Letter: Measure U Is Not Cheap

Dear, Editor; At the risk of sounding like I am not supporting well-maintained schools for our students, I would like to point out discrepancies I have found in Lake Tahoe Unified School District's (LTUSD) ballot language for Measure U as well as to refute some of the misinformation swirling around in several letters supporting the Measure, and the view that, of course, you must vote for it, because it is cheap.

The statement in the ballot language that “many of our facilities…are over 50 years old and need urgent repairs…” is an emotional appeal that is not true. In fact, the District spent over 100 million dollars for new classrooms, modernization, and repairs about 10-12 years ago. Not almost 20 years ago as some are stating. The bond Measure G was passed in 2008 but early construction did not start until 2010 and was phased in as bonds were sold over the next 3 to 4 years. Some of the buildings, such as at Bijou, were later in the construction phases.

Another rumor quashed: the boiler at the high school is not in “dire” straits as one person stated in a letter of support of the measure to STN. It was replaced with Measure G monies. The boiler, in fact, is a teenager (well not literally) and when it was installed it came with the State requirement that it needed to be monitored 24/7. Inconvenient at worst, but no worries, it is not failing. I don’t believe the boiler is on the fix-it list. Good news.

“Crumbling” schools and critical safety issues? As much as I hate to visualize dripping water through holes in the roof coming down onto studious heads, most of the very critical priorities were addressed in Measure G, and all critical needs portable classrooms were replaced with new buildings at MOST sites, except for Al Tahoe and perhaps a few at Sierra House. All critical asbestos issues were remediated under Measure G. The bottom line here is that the community was promised that Measure G would address all critical needs and not necessitate another big bite at the bond apple for many years to come. Yet, here we are. Take a look at your tax bill to see what the current annual hit is.

I found some language in the Measure U rebuttal to the Argument Against that did not match what Ms. Angela Ramirez, Senior Secretary, Maintenance & Facilities, LTUSD told me when I emailed her to ask if there was a separate and annually budgeted maintenance fund for our schools. Here is what the proponents say in the pamphlet:

“FACT: Without Measure U, LTUSD has no funding to repair our schools.”
This is fact, is not quite true. The District is required by the State to set aside 3% of their budget for Deferred Maintenance. The amount annually is $600,000. According to Ms. Ramirez’ email: “The state does not provide specific funding for deferred maintenance, the state requires us to utilize 3% of our district budget for deferred maintenance, this equates to approx 600k a year for all main projects spread throughout 8 campuses. Leaky roofs along with all other facility challenges are addressed annually as needed and/or as possible within our budget.”

So, there is $600,000. That is not really enough to even paint one school, but there is money, it’s not as if there is, as the language would suggest, NO money. In fact, more money may be “hidden”. Here’s how: The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) implemented in 2014 scooped up ancillary pots of State funding (including Deferred Maintenance), taking away their individual descriptions, and folded a lump sum amount into the Per Pupil Base Funding. These dollars are still there, they just no longer have individual identifiers. The State also took away the requirement to match these dollars. Today it would be the District’s choice on how to spend these funds.

However, the District, now telling us that “there is no money” must therefore ask property owners for help to abate, once again (Measure K Replay), the crumbling to the tune of about $8,000 per homeowner. Some quick math, of course, based on estimates. Remember, the bond is estimated to cost (without interest), $35 per $100,000 of assessed (not market) value.

Here we go: The median assessed value of a home in South Lake Tahoe? $750,000 divided by $100.00 = 7.5 x 35 = $262.50. Based on estimated bond prices. This is the bill on average, each year, over a 30-year period which brings the total to $7,785 per homeowner. The bond sunsets in 2060 and the total bond debt to be repaid would be $251,400.00. Don’t forget to add this debt to what you already pay for, and take into account, that according to the El Dorado County Auditor, in 2030 there will be a 22% bump in the Measure G bond, which currently stands at $45 per $100,000 assessed value.
What troubles me is the District’s sense of priorities. Remember in 2021, there were several administrative positions filled. Some of these administrators are making more than $200,000 per annum as of 2022. (Check www.transparentcalifornia.com). That is close to a million dollars in salaries and benefits. Dr. Cutler makes over $300,000 per annum in salary and benefits. That is a whopping chunk of dough for administering schools in a town where the medium income is about $68,000/year, with retirees and those on fixed incomes making about $45,000 on average.

Keep in mind, that some of those fixed-income folks are also property taxpayers. Heap on the huge tax that is the current inflation, including our situation of extra thousands a year in fire insurance, (if you can get it), and you rapidly come to the conclusion (at least I did) that taxpayer dollars should be closely prioritized as to use and monitored scrupulously, at least twice a year, perhaps more.

With supposedly only $600,000 budgeted annually for maintenance and expensive recent (2021) hires at the top, many would wonder why the maintenance budget was not funded first.

Hence, my problem with voting yes on this Measure.

Perhaps a better solution than this lumbering laundry list of projects without price tags in the face of a projected annual decline in student enrollment would be to trim it down a bit to prioritize and fix the remaining critical safety and infrastructure issues first, save the big tech
projects for down the road, because they will become outdated much quicker than the buildings, and certainly outdated in the next 40 years, (so why would you take out a loan here?) and then ask the community for a match to rejuvenate the Maintenance Fund. To replace existing technology as it quickly becomes obsolete maybe the District could institute a technology replacement fund.

Obviously, our schools have definite needs, but before homeowners are asked to pony up an additional $35-$45 per $100,000 of value on their property tax bills, the details should be strikingly transparent with estimated project prices attached. As it stands the District is asking to double the existing Bond Tax Assessment for LTUSD.

As the Measure stands, I will be voting NO.

Sincerely,
Toni Hall