[Editor’s Note: Here is School Board member Karlo Silbiger’s pivotal 1854-word speech he read at last evening’s meeting. It triggered a domino effect in halting, or at least substantially delaying, a bond measure campaign intended to ultimately generate $75 million and repair School District facilities.]
[img]1789|right|Karlo Silbiger||no_popup[/img]Thanks to all of the community members who joined us this evening, in the middle of the summer, to share your ideas about our need to improve our facilities. I think it is fair to say that all five Board members strongly support capital improvements being made to our facilities.
I attend many events at Robert Frost (Auditorium) each year. I know how much need there is in that facility. I go to open houses, back-to-school nights and concerts at all of our schools. I know that there are safety issues, cleanliness issues and blight issues.
As someone who works in a school facility that was built just four years ago, I know first-hand the incredible value of a beautiful facility in providing a high quality education and in giving our students pride in their school. Our facilities need help, of that there is no question.
However, that is not the issue before the Board today. The question is not whether we need to collect and spend money on a capital campaign.
• The question, instead, is whether we have collected the requisite information to date that would allow us to make an informed decision for our community.
• The question is whether we have worked in a timely manner so that no mistakes are made.
• The question is whether we have involved our stakeholders in this process so that we can ensure that all voices have been heard and considered.
These questions have been circling around in my head for the past two weeks as I have met with stakeholders, talked to experts and done some research. I’m going to cut to the chase although I have much more to say. I do not believe that we are ready to move forward with a bond to be placed on this November’s ballot.
There are four issues that concern me, and I’d like to address each.
• First, I have felt since our first discussion nearly a month ago, that this process has felt rushed. We have only had one public meeting/workshop to discuss what a bond is and why we are considering one and to answer community questions. That meeting felt rushed because it was scheduled for less than a two-hour period. The Board has not had any time to speak with each other about our thoughts on a bond initiative until tonight, just over a month before a bond initiative will have to be finalized and sent to the County. No educational information has been created to distribute to the community regarding this issue and why it is important. And it’s July 1.
Feeling that our timetable has seemed rushed, I spent an hour or two today researching what happened with Measure T, our community’s last attempt at a bond initiative. That process began on Aug. 10, 1995, a full 15 months prior to the election date, when the superintendent first mentioned at a Board meeting that staff was beginning work to put a bond measure on the ballot. On Nov. 21, 1995, nearly a year before the election, a survey firm was selected. On Dec. 5, 1995, 11 months before the election, the superintendent sent a draft of poll questions to the Board, asking their suggested changes and additions in anticipation of a Dec. 11, 1995, survey, conducted 11 months before the election. A bond advisor and bond counsel were selected that same month, nearly 11 months before the election. Survey results were brought to the board on Jan. 9, 1996, 10 months before the election, recommending a $40 million bond to be placed on the ballot in November. As a point of comparison, that is the step that we have agendized tonight, a full six months later than was the case the last time around. Strategic Planning Task Force 8, working on facilities, began immediately to prepare a fact sheet and Q-and-A document related to current facility conditions, which was made available to the public on April 9, 1996, seven months before the election. And a bond resolution was created and adopted on June 18, 1996, five months before the election.
There is no question in my mind that our predecessors 17 years ago did a much better job than us in planning ahead so that issues could be addressed, the public could be involved, and the end result represented the best work of all parties and the best results for the community. What’s more, the Board was involved at every step, including a review of the survey questions before they were distributed, something that did not happen this time and which makes me question some of the information presented tonight.
• Second, prior to putting a bond measure on the ballot, it is essential to have a lot of meaningful stakeholder input on the quality of our facilities and on the short- and long-term planning for their renovation. This is complicated work. I am far from an expert, but to this date this Board has had no conversations about the work that we hope to use this money to fix, no conversations on prioritization, and only one opportunity to receive stakeholder feedback, the day before graduation, and only by invitation. As a comparison, the Board in 1994, over two years before the bond went to the voters, assembled Strategic Planning Task Force 8 on Facilities, as part of a massive, District-wide strategic planning process. Stakeholder groups were represented, and they worked for over two years with the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services to evaluate the condition of our school facilities, to prioritize their needs, to investigate their costs, and to prepare for the bond. Because of that process, the Board had all of the documentation that they needed to make good fiduciary decisions and to distribute complete information on documentation to the voters. We have not done that. We do have a needs assessment, hundreds of pages long, that serves as a valuable first step. But there are many more steps and much work to do before a decision can be made.
Third, at our meeting a week ago, this Board passed a budget that looks like it might be balanced (or close to it) for the first time in many years. All of us were proud and all of us thanked Mr. (Mike) Reynolds (Assistant Superintendent, Business) and his staff for their work. We all know that a big part of the reason why our budget is balanced is that our community has very graciously and selflessly agreed to pay $96 per parcel per year to our General Fund, helping us to raise about $1.2 million per year. That money has been invaluable. I have said since the beginning that I would not be willing to put a bond on the ballot unless I had irrefutable proof that it would not negatively impact our chances of passing a continuation of the parcel tax next year, before its five-year termination. I know that voters in our community are very supportive of our schools, but I also know that times are still tough financially and that there may be a limit to their incredible generosity. They are paying, on average, about $200 per parcel per year for the next 20 years on the last bond that we passed in 1996. They are also paying $96 per parcel for Measure EE. And depending on the dollar value of the bond that we would choose now, we could be asking them to pay another $200 per parcel or more. That is a lot of money, and I do not feel comfortable even considering this until we know that our polled voters would continue to back Measure EE’s renewal next year because of this item. That, for me, is required information so that we can protect our arts program, athletic program, nurses, classroom aides, advanced placement program and so much more. That is non-negotiable.
• Finally, I have a lot of built-up concern about the fiscal responsibility of a bond. I know that most in the audience are well-versed in this terminology, but for any who might have questions, here is the condensed version.
When the voters of Culver City passed a bond in 1996 for $40 million, our advisor bought $40 million of bonds against our community’s credit that we could use for our school renovations, but that would need to be paid back, with interest over the following decades. In the end, for our $40 million of capital, we will have paid those investors back over $90 million, which means that Culver City’s homeowners have generously contributed $40 million for school construction and another over $50 million to make some very wealthy investors even wealthier. As a comparison, our parcel tax, passed in 2009, collected $1.2 million per year and EVERY SINGLE CENT went to our District so that we could provide high quality instructional programs for our students. There is a big difference between the two that deserves some serious conversation. What’s more, parcel taxes allow districts to exempt seniors, making it easier politically for them to be passed and also allowing some of our neediest residents to be exempt from payments that they may not be able to afford. Bonds, to my knowledge, offer no such exemption, meaning that seniors would have to pay the entirety of the bond cost along with all other residents. In the end, a bond may still be the best option for CCUSD, but I’d like to offer an alternative that at least deserves discussion. If we ended up taking the $200 per parcel that we pay on average for Measure T and ask Culver City residents to increase our parcel tax, Measure EE, by that same amount, we could raise almost $2.5 million per year that could be used for our facilities. That $50 million over 20 years could do a lot of good. We might even be able to borrow some money from our reserves to begin some of our projects early, knowing that the money will be returned to our reserves in due time. Again, I don’t know if this is the right answer, but given the amount of interest that a bond would cost our taxpayers for nearly three decades, it is well worth at least a conversation.
With that all being said, I’d like to ask my colleagues to join me in directing staff to do the following two actions by September.
• First, they should prepare for the Board an agenda item creating a Facilities Master Plan Task Force, to involve stakeholders in meaningful conversations about the needs of our facilities and to prepare short- and long-term prioritization of those needs.
• Second, staff should prepare for a series of Board workshops to discuss the pros and cons of a bond vs. a parcel tax and to help us better understand which route works best for us. I know that our facilities need improvement and I know that working together we can address those issues in a systematic and transparent way that will represent a responsible spending of our Culver City taxpayers’ money.
Mr. Silbiger may be contacted at ksilbiger@juno.com
