention is to
95:37
is to defer the tax impact from two to
95:43
five years and we could have a range
95:45
which would allow us to have a couple of
95:47
different tools either we don't sell or
95:48
we use a ban depending on what's best in
95:51
the current situation and we could just
95:53
have a maybe John appendix
95:58
or somewhere in there I'd be comfortable
96:04
with that I mean again it's like my
96:06
concern is that you know all of the
96:08
resistance that I'm hearing is not that
96:09
we don't need the money you know and not
96:11
that we don't need all of the fixing
96:13
it's that the taxpayers just are not
96:15
going to vote for something that's going
96:16
to hit their pocketbook right now and so
96:19
my feeling is if we can sort of ass wage
96:22
the right now fear and if it's by having
96:25
a range you know that says at least a
96:27
couple of years out I'm okay with that I
96:29
don't know that we have to be absolutely
96:32
precise and it's gonna take a couple
96:35
years almost well how about if we say
96:39
not before November 22 or something so
96:47
it could be 2 to 5 but it's not before
96:50
2022 that it won't impact their tax fell
96:53
prior to yeah I could work with that
97:01
John so it's talking out loud here again
97:05
you pass it now you're selling 21
97:08
normally go on at 21 22 tax rolls you're
97:11
saying hey we're gonna give you a
97:13
holiday at least for the 21 22 so that
97:17
in essence is almost two years of no
97:19
taxes right because there's the 2021
97:22
taxes that you won't be paying on
97:24
there's the 21 22 taxes that we won't be
97:27
paying on the earliest would be the 22
97:29
23 taxes I mean you could definitely put
97:35
that in there and then and then to some
97:37
of the other points to 23 that's
97:42
something that can just be part of the
97:44
marketing strategy as well so we can
97:45
work some language in there into the the
97:50
detailed project list because there's
97:52
all these kind of declarations etc and
97:54
then I I forget what it's called John
97:58
but if if we were to get a good deal on
98:03
rates I like in the next year what is it
98:11
you can take the funds and invest them
98:14
in slugs or whatever and so we're
98:18
essentially not no one's paying any yeah
98:22
cap I capitalized interest right yes so
98:26
you can sell the bonds in the March of
98:28
2021 generate enough proceeds to make
98:32
the payments that are normally do in
98:34
August 21 and February 22 so your next
98:41
payments that would be due and possibly
98:43
August 22 so then your next payments
98:47
would be February of 23 and August of 23
98:54
so there are strategies to do it so
98:57
there are strategies to do it and
98:59
usually I think you can get up to 18
99:01
months which would cover that period and
99:04
again give you that break so that the
99:07
soonest that we would levy attacks would
99:09
be in 20 22 23 so if I'm a boater I'm
99:13
saying you've given me a minimum of a
99:15
two year holiday and we could
99:17
communicate it you know in a way that it
99:21
would be minimum two years maximum of
99:24
five years because you know who knows
99:26
what November's gonna look like who
99:29
knows what October's gonna look like and
99:30
you know and who knows what the
99:33
beginning of 2020 one's gonna look like
99:35
you know you guys may say had rather
99:36
have five years of a freedom things have
99:39
really gotten bad good opportunity to
99:42
get school facilities built and improved
99:44
but boy this is tough but again I think
99:48
I'm a firm believer that the the
99:51
stimulus plan that local school bonds
99:53
bring far outweighs any cost of paying
99:57
you know a couple percentage point
99:59
increase on taxes but that's just that's
100:01
my two cents and it would be I think one
100:03
in 2003 yeah it would allow us to lock
100:09
in low interest rates and plan for the
100:11
future
100:13
correct that's my thought yeah because
100:16
even though we don't extra for that
100:19
expense rates are so low okay so no tax
100:25
great increase until at least 20 to 23
100:33
and I would propose we can put that in
100:35
the very first paragraph well second
100:40
paragraph under the full text of the
100:42
bond measure where says bond
100:43
authorization that we can say will be
100:47
authorized issuance of bonds up to 69 up
100:49
to 45 million well that's gonna be a
100:52
global change we're gonna have to make
100:53
here with a tax rate that does not begin
100:58
to be levied until at least 20 to 23
101:02
instead of at least can we say before
101:05
yes not be taxed or so do I need to
101:12
restate the motion or Shelley I think
101:19
that sounds good I think you've stated
101:21
it if you don't disagree with anything
101:23
we've talked about this and I would
101:26
second it all right it sounds like we
101:30
have a motion in a second is there any
101:32
further discussion
101:33
if not we did you have something to say
101:37
go ahead John I'm better if it's
101:40
appropriate for me to say something is
101:42
that okay yes okay I and this is maybe a
101:45
little bit geared towards to Kevin and
101:48
those that got a little bit of the
101:49
negative feedback I guess my question
101:52
would be whether or not folks like the
101:55
owner of the paper when explained this
101:59
proposal which is deferring you know the
102:04
payments while enjoying the benefits
102:08
that we so desperately need from general
102:10
fund to new facilities interest rates
102:12
cost is that something that you feel
102:16
that you might have supports because I
102:19
agree it's tough to explain this to the
102:21
everyday voter but if we explain it to
102:24
the right people their endorsement of
102:28
this program is going to sway the
102:30
everyday voter not a long-winded
102:32
explanation of how we're deferring taxes
102:35
because of capitalized interest
102:37
I don't know we're gonna know that
102:38
tonight yeah I mean I I can just say you
102:44
know I again I spoke to mr. daddy you
102:49
know at some length he obviously is a
102:51
person who has no trouble you know
102:53
speaking for himself I do believe the
102:56
paper will will will oppose the measure
103:00
and I'll just leave it at that I don't I
103:02
don't think that the particulars of this
103:04
of the you know the nuances that we've
103:07
carved out you know maybe maybe they
103:12
would have some impact I really just
103:13
don't know so we have a first in a
103:23
second and I assuming there's no further
103:28
discussion at this time so we'll take a
103:31
roll call vote all in favor aye Jane all
103:34
right thing all right Michael hi Kevin
103:40
yes and Shelley I that passes
103:44
unanimously
103:46
so we have a lot of work explaining this
103:49
ahead of us and I agree with you Kevin
103:53
that we need a champion for this
103:56
endeavor and I I hope we'll all start
103:59
talking to people too to get that moving
104:03
and then Shelley and Kevin just as know
104:06
given the tight timeline we'll need this
104:09
so John I assume we'll work on the
104:11
updated resolution tonight I said or
104:14
first thing in the morning I sent you
104:16
just a revised wording on the pool and
104:21
then I would need you to come by and
104:22
sign this probably first thing in the
104:25
morning so that we can drive it down to
104:26
the county tomorrow to meet the deadline
104:29
and let us know or let me know I'll make
104:36
uh well just come by Debbie and I'll be
104:41
here in the morning so all day and thank
104:45
you John we put you through the paces
104:47
today I appreciate it
104:50
now I appreciate it this
104:51
is not an easy thing I hope your voters
104:53
see the wisdom there is wisdom to it
104:56
it's going to be a tough sell though no
104:58
doubt about it
104:58
but we'll see if we're up to the
105:00
challenge we're gonna give it everything
105:01
we got thanks so much
105:04
all right I'll sign up thanks guys
105:07
all right so 3.2 is the approval of this
105:13
change order for the Nordhoff library
105:15
ceiling I'm glad Alan's here because I'm
105:22
guessing there are questions about this
105:24
you know I have some now I just say Adam
105:27
is on vacation he do occasionally let
105:30
him go on vacations and so he's that's
105:32
why he's not here tonight yeah I don't
105:36
know maybe I could give a little
105:38
preamble to this you know when when the
105:42
original plans for the library were made
105:46
there were all kinds of decisions that
105:48
were made about all kinds of things and
105:50
there was an austerity you know
105:53
circumstance there that people really
105:55
were trying to keep the cost of things
105:56
down and so they didn't they were there
106:00
were renditions done then I think you've
106:02
seen recently of what the ceiling could
106:04
look like if it was if it was as
106:06
pristine underneath the existing ceiling
106:08
as they hoped it might be which it
106:10
turned out not to be so when when the
106:14
original plans were submitted saying we
106:16
could do this with the ceiling it was
106:18
never going to look like that
106:20
so we discovered that when they at when
106:23
they demolished the the ceiling so
106:26
there's been a lot of discussion going
106:29
on about you know how to how to make the
106:33
ceiling look at least on par with all
106:36
the other work that's being done inside
106:38
the library to provide a newly renovated
106:40
library and so when we put I'm going to
106:45
just show the pictures of what it curl
106:47
just so that you can all see them while
106:50
you're talking and I'm kind of confused
106:53
as to why anyone ever thought it was
106:54
gonna look good under there is that this
106:58
is this is one section of the ceiling
107:02
you can see
107:04
there's multiple boards the boards
107:07
aren't level you can see there's like
107:09
this extra board here and then if you
107:13
look here you can see there are these
107:15
cross bars this gap here and then just
107:21
in terms of the overall shape yeah
107:26
that's just taking rustic to a whole new
107:28
level I do want to say something on that
107:33
cuz I know a little bit about that old
107:35
design process you know they had those
107:36
turrets where they were gathering input
107:39
and and that is a thing I was I'd
107:41
actually requested to talk to the
107:43
architect because I'd love to you know
107:46
for tights and at least to talk about it
107:49
because I believe it was you know it is
107:50
a thing I mean there are there are
107:52
buildings really nice buildings that
107:55
purposefully and as part of the design
107:57
have that those exposed elements maybe
108:01
there's a different view now among some
108:04
but my main understanding is that just
108:07
it just ended up not looking the way it
108:09
was expected to look when it was
108:11
uncovered with sistered boards and
108:13
things that were just not consistent or
108:16
you know subject to the the kind of
108:19
design that had originally been put into
108:22
place and we wanted we're open to this
108:25
design right we all like the look of
108:27
this design but as you can see this
108:29
design has kind of like one board not
108:32
multiple boards together no gaps no
108:36
crossbars there's just a lot of things
108:38
in this design that we don't have in
108:41
reality but the design itself is the
108:43
industrial design with these open
108:46
sprinkler pipes and the open HVAC is is
108:50
no buttons opposed to that right I
108:53
believe that's what they just did it the
108:54
tip itself a brewery so you're right
108:57
that is a very popular common thing to
109:01
do right now but I wonder if if there
109:08
was how you figure out what's up there
109:11
before you set that in the design if
109:13
there's ever a way to get that knowledge
109:16
ahead of time I don't know
109:17
I don't know but Kevin is right that
109:20
there is a thing to do sort of an
109:21
industrialized look and I places like
109:24
made West in Ventura and and that and
109:27
maybe Tobin hope I haven't been in there
109:28
but yeah that that's definitely a thing
109:30
it's just that this was as Michael I
109:33
think said takes rustic to a whole new
109:35
level and not only that there are little
109:37
jinger's and shavings and and splinters
109:40
and and thousands of staples and and all
109:43
kinds of things in those boards that
109:46
would make cleaning them up you know
109:48
really excessive so you know as I said
109:51
the the next thing I want to say was it
109:53
I did receive a lot of questions and
109:55
feedback from from Tiffany and questions
109:57
that have been posed about this and I
109:58
want to say this almost all those
110:00
questions have already been answered
110:01
they're great questions you know we've
110:03
already asked those questions in the
110:06
discussions the many discussions that we
110:08
had about what should be done to improve
110:11
the look of this so I'm happy to address
110:13
any of those I think I probably have
110:14
them all on the tip of my tongue Oh myoh
110:18
straight to my question so if we're not
110:20
doing what we were going to do is there
110:22
any savings is there anything we're not
110:25
spending like oh we were gonna paint it
110:27
and that was gonna cost $5,000 right and
110:30
that's been taken into account so this
110:31
106,000 is above and beyond that that's
110:35
that's correct and you of course you and
110:37
I walked that and looked at it so you've
110:39
got a first-hand my impression of what
110:41
it looks like but I just just putting
110:44
drywall on the on the roof on the
110:47
ceiling one of the options was to put
110:49
drywall on there and you would still
110:51
need to put some furring in not as much
110:54
but but you don't have the furring in
110:56
place to attach the drywall in or be
110:59
sixteen inches deferring for the tectum
111:01
is every 12 inches and the and that we
111:05
did to check with structural structural
111:07
said drywall was okay for the weight but
111:11
they we've also checked with them on the
111:13
wood structural on the wait for the
111:15
furring and the Hat the Hat channels
111:18
that are anticipated for the proposal
111:20
that you're looking at now so I wasn't
111:23
say also Jane we talked about the
111:26
drywall part of the problem with the
111:27
drywall is the fire sprinklers and so
111:30
we're
111:31
choir essentially an overhaul of the
111:33
fire sprinklers and potentially another
111:35
layer to go around so the drywall we
111:40
could do that I don't know that it's a
111:42
cost savings given what we would have to
111:44
do with the fire sprinklers to make that
111:46
work right thank you fire sprinklers
111:49
right now that are not doing the
111:52
difference in saying that if you enclose
111:55
that upper chamber so you've got an 18
111:57
inch gap between the ceiling and the
111:59
roof now you have to provide sprinklers
112:01
in that zone as well as opposed to one
112:04
layer of sprinklers for just you know
112:06
what we're proposing it creates a new
112:10
zone not make sense it does we don't
112:20
have sprinklers in the attics yep you
112:23
have a zone that's the 18 inch 18 inches
112:27
of the rafter and the between the
112:29
drywall and the stand the roof would be
112:32
an 8 this a teenage zone that you would
112:34
have to provide fire protection for
112:36
based on the 2016 building codes even if
112:40
it's the the right size thickness of
112:43
drywall yeah to do with thickness yeah
112:47
that was one of the and and we also well
112:52
so wait wait why is we are ok we would
112:56
need to go back with a CCD to to TSA to
113:00
do that as well and the fire and the
113:04
fire sprinkler thing would get revised
113:06
and it lowers the look of the ceiling
113:09
across the whole thing
113:11
you know making the room appear smaller
113:13
so that was one of the one of the goals
113:15
and what we ended up with in a proposal
113:17
was that Zone in the middle that is open
113:20
to the rafters it's you know painted a
113:23
black color or a dark grey that makes
113:26
everything sort of disappear that might
113:29
be ugly anyway
113:31
so what was there a picture of what this
113:33
new with this hundred and six thousand
113:36
dollars what it would look like yes you
113:38
should have seen the option for diagram
113:41
that it shows not only is it from as
113:45
exposed in the middle yeah so there's a
113:48
rendering it's not it's hard to this
113:52
right can you see this option but how
113:56
does that is still exposing the middle
113:58
yes correct and though isn't there
114:01
sprinkler system that has to go you know
114:05
that other area that you're covering up
114:07
that the tectum doesn't require because
114:10
it's kind of porous it doesn't require
114:13
that we put sprinklers above so your
114:15
furring out for the tectum just in the
114:17
red areas your furring out for the
114:20
tectum in the center where it's kind of
114:22
gray and then you're putting in a hat
114:24
channel in all those pink areas and we
114:28
would have drywall in the areas that are
114:30
sort of a bluish color and so we're okay
114:36
in those zones cost $40,000 to per hour
114:41
just that gray zone in the middle i felt
114:44
basically the the proposal that you're
114:46
looking at is a combination of four
114:48
different aspects of change order the
114:52
most the least expensive is a new
114:54
skylight which is eight hundred fifty
114:56
bucks
114:57
the the furring and the fire burning in
115:02
the fire protection and then there's
115:05
also some additional time involved both
115:08
from the standpoint of the additional
115:10
time to do this work as well as some
115:12
time that was lost on see cds waiting on
115:16
DSA for answers so all of that rolled in
115:19
together is what gets you to the hundred
115:21
and six thousand and with the other
115:24
thing that this does allow us to do from
115:25
an aesthetic standpoint is to hide a lot
115:28
of the conduits water pipe sprinkler
115:30
pipes things like that that will be
115:33
underneath the hat channel between
115:35
between the rafters and the tectum
115:37
that'll be separated by this inch and a
115:40
half hat channel that's in those pink
115:42
areas
115:47
you know what's scary Allen is thanks to
115:50
you I spent a little time understanding
115:53
what hat channels and furring and
115:55
everything and tectum I actually know
115:57
what you're talking about there yeah
116:00
it's it does get kind of technical with
116:02
you thanks for that if you Tiffany can
116:08
you roll your screen down just a little
116:09
bit to see the pictures there you go
116:12
what is the cost of a sprinkler system
116:16
Allen just like 21,000 I think mm-hmm
116:21
and the furring would have been 44
116:25
somewhere around 41 ish for almost 42
116:28
and so I still haven't figured out how
116:31
we got to 106 where did that other
116:33
40,000 sprinklers 40,000 on furring and
116:40
then the fern
116:43
that's the fern that would have been
116:45
done right it's not this I guess to
116:49
explain it this way if we did if we did
116:52
nothing if we walked away from this and
116:54
said nope we're just going to stick with
116:55
the original plan we still need to
116:57
$42,000 inferring and we still need to
117:00
$21,000 in sprint fire sprinklers
117:02
because of design issues that were not
117:05
you know that we're either discovered or
117:07
or you know not in place to begin with
117:10
so so we're gonna so that's you know and
117:14
why is that our problem and not the okay
117:18
I could the the problem for the furring
117:25
is it means and methods discussion and
117:28
so you'd have this finger pointing
117:29
between the designer and the Builder
117:31
saying well you should have done it this
117:33
way and then the you know the designer
117:35
saying you should have done it this way
117:36
and and then the contractor saying I
117:39
couldn't do it that way because you
117:40
required me to do these things on the
117:42
roof first so you'd end up with a real
117:45
finger-pointing contest in that battle
117:47
the fire sprinklers
117:51
a little bit of a combination of because
117:55
of this redesign we were able to hide
117:56
the sprinklers instead of having them
117:58
exposed and a design thing that required
118:02
some changes to about eleven thousand
118:04
dollars of the changes in sprinklers
118:05
anyway just because the design we had
118:07
didn't work
118:12
I'm sorry to keep harping on it but I
118:15
I'm so this 106 for a ceiling is just
118:19
beyond what I can comprehend so if we
118:22
leave the ceiling like it is and we add
118:26
an additional layer of sprinklers and
118:29
drywall that sounds like $65,000 with
118:33
painting you're gonna do about 60,000
118:38
63,000 to finish the project
118:42
you know without doing anything new to
118:45
the drywall so it would likely Jane be
118:50
the same as this if not more because we
118:53
would still have to do the addition so
118:57
essentially we would be asking you right
118:59
now to do $60,000 just to fix the design
119:02
errors so the question is do you want
119:05
$40,000 to cover up the beams
119:12
essentially in a way that works or we
119:15
could go back to the drawing board and
119:16
say how much would it be to add drywall
119:20
and the sprinkler systems that are
119:22
required they're also one of the drivers
119:25
of this for for Adam and I'm sorry Alan
119:28
before you go on it seems to me that if
119:30
you adding drywall you don't need the
119:32
furring you don't need the 41000 you do
119:36
because you only have rafters in one
119:38
direction to attach the drywall to and
119:40
you need to have a support for the
119:42
drywall every 16 inches to screw into so
119:46
on both directions right not just one
119:51
so but one of the drivers for this was
119:54
that we realized that to do the fern out
119:57
in order to detach the tectum to the
119:59
ceiling as originally planned at the
120:01
roof point we were going to spend forty
120:03
one thousand almost forty two thousand
120:05
dollars and get no benefit aesthetically
120:09
from it at all and so we started looking
120:12
at these other options and and then the
120:14
fire sprinkler thing came in as part of
120:17
the change orders that are sort of
120:18
typical to a job like this and so then
120:21
we realized okay maybe we should bite
120:25
the bullet and spend a little bit more
120:27
but get something that is aesthetically
120:29
pleasing and matches everything else
120:30
we're doing in the kit in the library to
120:32
make it look beautiful and new is the
120:35
total of libraries 2.7 million dollar
120:38
project right right
120:40
somewhere around there so this is
120:42
essentially $40,000 - and maybe yeah
120:49
maybe to Jane's question when we bid
120:52
this the first time in Mott in May of
120:55
2019 take the quad out of the equation
120:59
and it came back six hundred and
121:01
thirty-one thousand dollars more than
121:03
the bid that we got in October because
121:05
we did some value engineering - we had
121:07
the foundations and fencing at the
121:09
roofline and some other things you
121:12
actually mean less so it was six hundred
121:14
and thirty thousand dollars less more so
121:17
we've already saved six hundred thousand
121:19
dollars by bidding in a second time
121:21
correct yeah thank you for helping me
121:23
restate that it sounds like you've
121:31
looked at this every angle to try and
121:35
figure out a solution here I believe I
121:38
have and a lot of time working with the
121:41
architect on what's possible this is the
121:48
cost-effective option that doesn't leave
121:50
those beams looking you know looking
121:56
like this but
121:59
and as Alan was saying you can I don't
122:01
know if I can make you see it see how
122:04
like they're just they're not in good
122:08
shape you know one of the thing that I
122:11
think was a driver was that we went
122:13
through the walkthrough on the opening
122:15
of the locker rooms at Mattila and
122:18
everybody was oohing and ahhing until
122:20
they looked up and saw the skylights
122:23
yes I have to confess I was certainly
122:26
prominent among them which we ended up
122:28
redoing right yes because they I'm the
122:31
original Nate
122:32
they kind of ruined the look of all the
122:35
beauty that we had done because we
122:37
hadn't finished the top right and I
122:45
would just say this is not designing for
122:46
joy this is just designing so the
122:49
project looks finished there's nothing
122:50
joyful about the ceiling it's not
122:52
beautiful or extravagant it's just not
122:56
completely unfinished as if we open up
122:59
the rafters and said okay the library is
123:02
done I have to say I think I think it
123:07
still retains some of the you know
123:09
interesting elements and I think it's
123:10
nice that we have that area that it's
123:14
going to be a high ceiling because I
123:16
think you know those kinds of
123:17
environments can feel a little
123:18
oppressive if it's just a singular low
123:21
ceiling so you know I'm pleased with the
123:24
design
123:31
are there other questions where I just
123:35
want to agree I I don't think we're
123:38
finishing up with a bad design or a bad
123:42
choice I think it's gonna look nice and
123:47
you know I like my only other comment on
123:53
this I don't think it was realistic to
123:56
expect what was expected so I think this
124:00
is the most realistic possibility you
124:05
know we could have hoped for anyway so I
124:09
would agree I think we've all known that
124:11
as these buildings open up we found
124:13
surprises multiple times so there's no
124:17
reason why the you know library should
124:20
have been an exception but yeah I like I
124:24
mean I like the alternative I think it's
124:25
nice I think it's it works and I think I
124:30
think we should take that into the
124:32
future with our future jobs as we know
124:35
every single wall or ceiling that we've
124:37
opened up more in there and we need to
124:40
to understand that that's the reality
124:43
here I mean even in summit with the roof
124:47
we there was an allowance for the
124:51
consideration that when we opened it up
124:52
it would be bad and it was still worse
124:54
than our allowance right we planned for
124:57
it to be bad and it's worse than bad so
125:03
is there a motion to approve this change
125:06
order I'll move to approve it I'll
125:10
second all in favor say aye Michael hi
125:15
Jane
125:17
all right oh sorry I said Jane Jane I
125:21
know that's all right Jane summary hi
125:25
Kevin all right and Shelley I that
125:30
passes unanimously and thank you for
125:32
your work on that
125:33
no thank you all very much we're all
125:36
looking forward to the finished project
125:38
there will be great to have as we start
125:42
the new school year something to look
125:44
forward to this school year with
125:46
everything else being what it is yeah
125:49
this definitely will help us kickstart a
125:51
few things a good place for us all to
125:54
get together yes so that brings us to
126:03
4.1 future agenda items there are any if
126:09
not then we will adjourn for the evening
126:13
all right this meeting is adjourned
126:15
thank you all for offering up another
126:18
Monday night thank you
126:20
night everybody good night
 
 

Not a subscriber?  choose your subscription plan.