|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
San Ramon Valley Unified School District officials have announced the completion of the district’s third and final Measure D bond sale, generating $60 million in cash proceeds to fund the development of public school facilities throughout the Valley.
A voter-approved bond authorization passed in 2012, Measure D bond sales have generated $260 million to fund large-scale school facility projects such as the efforts to modernize the Stone Valley Middle School campus in Alamo, and smaller ones such as rebuilding California High School’s Mangos Bridge in San Ramon.
“We are very pleased with the financial terms of this sale, which represent a historically positive outcome for the taxpayers of the SRVUSD,” Superintendent Rick Schmitt said in a statement Tuesday. “We are grateful to our community for their continued support and investment in our schools and students.”
The first series of Measure D bond sales, worth just under $75 million, was completed in March 2013. This was followed two years later by the second sale, which came in at $125 million.
During each sale, the district was able to keep their commitment to voters of keeping the total yearly cost to homeowners at or below $75 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, according to SRVUSD spokeswoman Elizabeth Graswich.
This latest series will be used to fund Measure D’s largest projects the Stone Valley and San Ramon Valley High School modernization projects.
Funds will also be used to finance the modernization efforts being made at Golden View, Montevideo, Ranch Romero, Vista Grande and Green Valley Elementary Schools this summer.
Future projects include upgrades to Sycamore Elementary, scheduled to begin summer 2019, as well as additional modernizations at Alamo and Twin Creeks Elementary Schools and Charlotte Wood Middle, scheduled to begin summer 2020.
A full list of projects currently utilizing Measure D bond funds can be found on the district’s website at buildsrvschools.org.
They can build which is great but where is the story about how the district reduced the offer of 2% down to 1.8% raise. This does not cover cost of living. The district is declining to even acknowledge any proposal from the union. It would be nice to find out more about that. Red for ed! I hope SRVEA strikes like LA to show that all the great things we do for the students doesn’t go unnoticed.
Teacher Friend,
You got it all wrong.I talked to a long-time teacher in the District. The contract with the teachers union says that any retiree health benefit contribution increases required due to an actuarial analysis done by an outside firm must come out of the compensation increase for that year. The teachers are still getting a 2% increase, but per contract, a portion is being diverted to cover the increased costs of retiree health costs.Nothing wrong with that. Would you prefer the District ignore the costs until the unfunded liability bankrupts the District? And by the way, this is not a new action. The District and union diverted money a few years ago for the same reason. If you are going to comment about an issue, please get the facts right so the readers are getting accurate information.
You can see below that SRVUSD has no objections to the increasing fees paid to the law firms. SRVUSD this is paid for by the $1,943,227 a year you pay to the Northern California Regional Excess Liability Fund, What is good for law firms should be good for teachers. Control your cost in the right places SRVUSD not on the backs of teachers.
COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
:
Motion was made by Kimberly Dennis, seconded by Stacy Lane,
and unanimously carried to approve the following increases effective 11/1/18 to the Defense Attorney Panel
hourly fee schedule as follows:
Partners $200 to $225 (12.5% increase)
Sr. Associates: $175 to $215 (40% increase)
Associates: $150 to $200 (33% increase)
Paralegals: $95 to $110 (15% increase)
Sorry I made a mistake in the Sr. Associates only got a 24% increase not 40% increase.
The Sr. Associate raise of $83,200 more per year is more than starting salary of a teacher at SRVUSD. But I do understand that SRVUSD with it cavalier attitude about childern safety is going to needs lawyers more than teachers.
Correction:
Sr. Associates: $175 to $215 (24% increase).
@Fair Pay-
So, you think the best way to garner support for increased teacher pay is by attacking the income attorneys earn? Your lack of critical thinking analysis, and lack of basic understanding of what is required to become an attorney, compared to a teacher, is amazing.
Everyone remembers their first semester in college, when so many fellow freshman you would meet noted they were majoring in English, Social Studies, or Political Science, and were going to become an attorney. What happened to most of those students, typically by the end of their Sophomore years? They were getting average grades, and realized there was no way they were going to get into law school with their academic performance, so they decided to become teachers instead. Only the brightest and best students achieved the necessary grades, and competitive LSAT scores to get accepted into accredited law schools, and most of the rest instead became teachers.
Moreover, many of those top students who actually were accepted to law school later could not cut it academically in ultra competitive law school, and either flunked out or dropped out, and became teachers.
Finally, of those who actually graduated from law school, many could not pass the incredibly difficult California Bar Exam, which has the lowest pass rate of any state in the nation. Hence, not being able to pass the Bar exam, many of them later became teachers.
Law School is also three years of incredibly challenging and expensive education, compared to one year of getting your teacher’s credential.
Once you jump thru all those hurdles and money to become a licensed attorney, most associates have to bill well over 2,000 hours a year(which means actually work about 2400 hours year as much of the work time is unbillable), and most law firms require at least 7 years of time achieving at the firm before even being considered for a non-equity junior partnership.
Teachers, on the other hand, do not work the summers, have every possible imaginable vacation day, and obtain tenure after two years.
So, @Fairpay, if you think what it takes to become an attorney, from a time, competition, and expense standpoint, is similar to what it takes to become a teacher, you are mistaken. If you think the amount of time an attorney works is similar to the time a teacher works, you are mistaken.
Finally, if you think attacking the income an attorney makes somehow helps garner public support for increases in teacher salary, you are also mistaken.
Claudia,
Wow do you have some anger issues? .. The comparison is not about the gross pay it is about the salary increases. Get a grip and take a breath. The attorney are billing by the hour which means that are compensated for every hour they are work.
@Fairplay
Talk about anger issues, with your crying about your school district allegedly having a “cavalier attitude with children safety”, and your rant about “what is good for law firms should be good for teachers”.
By the way, guess why your school district needs to constantly hire attorneys to clean up problems? Because of the actions of your fellow teachers. When the teachers fail to keep and eye on students and they are injured, when the teachers claim injuries at work and make workers compensation claims, when the teachers fail to stop bullying and the students sue the district, when the teachers fail to comply with the required special education rights of the students, the result is litigation and the need for the district to spend taxpayers money on attorneys.
The teachers have the ability to reduce the need for the district to spend money on attorneys. But as long as teachers like @fairplay continue to blame the district, their attorneys, and everyone else but the teachers for the problems, more money will need to be spent on attorneys, with less left over for teacher raises.
Claudia,
First I am not a teacher. But you must be a lawyer because it is obvious that you want to talk about everything but the point.
The point is how do school districts justify the raise granted to their lawyers of 33% in one year and limit teachers to 1.8%. Please justify why a law firm is entitled to a 33% increase of tax funded dollars in a single year. The raises were granted to every law firm that does work for the school districts of Northern California. I thought teachers unions were strong but they have never pulled off that feat. So you are right lawyers are very smart and know how to silently get a 33% raise where a teacher needs to go on strike to get a 2% raise. Teachers raises make the front pages but the law firms manged to pull off a raise with not a single article. I do not blame the lawyers they asked for a raise and it was approved. The blame lies with the school districts that allowed it to be approved.
Please stop with the attacks on teachers as a way to show how superior lawyers are. I get it you hate teachers. It was never my intention to say lawyers are evil. My issue is with the school districts that are increasing their cost with no improvement in education or safety of the students.