Part of the Bay Area News Group

MDUSD to hold community meeting regarding Bay Point master plan

By Theresa Harrington
Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 at 11:26 am in Education, Mt. Diablo school district.

The Mt. Diablo school district will hold a community meeting Monday to discuss plans for schools in Bay Point.

Here is the meeting notice:

“Community Meeting Agenda


MARCH 5, 2012
7:00 – 9:00 PM

Mt. Diablo Unified School District is hosting a community meeting at 7:00 pm on March 5, 2012 to present and discuss information related to the master planning for all District schools and sites in the Bay Point community. The District is in the process of collecting information for a draft master plan on how to utilize the Bay Point sites to best meet the educational needs of the students in the community. At this meeting the District will share information about the master planning exercise and will solicit ideas and information from parents, caregivers and community members regarding the use of these schools and the educational programs supported at the Bay Point schools. Besides determining optimal use for the various school sites in Bay Point, the community and district will need to collaborate to determine on how to fund the master plan recommendations.

For questions regarding the March 5th meeting please contact Pete Pedersen at 925-682-8000 ext.85610.


5 de MARZO de 2012
7:00 – 9:00 PM

El Distrito Escolar Unificado Mt. Diablo está patrocinando una reunión de la comunidad a las 7:00 pm el 5 de marzo de 2012 para presentar y discutir información relacionada al plan maestro de todas las escuelas y locales del Distrito en la comunidad de Bay Point. El Distrito está en proceso de obtener información para un borrador del plan maestro sobre cómo utilizar las escuelas de Bay Point para que puedan llenar mejor las necesidades educativas de los estudiantes de la comunidad. En esta reunión, el Distrito compartirá información sobre el ejercicio del planeamiento maestro y solicitará ideas e información de parte de los padres, cuidadores, y miembros de la comunidad respecto al uso de estas escuelas y los programas educativos apoyados en las escuelas de Bay Point. Además de determinar el uso óptimo para las distintas escuelas en Bay Point, la comunidad y el Distrito tendrán que colaborar para determinar la forma de financiar las recomendaciones del plan maestro.

Si tienen preguntas respecto a la reunión del 5 de marzo, por favor contacten a Pete Pedersen al 925-682-8000 ext.85610.”

During the school closure discussions, district officials expressed the need to expand schools in Bay Point for the growing population in East County. These discussions included ideas such as building a new high school, converting Riverview MS into a 7-12 school and/or expanding elementary schools to grades K-6.

Although the $348 million 2010 Measure C ballot language did not mention anything about building a new school, it did include school improvements. The board approved a study of Bay Point school facilities using Measure C funds, even though that study was not listed in the ballot measure project list.

Do you think the district should build or expand schools in Bay Point? If so, how should the district fund these projects?

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

109 Responses to “MDUSD to hold community meeting regarding Bay Point master plan”

  1. g Says:

    Ballotpedia gives a good post ballot view of Measure C with comments like: “”Bond measures in this district tend to get more community support, because it’s something they can feel and see and put their arms around,” she (Whitmarsh) says.””

    Yeah Sherry, putting our arms around this is like trying to hug a holigram.

  2. Doctor J Says:

    What a lie ! : “The District is in the process of collecting information for a draft master plan on how to utilize the Bay Point sites to best meet the educational needs of the students in the community.”

    NOT TRUE. They already decided ! See the Request for Proposal dated May 9, 2011, nearly a year ago. It says in part: “Phase I shall consist of facility evaluation . . . necessary to:
    1. Program conversion of existing Riverview Middle School campus to accommodate use at grade(s) 7 – 12.
    2. Program conversion of existing elementary schools, Shore Acres, Rio Vista, Bel Air, Delta View to accommodate use for grade(s) K – 6
    3. Program vacant property (currently known as Alves) to accommodate new school grade(s) K up to 8.”

    Where is the “educational data” to support such a conversion ? This is just Lawrence’s SOP from West Sacramento.

    What does the RFP say about who is to pay for it ? “SECTION 5 – FUNDING SOURCES
    Funding source will be Mt. Diablo Unified School District.”
    Again, NOT TRUE. Its being paid with Taxpayer Measure C funds even though these specific projects were not disclosed as required in the Measure C campaign.

    Read it for yourself and weep. We are being raped again.

  3. g Says:

    To further your studies, go to the Measure C Planroom. First, go to measure c,

    click on Oversight Committee, scroll down to bottom and click on planroom, now click on RFP 1581, now click on the Clarification notepad symbol on far right. Scroll down to page two. There you will see the map of the $11million eleven acres.

    Although they give a link for school maps, Alves is not on it.

    You will also note that there is no record of Bid Results. Try asking Pedersen if a contract was given. He’ll probably “have to check into it”.

  4. Doctor J Says:

    In looking at the map, I didn’t realize that the Alves property is just a couple of blocks from Delta View E. So why would you have a K-6 and a K-8 within two blocks of each other ? That doesn’t make sense. Maybe the rumors are true that they want the Alves property to be a high school ? But it isn’t large enough. The “best use” for Alves might be a “windmill farm” — which I am sure would please the neighbors.

  5. g Says:

    Dr. J, you really have to do Google maps at various heights, and also street view from various angles to get the whole picture. I’ve been watching progress on the site for a long time and current views only tell half the story. It was a hill, then leveled, then lowered, then used for some debris dumping by the housing developer, then refilled and leveled again to match the terrain. They have had to install some huge drainage because of destruction of that hill and those around it.

    Although just a few blocks from other schools, all of the new Bay Point development areas are terraced and hilly, and cut off completely from the neighborhoods right next door.

    Really poor school site planning!

  6. Jim Says:

    This district should not expand or create additional facilities. It is already too big. The leadership clearly cannot manage what they already have. I’m sure that they would LOVE to control all the contracts and patronage that construction of a new high school would generate — just think how many elections you could buy! — but this district needs to shrink, not expand. It would be a crime to allow any more students and families to fall under MDUSD control.

  7. g Says:

    So, the Contract that the RFB said would go to the board on 8/9/11 actually was approved at $160,000.00 on 9/27 as Theresa reported back then.

    However reading the bid and the contract I see no delivery due date.

    Have I missed updates over the last 5-6 months?

    Has Nacht & Lewis fulfilled the contract and done the study or not? The Notice of the Community meeting doesn’t say anything about the contract, but I’m wondering if Pedersen is planning on springing Nacht & Lewis on the meeting unannounced.

  8. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Perhaps the board could ask for that contract to be added to the “Action Progress Report.”

  9. g Says:

    Well, perhaps one board member could ask, but the other four would remain mute as usual, as the “exempted” items on the motion included “expenditures of facility dollars”.

  10. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Barely over a year ago, Eberhart said this in a short interview with Laura Anthony of channel 7 news:

    “It’s a travesty to close any school,” said Mt. Diablo School Board Member Gary Eberhart. “We were a school district of 50,000 kids. Now we’re a school district of 32,000, so at some point from an economic perspective, you have to start looking whether it’s rational to leave this number of schools open or do we need to consolidate.”

    So why is it a good idea to be discussing building new schools now?

    What changed in just over one year that would justify spending incredible amounts of money to build a new school?

    Why aren’t we consolidating more school sites if enrollment continues to decline?

    Where is the discussion and planning to consolidate the necessary small high schools?

    Where is the report to show us how much money was saved by closing two schools in one neighborhood?

  11. Alicia M. Says:

    G #7 – The projects list provided to voters on the June 8, 2010 Measure C election does not disclose the construction of a new school. Pursuant to Proposition 39, the district cannot use bond proceeds on projects that are not disclosed. I expressed this concern, among others, in a memo to the Bond Oversight Committee and Superintendent. However, the district informed me that they believe a new school can be built because the ballot disclosed that new classrooms and restrooms may be built.

  12. Anon Says:

    Because Measure C money is being used to fund the construction of new schools in Baypoint, there is a way to stop this project. One can file a complaint in Superior court in Martinez under the School Bond Waste Prevention Action under Proposition 39 and Ed Code 15284. If the judge determines that a bond proceeds are being used for a project that was not disclosed, an injunction will be ordered immediately. The person that files the complaint must be a property owner that is assessed the 2010 Measure C tax.

  13. Anon Says:

    @10- You are asking some great questions. If new schools are built in Baypoint…would the district bring in any new ADA? If not, I don’t see how the district can justify the expense. The bond cannot pay for operating expenses, so the cost of operating the new schools would come out of the General Fund. If the district can barely afford to operate its current schools, how could it afford to operate additional new schools?

  14. g Says:

    Alicia, I totally agree. I also question using Measure C for the Bay Point Facilities Assessment. Surely, that falls under district operations, not “repair or replace” classrooms.

    Additionally, it seems they are using Measure C to pay for utilities (probably at Holbrook). While it is small change ($1800 Jan.) on a monthly basis, the heat and lights they use today we will pay for for many years, with interest. They account for it as SPURR “interest” and PG&E “election expense”.

    The 2002 Bond was used to help buy the Alves Property, and that bond also did not say anything about speculation on real estate needs or land values.

  15. Jim Says:

    Anon #12 — Complaints filed in court don’t do much, unless one is prepared to follow up the complaint with a lawsuit, and alas, law firms rarely want to go up against a school district on the chance that they may win a case and at least recoup compensation for their time. A suit against a school district risks being characterized as something that will “take money away from the kids” as the poor beleaguered district seeks to defend itself. Suits alledging school district discrimination against minorities and the disabled are more palatable, and therefore succeed more often, because the plaintiffs are thought to disadvantaged and deserving of sympathy and support. But going up against a district for misappropriation of funds, conspiracy to defraud the public, violation of public meeting laws, and even outright corruption — things that occur all too regularly in some districts — just doesn’t happen very often. Amazingly, these two-bit monopolies are still able to hide behind the “It’s all for the kids” banner — and get away with it.

  16. Wait a minute Says:

    “Where Incompetent and Corrupt Administrators/Board Members come First!”

  17. hsparent Says:

    All high school parents should attend and oppose this new development. MDUSD is not appropriately funding or maintaining their current high school facilities. Until they can handle what they have, don’t even try to do build new facilities.

    All high schools should have the proper facilities and the equipment needed to maintain them. Parents, foundations, and clubs should not have to maintain the high schools – it is the responsiblity of the MDUSD.

    This money should be put towards reinstating athletics and music and other programs that have been cut.

    #16 – Ditto!

  18. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Moody’s has just released a new rating for MDUSD general obligation bonds:

  19. Seriously... Says:

    @15 – Getting away with it is unacceptable. We can use Measure C as a reason to vote No on future bond measures until we have a Board and Management that is honest and will act in the upmost good faith in dealings with the Community. The Community will now pay dearly for a bond that will likely benefit the administration and Baypoint the most.

  20. Jim Says:

    Yes, we all know how important it is to have that Aa3 rating…until it changes. But hey, what could change in a mere 40 years?

    Here’s the Stone & Youngberg prospectus for the latest $43 million refunding of the 2002 bonds, which are going to be priced next week:

    These prospectuses always make for interesting reading, since the penalties for messaging the truth in these bond docs are a bit more sobering than the consequences of run-of-the-mill misinformation.

  21. g Says:

    I would like to find a list of the major buyers of our bonds.

  22. Anon Says:

    @20 – Official bond statements can be viewed at where you enter Mt. Diablo Unified in the search box to view every bond offering in their history. You can view trading activity, official bond statements, cusip numbers, among other things. It is unfortunate that government issuers to muni bonds are not subject to the same federal securities laws that must be followed by public companies. As such, official bond statements have a greater risk of containing inaccurate disclosures and investors may not be well informed.

  23. Anon Says:

    @G – I believe Stone & Youngberg and anyone else in the syndicate buy the bonds and they probably sell them to mutual funds, banks, and other institutions. I’d like to know who ultimately buys capital appreciation bonds, like the 2010 Measure C Series A $50 million offering. Most investors who buy muni bonds seek income. But capital appreciation bonds only make one payment at maturity so I don’t understand who would want to buy a bond that pays no income for up to 40 years. Maybe a wealthy person with great great grandchildren?

  24. Jim Says:

    Anon #23 — Deferred interest bonds, whether called “capital appreciation”, “zero coupon” bonds or whatever, are usually purchased by pension funds and other institutional investors that are not subject to income tax. When those types of bonds are corporate instruments, the IRS assesses taxes on the inputed interest in those bonds, even though it is not paid in cash. Most taxable investors do not want to pay current-year taxes on cash that they will not see for many years, so individuals and mutual funds (which pass on tax liabilities to individual investors) usually do not buy them. In the case of these MDUSD bonds, they are tax-exempt securities that would not be taxable for most CA investors, so they would appeal to a wider market. Tax-deferred bonds (whether taxable or not) usually carry a higher interest rate, to compensate investors for the fact that they are not getting semi-annual coupon payments. If the rate is set high enough, some investors will go for it. But the crucial fact for MDUSD taxpayers is that they pay a higher rate on this kind of debt, so that the district can minimize the impact on current cash flow (and stay within the voter-approved assessment levels). A similar thing happened in the home mortgage market, where borrowers were allowed to add interest payments to their outstanding principal, rather than pay it in monthly payments. And we all know what a fabulous arrangement that turned out to be.

  25. Anon Says:

    So Jim are you saying that while one may or may not agree with the bond, it is in the best interest of the community if the MDUSD did not issue anymore deferred interest bonds even if that means exceeding the $60 cap?
    It seems to me that I would much rather see the cap exceeded than burden our community with years of payments for deferred interest. Imagine what happens as the next generation of students comes through our schools in 20 years. I am sure there will be leaky roofs and windows to fix and those families will just be beginning to pay for these deferred interest bonds.

    If the community can’t pay for the money today, we should not have voted yes on the bond!

  26. Anon Says:

    Anyone-If MDUSD exceeds the $60 cap and sells the bonds today, then how much would we pay (instead of $1.8 Billion), how long would be the term (instead of 40 years), and how much more than $60 would each property owner pay?

  27. Anon Says:

    I don’t know but I have been trying to figure that out as well. I would hope that they would not exceed 25 years. With approx. 220 mil of the original amount of bonds left to issue and interest rates that are relatively low I would think that it would be far below the $60 max allowed by law. If I were to guess I would bet it could be around $20-25 per $100,000 of assessed value, but that is only a guess.

  28. Jim Says:

    #25–No, I am agreeing with you. We should issue bonds that we can afford now, raise the cap, or wait.

  29. Anon@26 Says:

    @26 – If the district were to issue conventional bonds paying regularly scheduled principal and interest payments with no deferrals, it would save the Community over $1 billion from the originally estimated $1.8 billion. For example, if the remaining $220 million in bonds were conventional and issued at 4.5% for 30 years…it would cost about $410 million to pay off. The $120 million of 2010 Measure C bonds which have already been issued will cost a total of $257 million to payoff. So…$410 million plus $257 million= $667 million, which is $1.2 billion less than estimated. So if it means breaking the $60 cap to issue conventional bonds and save over a $1 billion…I say Go For It!

  30. Doctor J Says:

    I guess the Parent’s Advisory Committee and the Community Advisory Committee have been cancelled since no Agenda’s have been posted on the District Website as required by the Brown Act 72 hours in advance.

  31. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Dr J – it’s a freaking Easter egg hunt – found the CAC agenda here …

    Little bitty PDF icon top left of page that has March 5 meeting announcement.

  32. Doctor J Says:

    @HFO — Sorry, but the CAC is listed on the front page as March 6 and no agenda I can find. The PAC is March 7. Pete Pedersen’s “Community Meeting: MASTER PLANNING FOR BAY POINT SCHOOLS” is March 5, and does have a semblance of an agenda. He’s probably going to try to sneak in boundary changes and bussing changes into that meeting too.

  33. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    Dr J – yeah I know. No agenda attached to the calendar for the march 6 2012 CAC mtg. I found the march 6 2012 CAC agenda as a PDF link on the bay point mtg “notice” page.

  34. Doctor J Says:

    @HFO — ROFLOL Talk about hide and seek. Hardly qualifies being posted under a different meeting. Where is the Agenda for the Bay Point meeting ?

  35. MoMx3 Says:

    Honestly I never knew the PAC would fall under the Brown Act. Interesting. I haven’t received any notice the PAC was canceled, but I also haven’t received an agenda yet which they usually email.

  36. Theresa Harrington Says:

    HFO: The district appears to have mistakenly attached the CAC agenda to the Bay Point meeting notice:

    Here is a separate blog post with the agenda:

  37. g Says:

    MoMx3: The easiest way to remember who must follow the Brown Act and Sunshine laws where decisions are made about spending taxpayer funds:

    If the Legislative body created the subsidiary body, then the subsidiary body must act just like the Legislative body.

    The Brown Act applies to the meetings of “legislative bodies”of local agencies.

    1) Governing bodies;
    i.e., the City Council, the School Board, etc.

    2) Subsidiary bodies of the Governing bodies;
    i.e., any board, commission, committee, subcommittee, or other advisory body of a local agency created by charter, ordinance, resolution or formal action of the “legislative body” is itself a “legislative body”, and must adhere to the Brown Act.

  38. MoMx3 Says:

    The PAC though makes no decisions. Isn’t it called a council? Is a council the same as committee. It is a roundtable discussion with no roberts rules applied and no voting, and nothing that resembles importance. I still question the brown act as it would apply to the PAC.

  39. g Says:

    The Measure C committee is heavily weighted by very active Bay Point residents (as was the 2002 C committee–as was the school closure committee. I fear they will continue to band together, and they will not question the possible illegality of any bond monies being spent on their side of the hill, and in fact, will encourage those expenditures in total disregard of their fiduciary duties. They can not be considered “independent” in this matter.

    Concord is more than 6 times larger than Bay Point, nearly 4 times larger than all of Pleasant Hill, 10 times larger than Clayton, Walnut Creek district portion size is (I believe)about equal to Bay Point. Concord has more households with school age children than the combination of the other cities , but only a very small fraction of representation on any advisory committee that might end up being divided by school/city boundary.

    That is partly due to so many in Concord who have been around long enough to watch their neighborhoods degraded by a cluster of North Concord neighborhood schools being closed in the last 25 years, and other students in North Concord shuffled out of their own area to make room for 50%+ school population being bused in. That treatment tends to make people just “give up” trying to help.

    But that is only part of the reason Concord is not properly represented–it is largely due to demographically prejudicial decisions by an out of touch board, and a back scratching selection of committee members.

  40. g Says:

    So, is it true that there was no “paper” notice of this meeting sent out to Bay Point elementary schools/parents? Nothing sent home en Espanol? Only Riverview was told about this meeting? Just putting it up on the district site with a “Translate” link is not sufficient notice to all of the Bay Point parents. Many people do not even have web access.

    Regardless of who did or did not get the message, it was great to see a full house!

  41. Doctor J Says:

    Actually, I think there was a big “paper” notice campaign in both English and Spanish — maybe even some robo calls. More follow up meetings this week on “transportation changes” which have already been decided by the Supt’s “secret committee” and not approved by the Board in a Public Meeting. Sounds like the Supt is engaging in “serial communication” separately with Board members to get their tacit approval — clearly a violation of the Brown Act. This whole Bay Point “Master Plan” has already been decided, and now they are just going through the motions to fake the public into believing the public has some input. Its already been decided by Lawrence, Measure C movers, and secretly by a Board majority that a new school WILL be built in Bay Point or in this case Pittsburg. The choice presented to the public is just — a high school or a K-8 ? I hope they do wind studies to make sure it is a better site than Delta View where the kids are nearly swept away with the wind and someone someday will be hurt seriously by doors being blown and slammed shut by the violent winds.

  42. Doctor J Says:

    Where is the 72 hour website published Brown Act required Agenda for the PAC ? Such blatant violations by the district — no regard for the legal requirements.

  43. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Many people at the meeting said notices were not sent to the entire community, in contrast to the notices they all received about the YVHS suicide attempt. One parent said a notice was posted at the school, but only parents who escort their children into the school would have seen it.
    The Bel Air principal suggested that another public meeting be held. Several people also complained that they had no input into the creation of the three options presented:
    1) convert Bay Point K-5 schools to K-6, convert Riverview MS to 7-12, build new K-6 on Alves property;
    2) maintain existing K-5 schools, convert Riverview MS to 9-12, build new 6-8 school on Alves property;
    3) convert K-5 schools to K-8, convert Riverview MS to 9-12, build new K-8 on Alves property.
    There was no support for options 1 and 3. About half of those present liked option 2.
    The Superintendent’s Council created option 1 during the school closure process, but the School Closure Advisory Committee rejected it. Now, it is being presented again by the consultants and again appears to be receiving zero support.
    Several people asked why anything is being considered, since the consultants admitted Bay Point is not growing as much as originally projected, due to the economy.
    There was also a difference of opinion about whether a new high school is needed at all. A student and some others said they like the opportunity to attend MDHS because of its academies and its location in a thriving city, in contrast to Bay Point, which they said has few businesses that might be willing to partner with academies.
    But some Bay Point residents were adamant that they need a new high school.
    The issue of funding was barely mentioned. The consultant told me there is some unallocated money in Measure C, but said it was likely the district would need to seek new funding.
    A few people said they would prefer a new high school, instead of a “conversion” of the middle school.
    Some parents and students also said the new school should have sports fields because sports are important to students and motivate them. The consultant said the Alves property is too small to have as many sports fields as most middle schools and that the buildings would likely have to be two-stories.
    One student asked why students’ opinions weren’t being solicited.
    Perhaps administrators at MDHS and Riverview MS should ask students what they think about these options.

  44. Doctor J Says:

    Thanks TH, its obvious the “Bay Point Master Plan” is just a CRAM DOWN the taxpayers throats engineered by the Lawrence/Eberhart consortium. What about the Lawrence’s “secret committee” decisions changing boundaries and bus transportation in Bay Point without Public Input and Board direction ?

  45. Anon Says:

    G –
    You are wrong.
    I have been on District committees where we spent HOURS discussing ways to get Concord to the table. Every once in a while a Concord parent would come to a meeting and then never come back. I remember one District staff member made excuses for Concord parents saying they are busy and have to work. This completely insulted the parents at the table who had dedicated many long hours to committee work and also had full-time jobs. I am no District fan but you are wrong about Concord participation. If Concord wants to be at the table they need to show up. It is no different than if Walnut Creek wants Board representation they need to run.

  46. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    TH43: you stated;

    * Several people asked why anything is being considered, since the consultants admitted Bay Point is not growing as much as originally projected, due to the economy. (was there a response from the district to this question? What is their answer / reason provided for why they are “considering” building a new school?)

    * There was also a difference of opinion about whether a new high school is needed at all. A student and some others said they like the opportunity to attend MDHS because of its academies and its location in a thriving city, in contrast to Bay Point, which they said has few businesses that might be willing to partner with academies. (again, was there an answer from the district? What was the response to students / families wanting to attend MDHS instead of building a new school or shuffling students around on different campuses in BP?)

    * But some Bay Point residents were adamant that they need a new high school. (why? What is the reason from the district or the BP residents for a NEW high school?)

    * The issue of funding was barely mentioned. The consultant told me there is some unallocated money in Measure C, but said it was likely the district would need to seek new funding. (shame on everyone present at the meeting for not thoroughly discussing funding of all options presented and how it will impact the entire district (think CVCHS – where is the outcry from other district parents and school principals about the incredible cost of building a new school and students taking away “their” ADA?). Shame on everyone present for not asking about the waste of money for the cost involved to have an architect company study done instead of the district staff using the details from the school closure documentation we all paid for just barely year and a half ago, and lastly shame on the district / board for not presenting the option to DO NOTHING at this time.)

  47. Theresa Harrington Says:

    HFO: This was not a meeting where people were given answers. Instead, it was a meeting where people raised questions and voiced concerns and/or support for the ideas presented. They were also asked for ideas for possible other options. The consultants took notes and plan to present a report to the board by June, including costs associated with the different options.
    In fact, one parent complained that Superintendent Steven Lawrence was not present to answer questions. Pete Pedersen pointed out that Lawrence was present at the beginning of the meeting, but then left.
    The PowerPoint presentation is supposed to be posted on a special Bay Point master plan website. Unfortunately, I arrived a bit late, so there may have been more rationale for the “why now” question that I missed.
    There was no response given to families that expressed a desire to continue attending MDHS. It appears that the board may have to provide this response when it receives the report in June.
    Some Bay Point residents appeared to be adamant that they need a high school because they feel disconnected from MDHS and miss their old high school, which was closed. They also talked about Pittsburg’s new high school and appeared to want to be sure that their high school would measure up to those in neighboring communities.
    Some also brought up graduation requirements and said they wanted those to be more rigorous, along with rigorous A-G courses offered at the school.
    Regarding funding, one consultant explained that funding for facilities does not come out of the general fund (so it doesn’t come from ADA). It comes from developer fees and general obligation bonds, she said.
    I videotaped most of the meeting and will post links later.

  48. Seriously... Says:

    @HFO – You bring up some good points, especially with respect to “need” and to Measure C funding. There was a huge outcry from parents complaining that money would be taken from their school due to the CVCHS conversion. Where’s the huge outcry from taxpaying parents from Walnut Creek, Concord, and Pleasant Hill who will pay for the new Baypoint schools?

  49. Doctor J Says:

    The BPMP is just a re-election campaign stunt by Eberhart/Whitmarsh to garner the Bay Point votes — all at the expense of MDUSD taxpayers who are funding this study using Measure C moneys that will double or triple the cost incurred today. All taxpayers outside of Bay Point ought to be enraged that the Measure C group is allowed to run amuck on what they spend money on — without Board direction, and contrary to what the voter pamphlet said. Current district enrollment projections don’t justify a new school — even if they did, the Alves property is not an appropriate school site. Some taxpayer group needs to put a stop to this travesty before millions more are spent.

  50. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I did not see Eberhart or Whitmarsh there. Trustees Linda Mayo and Cheryl Hansen were there, however.
    Also, Debra Mason told me she is considering running for the school board. She strongly objected to the consultants presenting three scenarios instead of inviting the community to come up with them.
    But, the consultant said he was merely throwing out ideas to get reactions because it is sometimes difficult for large groups to brainstorm scenarios. He also asked for other possible scenarios.
    I believe that one woman suggested K-6 schools, a 7-8 school and a 9-12 school.

  51. Seriously... Says:

    I can’t help but wonder if the Baypoint schools are built, what are the chances that those schools end up in the Pittsburgh Unified School District while we are all paying for such schools using our Measure C funds?

  52. Doctor J Says:

    Consultant just “brain storming” ideas ? ROFLOL. Check out his survey monkey that ONLY lists his three ideas as “choices”.
    If it wasn’t costing us taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars [at today’s cost and not to be repaid for 40 years], it would be a good joke. But it is costing us an arm and a leg, so that makes Nacht & Lewis Architects qualify for the “Golden Fleece Award” in ripping off the taxpayers of MDUSD. I doubt they have even read the school closure studies and statistics. But they are just hired guns under the direction of the Lawrence/Eberhart consortium.

  53. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The Schreder consultants who did the School Closure studies also presented the demographic information last night. So, they are very familiar with the school closure studies and statistics. It will be interesting to compare their new data with the data they presented to the School Closure Committee.
    One parent came up to me very upset after meeting in a small group with the Schreder consultants. She said she told the consultant that no one liked option #3, and suggested that the consultants should just eliminate it from consideration. She told me the consultant responded that the school board could do whatever it wanted. The woman told me she then thought: Then what are we doing here?
    Already, there is suspicion that this input gathering is just an exercise the district is going through to give the appearance of listening to the community.
    The consultant said the survey has space for people to suggest other ideas. But some at the meeting said an online survey is not the best way to solicit input in Bay Point, since many residents don’t have computers or access to the Internet. They also said the PowerPoint and survey should be translated into Spanish, if the district is serious about soliciting feedback in this community.
    As previously mentioned, many also said the district should hold another meeting and do a better job of informing the community about it through robocalls and flyers sent home with students.

  54. Doctor J Says:

    Jack Schreder, father of Gary Eberhart’s employer, getting paid from Measure C funds without Board approval as a sub-consultant to Nacht & Lewis ? Wow, way too much “co-habitation” here. Nacht & Lewis is really going for the Golden Fleece award hands down. Its all just a deceptive ruse. A re-election campaign stunt by Eberhart and Whitmarsh to buy votes from Bay Point — because they aren’t getting any from Clayton voters, are they ?

  55. g Says:

    Please everyone, do the survey that Dr J lists. You don’t have to identify yourself at all. It has cookies, so if you want to say more than there is space for, and want to do it more than once you have to clear your cache and cookies between each try.

    Riverview acreage is the same as Mt. D, the largest in the district. All of the other sites are way too small for a middle or high school to have even minimal sports fields.

    Why do they have to build now? Because a school district is not allowed to just own land that it doesn’t use. They finalized the Alves deal in 2007 as a K-8 dedication. They MUST build within 5-6 years or pay an annual penalty. I didn’t save the site where I read all of this so I’ll look for it and add a link later.

  56. Theresa Harrington Says:

    As I mentioned, one student and parent said that soccer fields would be critical in this community. The consultant said that if a middle school were built on the Alves site, students might have to do mostly indoor sports.

  57. g Says:

    As for losing ADA if a new high school is built. Under current border configurations, I believe Mt D. population is almost 50% from over the hill.

    Mt. D specifically could lose about 50% of its population and its ADA. Drastic consequence!

  58. Doctor J Says:

    @G#57 – Lawrence was counting on that MDHS academy config would draw lots of the CVHS kids — NOT ! Only 3 of 1200 — what a collossal disaster !

  59. MoMx3 Says:

    Dr J, I still don’t believe PAC is subject to Brown. There are no decisions, nothing of substance, not even a roberts rule style or order. It is informal, sit around the table and discuss issues at your school site. That’s it. Please show me where it would go under the Brown Act, but I still haven’t rec’d my agenda, is it still on for tomorrow night I wonder?

  60. Theresa Harrington Says:

    g: MDHS would also lose a big chunk of its QEIA grant, since it is based on enrollment.

    Also, I have asked Pete Pedersen if it’s true that the district must pay a penalty on the Alves property if it doesn’t build on it soon. Here is his emailed response: “Absolutely not.”

  61. Doctor J Says:

    @MoMx3#59 G quoted it recently — the PAC is a Board created “committee or subcommittee” and it doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make “decisions” — it “advises”, and that is subject to the Brown Act open meeting law. I suggest you go the California Attorney General Website for their big summary of the Brown Act or the First Amendment Coalition for their “primer” on the Brown Act. Remember that AB 1344 passed last September, and effective Jan 1, 2012 requires the Agenda to be posted 72 hours in advance on the website !

  62. Doctor J Says:

    Since Lawrence won’t be providing bussing to the Alves Ranch school site, and most likely it will be an elementary school based on its lack of play fields, does it meet the “California Department of Education Walkability” test for young children ?

  63. Seriously... Says:

    G – I think you are onto something. Could it be that the City of Pittsburgh has an agreement and timeframe for how long the Alves Ranch can remain undeveloped?

    The Alves property, like you have already pointed out, was not disclosed in the ballot of 2002 Measure C and therefore, was an illegal transaction. I don’t understand the rational behind justifying this transaction when at the time of purchase, there was not sufficient funding to build on Alves Ranch. So I believe there was a willful intent to deceive the voter of 2010 Measure C and to use these funds to build new schools. It also disturbs me that the land is not appropriate to accomodate a middle or high school or perhaps any school. Why make matters worse and build a school on this property. The district should do the right thing and not build and sell the land.

  64. Doctor J Says:

    @Seriously#63 Here is the CDE School Site Selection Criteria. A wealth of information is on the CDE site for choosing school sites and all kinds of needs and requirements. It won’t take long until you know more than Pete Pedersen !

  65. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I have also asked Pete Pedersen about the Schreder contract.
    Here is his emailed response:
    “They are working as a sub consultant to Nacht and Lewis on this. The contractual relationship is between them. Our contract is with Nacht and Lewis only.”

  66. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#65 So what ? What was the “wink and nod” between Nacht & Lewis and MDUSD about using Jack Schreder, father of Gary Eberhart’s employer ?

  67. Wait a minute Says:

    Dr J,
    This is no different then the fact that Stevie Lawrence was being secretely wined and dined by “Chevron Sherry” Whitmarsh’s employeer while discussing a lucrative contract for the solar.

    Wink and a nod there too and Eberhart may have also benefitted as the VP of Solar Development for Jack Schreder’s son’s company Schreder Construction.

  68. g Says:

    Seriously @63. The problem is not with Pittsburg (yet). I found my facts a few years ago, when I first started paying attention to Alves. Building within a certain time frame is State/ED code. I just can’t find it now.

    Also, as to selling the property–no one but MDUSD is stupid enough to pay a million dollars an acre for raw land!

  69. g Says:

    What I would like to know is WHY WAS THERE NO PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE ALL OF THIS TOOK PLACE? Discussing it twice at Measure C BOC does not constitute “Public Hearing”.

    CDE CODE: 14011. Procedures for Site Acquisition State-Funded School Districts. (this goes for “partially state funded” too)

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT BUYS LAND FOR A NEW SCHOOL SITE IT MUST: m. Conduct a public hearing by the governing board of the school district as required in Education Code Section 17211 to evaluate the property using the standards described in Section 14010 of this article. The school district’s facility advisory committee may provide an evaluation of the proposed site to the governing board.

    The complete History of Alves: At the 3/3/05 Measure C BOC meeting, Nicoll FIRST presented the idea of using $5million of measure C to buy Alves property for a K-8 site.

    Then beginning on April 12, 2005, this transaction begins appearing on the Board “Closed Agenda” as property negotiations. It was on Closed Agenda in April, May and August 2005. Then, several times in 2006.

    A full Eighteen months after it was first mentioned to BOC, at the 9/6/06 Measure C meeting: “John Ferrante questioned where the district was regarding the new school in Pittsburg. Dick Nicoll explained that the district will be presenting an agreement to the school Board on September 12, 2006, regarding the actual purchase of the school site. Although we are not ready to actually build, we have been able to negotiate a very good purchase price of 11 acres in the Alves Ranch development for $10,850 million. The district will receive 50% matching funds from the state.”

    From what I can find–the very first time it comes to the Public Agenda is in Minutes from the Board on 9/12/06: “Action 9.3 –Alves Ranch Purchase Agreement–
    The City of Pittsburg General Plan incorporates plans for a school site in the Alves Ranch Development. Negotiations between the owner of the Alves Ranch Property and the school district have been conducted and finalized. The District agreed to the purchase price of $10,850,000 to construct a K-8 school. Funding Source: Measure C Funds – $5,000,000; (and) Proposition 55 Funds – $5,850,000

    And no public mention that it is only 11.3 acres!!!

    And the real kicker to the outrageous price paid is what the county says the 11 acres is really worth. 2011 total assessed Value $1,177,513.

  70. MoMx3 Says:

    Dr J what does the PAC advise? Its a bitch session about lights being burnt out, solar taking up playground space, and to avoid every issue of importance. I asked is a “council” the same as a “committee?”

  71. Doctor J Says:

    Pete Pedersen better start reading the standard MDUSD contract — that’s why construction managers are required by law to be licensed contractors and Pete isn’t. Pete, SHOW ME the “written” permission of MDUSD for Nacht & Lewis to use Jack Schreder’s company as a sub-consultant. The Sept 27, 2011 “Independent Contractor” contract between MDUSD and Nacht & Lewis says in Section 1.a: “Subcontractors may be used with the written approval of the district only.” SHOW ME the “written approval”.

  72. Doctor J Says:

    The School Board did not participate in the selection of Nacht & Lewis — the ubiquitous “staff”, without Board participation, selected them from 14 applicants: “A total of fourten (14)architectural firms submitted proposals in response to the RFP. Staff short-listed this larger group to five(5) final firms. Interviews with each of the firms were conducted and staff has determined that based on these interviews, proposal content and reference checks that Nacht and Lewis Architects (NLA)was the most qualified firm.” Since these interviews were not open to public scruitiny, there is no telling what was discussed or suggested to Nacht.

  73. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Yes, but the board approved the contract. Only Trustee Lynne Dennler asked if the cost was included in the Measure C projects list. Pete Pedersen told her it was a “contingency” cost. The Measure C budget includes $10.1 million in contingency costs.

  74. Doctor J Says:

    @MoMx3#70 Calling it either council or committee makes no difference. See MDUSD AR 1220 which says: “Meetings of the above councils or committees shall be open to the public, and any member of the public shall have the opportunity to address the council or committee during the meeting on any item within its jurisdiction. Notice of the meeting shall be posted at the school site or other appropriate accessible location at least 72 hours before the meeting, specifying the date, time and location of the meeting and containing an agenda that describes each item of business to be discussed or acted upon. (Education Code 35147)”. And of course the AR has not been amended to conform to AB1344 yet requiring the posting of the Agenda and Notice on the website 72 hours in advance.

  75. g Says:

    Yes, Theresa, but this board will approve anything.

    In 2009 the State Auditor slammed San Diego UHSD for inappropriate spending of bond funds:

    “The money was spent on relocatable facilities that were used as administrative offices rather than as classrooms, and for housing and demographic studies” which includes a link directly to the BSA audit.

    Pedersen may have chosen Nacht & Lewis precisely because they have Engineer in their title, but what they did was a $160,000.00 “housing and demographic study” further evidenced by the help of Demographer Jack Schreder!

    When contracts are approved, we should be able to see at least the runners-up, or considering the Measure C plan room is set up to show all bids, and has in the past, we should be able to see them there.

  76. g Says:

    It’s a shame if all the PAC does is sit around and bitch about burned out lights—Please file Williams Safety Complaints.

    Just one of the more specific duties of the PAC is to act as “Advisors” for the SPSA. This is not doing “nothing of importance”. Maybe the PAC has lost its direction.

    MoMx3, you are showing sincere interest, and that is laudable. I encourage you to take a stronger stand, and help the district get on the right track.

  77. Doctor J Says:

    Wow G, nice audit reference. MDUSD could take a “page or two” from that San Diego audit. State Auditor Elaine Howle recommended in June 2010: “Ensure that descriptions of the school board’s meeting agenda items and minutes contain sufficient information to convey the substance of the items accurately, and post to the school district’s Web site all relevant documents and presentations related to agenda items.”
    Cheryl Hansen has been getting slam dunked by Eberhart and Whitmarsh for the past month on her pointing out the deficiencies in the minutes, Theresa is constantly complaining about the failure to post to the website “all relevant documents”, and I have been complaining about the poor posting or non-posting of the Agendas in a timely manner on the website.
    I think its about time Elaine got an invite to come to Dent Center for an audit !

  78. g Says:

    Dr. J: I found the section on School Facilities Districts, bond sales and refunding bonds very interesting and very easily understandable.

    Unfortunately, even with Alicia Minyen’s help, I have not been able to exactly figure out step-by-step all of the Bond maneuvering deals from 1998, 2002-4-6, 2010-11-12 with their swap this, refund that etc, as easily as it was to read the first 7 pages or so of that particular State auditor’s report.

    I would love to see something broken down like that for us. I hoped for far too much from the Christy White-wash.

  79. MoMx3 Says:

    Well they did spend a lot of time hearing about the homework policy and the new report cards. They sometimes throw the PAC a budget update. But it is a very small group. And the same people you see at all the district volunteer functions, as is usual in volunteer circles.

  80. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Seriously, I spoke to Trustee Gary Eberhart, who said that the district will not spend 2010 Measure C money to build a new high school or a school on the Alves property.
    “There is no Measure C funding that is available to be used for buildlng a high school in Bay Point or building anything on the Alves Ranch property,” he said. “If we did that, we would have to not do something that we already said we were going to do and that’s not going to happen. We’re actually trying to do some fore-planning to ensure that we are prepared for the future so that we can best serve the students in the Mt. Diablo school district.”
    He said he has not yet decided whether he will run for re-election.
    Here is my story on Monday’s meeting:

    I also just spoke to Superintendent Steven Lawrence, who said he viewed Monday’s meeting as the beginning of a community dialogue. He said more meetings would be held and that the district would translate the PowerPoint and survey into Spanish.

    Regarding funding, he said he didn’t anticipate using 2010 Measure C money that has been earmarked for other parts of the district to accomplish the plan.

    “We’ve made a commitment to the community around how we would utilize Measure C,” he said. “And as we’re working with the Bay Point community — and the funds that are allocated for those schools out there — then we would see how we could best utilize those funds. But we’re still committed to doing projects at all the other schools in the district.”

  81. Theresa Harrington Says:

    MoMx3: I have received notification from the district that the PAC meeting scheduled for Wednesday has been canceled.

  82. g Says:

    Who, besides me, sees a very very expensive Lease/Leaseback build arrangement in Bay Point’s future (ala SLS Construction style).

    Come to think of it, I don’t think SLS has actually gotten the contract on a decent build job in a few years, so maybe it’s worth it for Gary to give up the Board now, start a couple years of back room slight-of-hand negotiations and promises to keep himself and the district out of hot water, and show back up in a couple years as BMOC at Schreder.

  83. g Says:

    Probably the first option they will try to push — Happy Mello Roos Bay Point! So sorry it isn’t tax deductible.

  84. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#80 So if the District won’t use Meas C money, what justifies use of “C” money as “contingency” to do the “Master Plan” ? My contractor friends tell me “contingency” money is used for “over budget” projects. Now Eberhart and Lawrence are spending contingency money before there is even an approved project. Isn’t that backwards ?

  85. Seriously... Says:

    Theresa, Thank you for getting clarification from Eberhart.

    I’m very happy to hear that the district plans not to use 2010 Measure C money for the new schools. G is right in that one alternative for funding could be Mello Roos, which seems more fair, although expensive to Pittsburgh residents.

    Hopefully, Mello Roos will be the source of funding instead of Certificates of Participation or lease/leaseback, which would be very expensive to the district’s general fund.

  86. Seriously... Says:

    @84 – Dr. J. – Sounds backwards to me too! I noticed that “contingency” money is well padded into the Measure C budget. It will be interesting to see how the remaining “contingency” money will be spent.

  87. Alicia Says:

    @78 G- The audit report you provided explained different types of bonds than those refunded under our 2002 Measure C. The audit report appears to reference revenue bonds issued by a Community Facilities District pertaining to Mello Roos special tax revenue.

    However, I was wondering G if you know what our $67 (charged every six months) Mello Roos tax is paying for? I always wondered why Pleasant Hill pays this tax since we don’t have any new developments.

  88. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Dr. J: The entire board approved the expenditure of contingency money. The board, the public and the BOC can question whether that’s backward.
    The district originally planned to ask for about $300 million for Measure C, I believe. As I recall, that’s what they polled voters on.
    Then, when it came time to approve it for the ballot, another $48 million was added on.

  89. g Says:

    Alicia @87 Mello Roos (Measure A)is, for all intents and purposes, the MDUSD slush fund. It buys a desk here, a USB cable there and makes loan payments for some schools. It is handy if your school needs a $200.00 vacuum, or a $13,000.00 picnic bench.

    I can’t even imagine what balance it might hold. But, 150 square miles of tightly packed houses at $67 per, and new building on every hill within view–for over 30 years… hmmm, that has to be a lot of money, plus interest– but yet, the district had to borrow money from Pittsburg to build Delta View? Of course that gave us the “left over” $5Mmmmmm to buy Alves.

    Forget pay as you go! I suspect “A” also does more than its fair share of loan transfers in/out, to cover several other funds.

  90. Robert Rees Says:

    I asked the District to provide me a copy of the Needs Assessment supporting the high school concept. This is a document that describes the social/educational needs for a community and how to target money to align with those needs. To date, the District has not provided such a document.

    My son goes to Bay Point and early childhood education is lacking. They have some facilities but they are in poor condition and too small to really be effective. Research strongly supports pre-school as early prevention.

    I am still hopeful that the District will provide this document so that I can understand the educational research supporting a new high school rather than to early childhood education.

  91. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Robert: Do you know if such a document exists? I am not aware of it, if it does.
    Trustee Cheryl Hansen told me in an email that she has asked the superintendent to give the community information about the history of discussions regarding school planning in Bay Point and Pittsburg, so that everyone knows what has transpired up to this point.

  92. Doctor J Says:

    I think a PRA request to the CDE for documents submitted to them by MDUSD to support the Alves Ranch property purchase would provide a wealth of information on the “needs analysis” and determine if there are significant changes since then would justify a change in use.

  93. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The public shouldn’t have to send a PRA to the CDE.
    The district should disclose this information itself and provide a much more comprehensive report to the community than was presented Monday, that clearly answers the question: “Why is this necessary?”

  94. Doctor J Says:

    @TH#93 Can the district be trusted to disclose ALL of the information accurately ? I think there are many of us that have experienced the “hide the ball” tactics, failure to disclose accurate information, and misleading information provided by the district. As you pointed out Theresa, within the last two weeks, the information provided by MDUSD to CDE on the MDHS QEIA waiver is not trustworthy. I would rather trust CDE’s providing the documents, rather than guessing or speculating if the ALL the information is being provided.

  95. g Says:

    No one but Hansen understood that when the Board, yet once again, followed Eberhart/Rolen down the garden path and hired Jack Schreder (5/10/11) to study realignment at Meadow Homes (the disguise target) AND Delta View (The Real Target), that it was directly aimed at the goal of building at Alves.

    However, at that time, Alves was never mentioned in public, and rarely mentioned in more than a “whisper” at Dent. No one “in the know” wanted the public to go out there and see that land until it was build-ready.

  96. Educator Says:

    As a parent with a child in a Bay Point school, I have received no information about a needs analysis supporting the redistribution of students in the Bay Point area. In fact, I was only notified of the “Bay Point Master Plan Meeting” by automated phone message 2 1/2 hours prior to the meeting. Needless to say, I could not make arrangements to attend the meeting and I am sure many other parents and community members were in the same position as I was. We were essentially excluded from participating. My concerns are:
    1) There has not been a needs assessment conducted that supports this proposal. How do we know this is best for the education of students in Bay Point, and the district as a whole?
    2) Through the actions of the district, it appears that the district wants to “push through” this project without adequate planning, visioning and community input
    3) This proposal would essentially isolate the Bay Point community, eliminating access to programs and opportunities now afforded to students (i.e. academies, internships with businesses, exposure to a diverse student population)
    4) Since the district has closed schools to save money on operating expenses, how will the district support the operation of a new school?
    I have emailed my concerns to district staff and the board. There has been no response…or maybe no response is a response!

  97. Theresa Harrington Says:

    Although Superintendent Steven Lawrence told me there would be more meetings, none have been scheduled yet, to my knowledge.
    Also, although the consultant promised to post the Powerpoint from the meeting on the new Bay Point Master Plan website, that has not yet been done.

  98. Doctor J Says:

    Rumor has it that tonight’s hastily called and secret parent meeting at Delta View is to announce the Board’s plans to eliminate bussing at Delta View — funny that I don’t recall the Board ever discussing this in open session. I wonder if the Board members even know about this meeting and the premature announcment of their decision. Hmmmmmm.

  99. Theresa Harrington Says:

    After the governor announced plans to eliminate transportation busing, Board President Sherry Whitmarsh told me the district might have to cut its busing costs. But, you’re right that such a plan has not been brought to the board for discussion or approval.
    If such a plan is discussed tonight, parents should ask who initiated and approved it. The agenda for Monday’s board meeting should be released in a few hours. I wonder if it will include busing cuts.

  100. g Says:

    Somehow, Dr. J, I suspect talk will get around to discussing the luxury of having a new middle school in their very own back yard…. Can we expect some updated and hopefully correct (this time) demographic numbers and maps from Grampa Jack?

  101. Doctor J Says:

    @ G#100: “Grandpa Jack” ? You are referring to the “Don” of the Schreder family, are you ?

  102. Theresa Harrington Says:

    I received an email from Bryan Richards at 2:53 p.m. Tuesday with a copy of his budget Powerpoint from the Feb. 27 meeting and an assurance that it would be posted on the district’s website “shortly.”
    Transportation cuts are referenced on pages 4, 5 and 8, with the final note: “District is looking at boundary and route adjustments to try to control transportation costs as funding declines and fuel costs are rising”:
    However, this Powerpoint, posted more than a week after the meeting, was presented for information only. Trustees have not voted on transportation cuts.

  103. Doctor J Says:

    How will Lawrence deal with MDUSD Administrative Regulation 3541: Routes and Bus Stops
    The Superintendent or designee shall design transportation routes and stops to promote the safety of students and maximum efficiency in the use of buses.
    Students who reside beyond the minimum transportation distances listed below shall be eligible for transportation service to the school of their attendance area:
    1. For elementary school students:
    Grades K-5: 1 1/4 miles
    2. For students attending a middle school:
    Grades 6-8: 3 miles
    3. For students attending a four-year high school:
    Grades 9-12: 7 miles

    With all three elementary schools tightly congregated, the radius is pretty small.

  104. Theresa Harrington Says:

    It’s possible the district may propose increasing the cost to parents.

  105. Doctor J Says:

    What’s going to happen with all of those new buses just purchased ? Mothball fleet in Suisun Bay ?

  106. Theresa Harrington Says:

    The district could try to sell them. Apparently there is a market for used buses.

  107. Hell Freezing Over Says:

    So, what will the district do with all those brand new buses?

    What does the district use the new buses (and for that matter the old buses) now?

  108. g Says:

    Sorry, I don’t think the district can just sell them. Certainly not for what we paid.

    At least 19 of them were bought out of Ohio on credit. If I understand correctly, we borrowed enough money to pay cash for the 19 buses, but, we didn’t pay cash for them.

    Instead, we put the cash into the bank, and will take seven years to pay off the loan PLUS INTEREST, and pay off the buses PLUS INTEREST. Un-huh.

    Then, the other 10 purchased out of Sacramento, I’ll say, supposedly–I don’t know if anyone has actually seen them–where is the actual purchase contract? :)) just a few months ago was done with a $1.7 million dollar BAAQMD Grant. BAAQMD may want to go check out the parking lot. We don’t want to have to pay that grant back like we’ve had to on SIG etc. where we wasted the opportunity.

  109. Theresa Harrington Says:

    FYI, I have uploaded some video clips from the Bay Point meeting to my YouTube account:
    I will try to do a blog post with links later, including video from my Qik account:
    The Qik recordings were made first, followed by the YouTube recordings.

Leave a Reply