I attended the very informative Saugus Union School District meeting on July 30 and the followup meeting two days later. The reason I objected to this for now was the specific language was not made available until about a week before the board meeting and there is very little specificity or details.
As I stated at the meeting on Aug. 1, one thing that stood out was the rush to get this on the Nov. 5 ballot. With tremendous community concerns, the governing board should have delayed this. Based on a recent district survey only 56% indicated support and with the new rules for general obligation bonds you only need 55% to pass a new tax.
The district has indicated that the construction building standards change every three years and one of the motivations for doing this now is the next update is in 2025. Based on the timeline shared it will take over a year or two, maybe more with state approval, architectural planning permits, etc., before the project will start so we would be subject to the new standards anyway.
There was a presentation made of potential partial matching funds from the state if a $10 billion statewide bond passes. If it does not pass no matching funds. My question would be if there is a $10 billion statewide bond would SUSD and the other Santa Clarita Valley districts be entitled to a proportionate amount of these funds, regardless of if our new bond/tax didn’t pass. No one on the board or district could or would answer this question in the public meeting.
Based on the presentation, there was absolutely no estimate of costs because there are too many unknown variables. Understood, but why can’t there be a rough estimate based on today’s costs and factor in estimates for inflation?
There was also a discussion about putting this on the ballot this year and, pass or fail, it shows the district tried, and that effort could be used as a potential defense for liability if something really really bad happens. I think they call that prevent defense.
The last three bonds had terms of 25, 20 and 28 years. This one is 34 years with an option to extend it to just over 40 years — see page B-6 of the ballot text. The current students will end up paying for this bond with the total repayment around $415 million (last page of ballot text).
In the spirit of transparency and communication and as a regular practice, I would ask the district to please have a link on the homepage that would take you directly to minutes and that the recorded meetings be kept in a permanent archive and not be removed after 30 days.
Lastly, I am not opposed to using bond financing to ensure the safety of our schools. Yes, many are 50-plus years old and need repairs and upgrades. But to shove this through with what many would say is a disingenuous ballot statement, with very little time for the public to review, and zero estimates of costs, is, in my opinion, a dereliction of the duty of the administration and the governing board that voted 4-0 to pass with one member absent
Mark White
Valencia
