Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

San Bruno Park School District bond proposition, Measure O (November 2011)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
School bonds
& taxes
Portal:School Bond and Tax Elections
Bond elections
2014201320122011
201020092008
All years and states
Property tax elections
2014201320122011
201020092008
All years and states
How voting works
Other
State comparisons
County evaluations
Approval rates
A San Bruno Park School District bond proposition, Measure O ballot question was on the November 8, 2011 ballot for voters in the San Bruno Park School District in San Mateo County, where it was defeated.[1]

Measure O, if it had been approved, would have allowed the district to borrow $40 million.

A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for passage.[1]

Election results

Measure O
Votes Percentage
Yes 2,368 50.8%
No Defeatedd 2,239 49.2%
Election results are from the San Mateo County elections office (timed out).

Support

Supporters

Supporters included:

  • Russ Hanley
  • Karin Cunningham
  • Joseph Capote
  • Megan Connery
  • John Marinos

Arguments in favor

Arguments in the official voter guide in favor of Measure O included:

  • The community's most important asset is its schools.
  • Quality schools help students achieve and support higher property values.
  • Measure O funds cannot be taken by the state.

Opposition

Opponents

Opponents included:

  • Charles Zelnick, Jr.
  • Robert Riechel
  • Nancy Young
  • Bill Baker
  • Christo Pallas

Arguments against

On the "No on O" website, opponents of Measure O put forth 10 arguments against Measure O. The main arguments opposing it were:

  • "The San Bruno Park School District Board of Trustees has already admitted that they do not need the $40,000,000 Measure O bond money."

ed as true and correct.

  • "There is no reliable oversight mechanism to insure that the any Measure O money not diverted to other uses by the SBPSD’s ethics challenged Superintendent and his Board will be spent on the specious laundry list of projects listed as a reason for Measure O."
  • "SBPSD Board Superintendent Hutt and the SBPSD Board are already running up debt in the SBPSD without voter approval."
  • "In 2010, SBPSD Board Members executed a scheme to divert $12,129,933.90 from the Fund 40: Special Reserve Fund for Capital Outlay Projects into non capital project uses that included a $7,232,026 contribution to retirement plans that benefit SBPSD Superintendent Hutt and other top ranking SBPSD employees."
  • "Taxpayers in the SBPSD are being buried under a mountain of bond debt being piled on by the SBPSD, San Mateo Union High School District and the San Mateo County Community College District."
  • "The City of San Bruno and the San Bruno Park School District share a common property tax base."
  • "Your costs of living are skyrocketing, the economy is dangerously uncertain."
  • "The San Bruno Park School District (SBPSD) has been plagued by financial mismanagement and the $40,000,000 Measure O bond money is expensive money."
  • "The $40,000,000 Measure O bond debt will cost SBPSD taxpayers as much as $80,000,000 to $90,000,000 in principal and interest payments by the time the debt is paid off in 30 or 40 years."
  • "FPPC Stipulation, Decision and Order Number: 2011-252: the California Fair Political Practices Commission (CFPPC) found the SBPSD’s ethics challenged Superintendent Hut guilty on 4 counts of violating California Government Code Section 87300 for "FAILURE TO DISCLOSE REPORTABLE INTERESTS ON A STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (Form 700)."

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure O: "To update classrooms with up-to-date computers and technology, renovate and modernize classrooms and school facilities throughout the district; replace outdated heating systems; upgrade playfields and playground equipment; and make energy cost-saving improvements; shall San Bruno Park School District be authorized to issue $40 million of bonds within legal interest rates, with annual audits and an independent citizens’ oversight committee, and all funds spent locally and no money used for administrative salaries or taken by the State?"[2]

See also

External links

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 San Mateo Daily Journal, "Ballot in November thick with measures," July 18, 2011
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.

Chalkboard.png This School Bond and Tax article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.