The San Marino School Board on Tuesday night directed Superintendent Dr. Alex Cherniss to conduct a tracking poll, consider putting together a Facilities Advisory Committee, and scheduling another study session this year to address the district’s facilities’ needs. Thus, essentially eliminating the project from appearing on the June 5 ballot, as had been discussed.
The board had planned on hearing the second reading of the resolution on Tuesday before voting to place the project before voters living in San Marino and the San Marino Unified School District. But the item was pulled from Tuesday’s agenda last Friday evening before the deadline for 72-hour prior notice.
A packed house awaited the board on Tuesday even though a vote to put the matter on the June ballot was already off the table. Of the nine residents who spoke during the public comment section of the meeting, seven supported the project.
“I am so proud that you are taking the positive direction of maintaining and updating our schools,” said Liz Kneier, whose two daughters went through San Marino schools. “Many of us moved here for the schools and we need to keep up with the other districts who are updating their facilities.”
“I am an unequivocal supporter of this bond,” said Peter Koh of Lombardy Place. “I know the idea of paying a mortgage and taxes is tough, but we have to have the courage to do so.”
Koh said that he and his wife were “inspired” when they came to San Marino by the many families who supported the schools.
“To walk away from that legacy goes against the core values of this community,” Koh concluded, voicing his support for Cherniss.
Richard Patlan of Lorain Road called San Marino’s schools “great” and said his family “wholeheartedly support what this board is trying to do in modernizing these facilities.”
Stephanie Duncan of Chaucer Road said she was “disappointed” at the attitude of some of the residents who spoke at the town hall meeting.
“I can’t believe that happened in San Marino,” Duncan said. “I support you all for the great job you have done.”
William Gardner of Wellesley Road brandished a program from San Marino High School’s production of “Fiddler On the Roof” and called the show “over the top.”
“This is what San Marino can do with the existing facilities,” said Gardner. “They do this because of the teachers, the students and the parents. Why is it necessary to spend all that money on facilities that are totally adequate?”
Gardner, like other critics of the project, singled out the $62 million price tag for a proposed new performing arts center at San Marino High School.
A compromise could be found in a tax extension bond, which could be held in March 2020, similar to what was recently passed in La Cañada. A tax extension bond allows a community to acquire extra bond dollars without immediately increasing the tax. This extension is only available within five years of the conclusion of an existing bond, meaning that voters could pass an extension in March, 2020 that would extend for approximately 30 years. This would preclude San Marino voters from doubling their bond debt until the current bonds, which cost taxpayers an average of $600 per year, come off the books in 2025.
“Essentially, a tax extension bond would allow the residents to pay what they’re currently paying, and no more. Rather than these current payments expiring in 2025, they would extend roughly an additional 30 years. A tax extension bond is what La Cañada just passed and what Beverly Hills passed some years back,” stated Cherniss.
Caution seemed to be the watchword when it was time for the board to discuss the project, which was listed on the agenda as a discussion item.
“If we cannot maintain our ability to remain a pre-eminent school district, there will be a consequential effect on everyone, not just our students, who are our number one priority, but also this community in terms of property values,” said Board Member Nam Jack. “It appears, however, that we, as a board, and I, as an individual board member, have not done a very good job communicating these assessments, these needs, and the potential serious consequences. We also have not done a good enough job communicating what needs are absolutely essential and what needs may not be. It is therefore my opinion that more time is required to better communicate to the community. For this reason, I believe that we should not place a bond measure on the ballot for June of 2018.”
Jack also suggested polling the community to determine the level of support for the modernization project.
Board Member Lisa Link voiced a similar opinion.
“Although I think that our students should not have to wait for improved facilities and our community should not have to wait to vote, I think that this important issue deserves some more time to consider the board members’ questions, as well as to continue to educate our community about our schools’ facilities needs,” Link said. “Going forward, I would like to request that we have a study session to discuss our next steps, including considering an advisory committee consisting of community members who have relevant expertise, such as in construction management and finance.”
Board Member Chris Norgaard suggested the district form a Facilities Advisory Committee, similar to a since-abandoned Athletics Advisory Committee, which once suggested improvements to the district’s sports programs. ‘We need the broader consensus, we need the collegiality,” Norgaard said. “It’s not a win if we get 57% and jam it down the throats of the community.”
Board Member Joseph Chang warned that families will choose homes in the La Cañada and South Pasadena school districts, each of which recently passed bonds and have modernized facilities.
NEXT STEPS FOR THE DISTRICT
With the prospect of a June 5 bond election off the table, Superintendent Dr. Alex Cherniss said district staff is “putting together some costs for a few different things.”
Cherniss has been asked to compile a list of essential maintenance needs and a timeline of when the improvements need to happen.
Since discussion began on the district’s proposed $148 million facilities modernization project, Cherniss and the school board have claimed that the district has $20 million of essential maintenance projects, including aging pipes and failing or insufficient electrical and heating and air conditioning systems. The price tag for these items was to be included in the bond.
Cherniss will also explore the logistics of a study session the board requested at Tuesday night’s meeting to conduct further research into the construction project. He will also look into forming a Facilities Advisory Committee, as was suggested at the meeting.
“We are in the information-gathering period for the next several months,” Cherniss said on Wednesday afternoon.
