Conejo Valley Trustees Retool Bond for 3rd Try

Conejo Valley school trustees worked late Tuesday trying to prepare a new bond measure for the November ballot--a pared-down version of a request that voters have turned down twice in the past year.

Debate lingered over what could be left out--such as a swimming pool at Westlake High School--as trustees considered proposals to cut more than $10 million from the $97-million bond proposal defeated by voters last fall and again in April. Reducing the request to about $85 million was necessary to have a chance to pass any measure at all, said Conejo Valley Unified School District Supt. Jerry Gross.

“Our needs haven’t changed” since those measures were turned down, Gross said. “But after a couple [of] tries, this is a reality check that we must be flexible and take what we can get.”

To retool the bond package, Gross gave the board several options, including a shorter term to sell bonds and elimination of projects such as the pool that drew criticism in previous campaigns.

“That’s the big one. We kept hearing about the pool, even though the other two high schools already have one,” Gross said.

In previous bond attempts, $4 million was requested for a pool and tennis courts at Westlake High School that Gross said some voters considered frivolous.

Trustee Mildred Lynch said the pool is necessary for sports competitions.

“It’s an easy thing to pick on because people equate it with luxury, but the pool is not about kids sitting around sunning themselves,” Lynch said. “We have aquatic teams who can’t practice or play at home, and we have to pay for them to travel to other facilities.”

Regardless of whether some facilities included in the bond are unnecessary, supporters say the primary purpose of the money is to fix deteriorating campuses.

“Anyone who doesn’t think we need a bond should just go into a bathroom. There’s no question our schools are in desperate need of repairs. They are in deplorable condition,” said Debbie Gregory, who has a third-grade son.

Despite wanting the bond, Gregory said she is unsure the district will be able to persuade voters in its third attempt.

“Instead of looking at the big picture that the schools need it, people are letting their anger toward the district spill over to the bond vote,” Gregory said. “The district needs to rebuild credibility and trust with the community.”

Lynch bristled at any suggestion that the district has acted improperly.

“We are constantly being accused of being irresponsible, misspending money, not being honest or aware,” Lynch said. “We are not spending your money recklessly. We haven’t tried to get away with anything. We are here, whether you believe it or not, for the children.”

Robin Westmiller, a parent who vociferously opposed the last two bond measures, said she resents that taxpayers are expected to foot the bill for all the bond attempts they keep rejecting.

“It cost $86,000 for the election in April; they could’ve used that for one of the new roofs they need,” Westmiller said. “The people spoke twice and defeated this twice. My kids understand ‘no’ better than the school board does.”

Westmiller said she and many others are opposed to the bond because it bundles together into a single costly package repair work that could have been spread over several years.

“If you’re talking about a bond for new schools or facilities, that’s different. But this is simple maintenance,” Westmiller said. “My kids’ SAT scores are not going to go up if they pave the potholes.”

Another issue trustees debated was the fate of rebuilding the Conejo Valley Continuation High School, and whether it was worth the $8 million initially earmarked in the bond.

“Maybe we’ll have to rebuild it at a reduced rate, making it a little less than perfect,” Gross said. “A lot of people have said spending $7 million or $8 million for just 170 kids is not necessary.”

Gross also recommended the bond be repaid over 15 or 25 years, rather than the typical 30 years.

“With the interest rates where they are now, the 15-year bond won’t cost that much more,” he said.

Under the bond proposal the board is considering, the average homeowner in the district would have to pay about $20 annually per $100,000 of assessed evaluation.

Gary Mortimer, assistant superintendent for business services, said the previous bonds included 950 projects, and expects this new attempt to have a shorter but similar list.

He is hopeful the third time will be a charm. While rejected in April, 63% of voters were in favor. Bonds require a two-thirds voter approval for passage.

“Having a lower amount on this bond won’t hurt,” Mortimer said. “I just hope more people vote than last time.”

Lynch was less optimistic, rebuking residents for not supporting a bond she said students need.

“I’m afraid,” she said, “that in this community where people have much, they’re not willing to give a little.”