Measure C: The Right Way, Right Now, to Raise Funds for MDUSD Schools?

Over the past couple weeks, school and community leaders have shared opposing viewpoints on Measure C, the $348 million facilities bond measure for the Mt. Diablo Unified School District.

Voters in this district will go to the polls on June 8 to say "yes" or "no" to this measure. According to its official voter guide, Measure C purports "to support quality education and safety for local students, and to reduce impacts of state budget cuts by improving science, career and technical education facilities; upgrading classroom instructional technology; repairing leaky roofs; improving safety; maximizing energy efficiency including adding solar panels and modern air conditioning; and repairing, replacing, equipping or modernizing other school facilities." 

As election day nears, people on both sides have shared their concerns in commentaries published in the Contra Costa Times. 

This first is a pro-Measure C commentary from Kish Rajan, a member of the Walnut Creek City Council, and Jenny Reik, the chair of the Pleasant Hill Education Commission

They acknowledge that "Measure C won't solve every problem facing our local schools, but it will provide critical support to local students when state funding is increasingly unreliable."

They praise Measure C for providing classroom instructional technology and science and computer lab upgrades. "Improved technology will enhance advanced classes and elementary instruction in math, science and language. It will provide students the relevant technical skills they need to compete for careers in tomorrow's job market."

They also note the "energy-efficiency improvements like solar ... that will secure state incentive grants and cut costly utility bills." 

To them, Measure C is "affordable and responsible." 

They say it "maintains the tax rate voters approved with the last local school measure in 2002, without increasing taxes above that rate. In addition, by law, Measure C has taxpayer safeguards in place: All funds will be subject to independent citizen oversight and annual audits, and funds can't be taken by the state. Audits have shown that the original Measure C was implemented effectively. That commitment will continue with this Measure C."

The authors of a more recent  "No on C' guest column say that the measure is anything but responsible. Bottom line, they argue, this measure is not the right strategy to help the school district deal now, or in the future. 

This column, published last Wednesday, comes from longtime MDUSD activists: A.J. Fardella, of Pittsburg, who was a member of the district's Measure C Bond Oversight Committee; Carla Ludwig, of Walnut Creek, and Karen Barta, of Martinez, who are former members of CUES (Community United for Excellent Schools).

They question whether the $348 million facilities bond is affordable. They also question whether this is the only option available. And, they are concerned about what they call the behind-closed-doors approach the district used to formulate the bond measure. They say this formulation came "without community input, including that of the current Measure C Bond Oversight Committee."

"We completely agree that a local funding source is required, but we don't agree Measure C is the right vehicle," they write.

They raise concerns about how much Measure C will cost in the long term. One estimate puts the price tag at $1.87 billion.

"The bond measure was approved by the board in March, but it wasn't until April when a reporter [Contra Costa Times columnist Dan Borenstein] asked for the cost analysis, that MDUSD disclosed the overall cost to taxpayers."

With regard to the solar program the district is touting, these writers say that the district has "not provided a comprehensive plan showing revenues and expenses over time." As for the after-school facilities, the district has not listed any improvements "except for playground equipment at a handful of elementary schools," the writers contend.

Their solution: "This district can and should do the hard work necessary to pass a parcel tax; a funding source that can actually save programs at this crucial point in time."