Re: your May 20 article, “Pleasant Valley trustees might pursue bond measure for school repairs�:
It is surprising that the Pleasant Valley School District is considering a $65.5 million bond measure less than nine years from Measure T's approval. Depending on when Measure T bonds were issued, Camarillo homeowners may be paying them off for another 30-plus years.
One statement attributed to trustee Suzanne Kitchens has particular merit: “The proposal needs to be clear to voters. If they don't understand what is needed and where the money will go, they are less likely to support it.�
I believe it is also imperative for the district to clearly indicate where Measure T's funds have gone, and to clearly justify their funding approach.
It seems that PVSD blindly advocates general obligation bonds as the appropriate funding source while being silent on developers' fees and other sources. Where have developers' fees collected over the last decade gone? The Village at the Park project, when completed, will encompass 1,050 homes. PVSD is justified to collect up to $1.59 per square foot of residential development. How much repair work will that provide?
Does a majority of regular voters in the school district really support a local school bond? A statewide poll reported in The Star on May 1 indicated that only 25 percent are willing to pay higher property taxes to support schools.
For several years, declining enrollment has caused PVSD to consider temporary and permanent school closures, and most recently a closure of the sixth grade at Los Altos. The city of Thousand Oaks and the Conejo Valley Unified School District recently approved a land swap that will produce about $3 million in revenue for the district. Is this a potential opportunity for PVSD?
— Ed Warren, Camarillo
Leave a comment