May 7, 2008

County OKs changes to school bond

Measure M may be fixed without new vote

By Will Oremus / Daily News Staff Writer

The San Mateo Union High School District will be able to change the terms of its $298 million Measure M construction bond without going back to the voters.

The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors made that possible Tuesday by voting 4-1 to allow the school district to issue its own bonds without the county's participation. That freed the district to issue longer-term bonds than were called for in the ballot measure voters approved in 2006.

"It's about the kids. That's the bottom line," Supervisor Jerry Hill said before voting to allow the changes.

Board Chairwoman Adrienne Tissier cast the dissenting vote, saying she is "troubled" by the idea of tinkering with a ballot measure without voters' permission.

The school district sought the county's help because it discovered serious problems in the ballot measure's language earlier this year. As written, Measure M would have raised far less money than the $298 million needed to complete construction projects at the district's six campuses by 2013.

Without the county's authorization, the district would have been forced to ask voters' permission to change the ballot language. Such an election would have delayed construction and cost the already cash-poor district about $400,000, officials said.

Alternatively, the district could have used the courts to try to get authorization for the longer-term bonds. Or it could have chopped about $40 million worth of projects from the list approved by voters.

Now it will be able to proceed with construction on schedule by issuing 32-year and 40-year bonds as well as the 25-year bonds specified in Measure M. The school board will be asked to authorize the issuance at an upcoming public meeting - something its members have already said they intend to do.

In asking the county supervisors for their support ahead of Tuesday's vote, school board member Dave Pine noted that they needn't agree with the district's plan to issue longer-term bonds to vote "yes." Rather, they should leave it for the school board to decide.

"We answer to the community on these construction projects," Pine said.

It was the bleakness of the alternatives that convinced Supervisor Mark Church to vote for authorization.

"Spending $300,000 to $500,000 on another election, I don't consider a viable option," Church said. "I don't want to waste taxpayers' dollars."

Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson agreed, "The voters have already spoken" by approving the $298 million bond. "They've already shown their support for this."

Hill, who had earlier expressed reservations about the changes, said his concerns were allayed in part by legal advisers. In authorizing the district to issue the bonds on its own, the county essentially washed its hands of the decision and protected itself from any lawsuits.

Hill added that issuing longer-term bonds "doesn't change what I consider the important part of the bond, which is the amount of the tax and the projects."

Tissier wasn't convinced.

"I still have trouble with the fact that, to me, it's a contract with the voters. I believe the public is smarter than we give them credit for. ... We should have gone back to them in November."



E-mail Will Oremus at woremus@dailynewsgroup.com.