The Burlingame School District may place a bond measure on a future ballot, asking voters for their support in updating its facilities to support project based-learning, STEM instruction and inclusive practices.
“State funding for school facilities is limited and highly competitive, leaving local communities responsible for maintaining and improving their neighborhood schools,” a staff report said. “Without a new source of funding, BSD risks falling behind in providing the high-quality learning environments our students deserve.”
A preliminary assessment of facility needs include updating outdated infrastructure at all sites, modernizing classroom and libraries at all elementary school sites, updating the multipurpose room and music building at Burlingame Intermediate School, among other replacements needed across various campuses.
General upgrades include improving energy efficiency and sustainability, enhancing campus security and safety, and expanding facilities to accommodate enrollment growth.
The district passed its most recent bond — worth $97 million — in March 2020. That bond measure was a $25 tax per $100,000 of assessed property value. It was pitched to address outdated classrooms and labs, removing dry rot, lead and asbestos, installing security cameras, fixing leaky roofs and replacing inefficient plumping systems.
The district can seek up to $190 million in bond authorization, should they pass a measure that is a $30 tax per $100,000 of assessed property value. If the district hopes to place the bond measure on the soonest ballot, June 2026, it must meet appropriate qualifications by March 2026.
“By investing in our schools now, we can protect the community’s prior investments, support academic excellence, and ensure that our facilities reflect the high expectations of our students, staff, and families,” the staff report read.
(5) comments
Bond funds cannot be used for salaries, pensions etc…. Bond funds can only be used for capital improvements.
Mark, that's not really true. The bonds do pay for the salaries of the construction company workers and the consultants.
But here is the problem. Bay Area schools are all rich and overfunded. So overfunded that they actually have to give money back to the county.
Feel free to search for CalMatters and the ExcessERAF scandal, where the county under supervisors Warren Slocum and Dave Pin had been cheating charter schools out of their money. They might still be doing it.
Anyways, if these school districts would spend 60% of their general fund on Education - as is the law - they would still have 40% for general administration and building upgrades. They could even afford transportation, no problem at all.
But the moment you give them bond money, now they need to hire more financial guys, bond knowledge people, more directors of facility management, someone with construction controlling background, marketing people selling the bonds, consultants, you basically need 40-50 more people in your administration just to handle all that money.
And you are correct, those 40-60 people can NOT be paid by bonds. Those people are financed through teacher layoffs and large class rooms. Basically if voters approve bonds and tax measures they basically also vote for larger class sizes and reduced teacher salaries.
Ask Redwood City School District, which now only spends 26% on classroom teachers and education and 160% above average for administration cost plus high interest payments, because they own 17 campuses, when they only need 7.
Mark, your blanket statement isn’t true. There are loopholes (isn’t there always?). The following link provides some context, at least as of 2017, as to how bond money was used to pay salaries (https://voiceofsandiego.org/2017/03/13/school-bond-money-can-used-employee-salaries/). And how Los Angeles used bond money to buy laptops (https://laist.com/news/lausd-schools-student-laptop-coronavirus-chromebook-ipad-bond-oversight). I doubt anyone would consider laptops/tablets a capital improvement.
So with the previous bond measure worth $97 million, did the school district succeed in addressing outdated classrooms and labs, removing dry rot, lead and asbestos, installing security cameras, fixing leaky roofs and replacing inefficient plumping (sic) systems? And if so, why do we need another bond measure to modernize classrooms or update infrastructure when that should have already been done with the $97 million? And if not, why not? Because that would show everyone that up to $97 million was squandered and they can’t be trusted with any more money. Regardless, vote NO on any bond measure. Seems to me Burlingame residents have already invested in schools. I think the bigger question is whether previous and proposed bond funds will go towards paying ever-increasing salaries, pensions, and benefits instead of “for the kids.”
Deep Throat says "Follow the Money"- and the Trustees...
The BSD's sister district the SMUHSD defrauded the public of $40 million in the sale of the Crestmoor property.
A request for an extraordinary audit by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) pursuant to California Education Code § 1241.5(b), would be necessary and ethical as this request is not a finding of wrongdoing, but an independent review to establish the facts.
The SMUHSD "threw away" $40 million of public money held as capital funds in the botched Crestmoor Sale.
Public Bonds for Schools are great, but they need fiduciary professionals to manage the process to avoid, scandal and criminal actions.
December 2020- SMUHSD contracts the sale of the Crestmoor property to DR Horton for $125 million (contract sale-property evaluation agreement)
July 2021- DR Horton CANCELS the $125 million Crestmoor purchase.
The cancelled deal is announced by the San Bruno City Counsel during a public meeting- sourced to DR Horton.
August 5 and August 12, 2021- SMUHSD continues to LIST- DR Horton as the BUYER in its Public Agendas-(despite the fact that the contracts are void)
August 12, 2021- SMUHSD Trustees grant Superintendent Skelly a two-year $329,000 contract extension. (Skelly is in charge of the Crestmoor "Deal.)
August 26, 2021- SMUHSD Trustee President Robert Griffin (also a CPA) announces the "new" sale of the Crestmoor site to SummerHill Homes for $85 million. There is no public statement of the cancelled contract to DR Horton.
In a matter of weeks, the 40 acre Crestmoor property has been discounted by $1m per acre, a total of $40m and SummerHill Homes has a "sweetheart deal." (Why?)
SummerHill Homes NEXT arranged a "SALE UPON CLOSE OF ESCROW" to the Toll Brothers, who started demolition on the site while the SMUHSD still owned the property.
February 2025-Close of Escrow- SummerHill Homes pays ONLY $85 million for the property... which is automatically RESOLD to the Toll Brothers in a PRIVATE SALE - not be be disclosed to the public.
Commissions Paid-$$$--"Follow the Money"
DCG Strategies is paid $1.29 million in commission by the SMUHSD for selling Crestmoor property at a $40 million Discount (DCG "handled" the DR Horton Sale and convinced Trustee Robert Griffin and Superintendent Skelly to "sell" at a $40 million loss... netting DCG the $1.29m commission.
December 12, 2021- Superintendent Kevin Skelly announces his retirement (resignation) for June 30, 2022. - Skelly is holding a two year $329,000 per year contract extension but instead "retires". Over the next years Skelly is seen as a "substitute teacher" in the SMUHSD, claiming he needs to work in order to earn his benefits. (Why not just keep the $329k job and contract he had?--He was fired)
A more focused review of the individual SMUHSD Board of Trustees and Superintendent Kevin Skelly, Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black, and the legal advisors Lozano Smith during the July-December 2021 period will reveal more behaviors some criminal, that need to be reviewed.
The Burlingame School District is asking for a Bond Measure, yet the SMUHSD Trustee Greg Land (overseeing the above actions as Trustee) is now the BIS Principal.
While the BSD and the SMUHSD are two separate entities, they are the same pockets of the tax-payers and Trustee Land is the sole representative of Burlingame.
All statements above can be found in the SM Daily Journal and the SMUHSD Public Agendas.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.