$70 million bond measure will be on June ballot in Las Lomitas school district

It will be hard to pass a tax measure like this since under our new tax laws, these bond measures cannot be written off our federal taxes.

Good point about the new tax laws and passing a bond.
The district could have used bond funds to upgrade one of its two rented, existing school sites, allowing for enrollment growth or shrinking enrollment. Both school sites have always been attractive as a rental for private schools.
Purchasing an Atherton house to tear down and build more classrooms at Las Lomitas was an expensive capital expense.
It will be difficult to pass an additional bond of this size for a variety of reasons.

Sigh. More money to be poured into the gaping maw that is the Las Lomitas School District.

If the district is in declining enrollment why don't we skip the bond and consider a merger with MPCSD whose schools are also in declining enrollment and also good physical condition; It seems like there is much wasted overhead....

This kind of flagrant waste is why everyone is moving away from the Bay Area.

"It seems like there is much wasted overhead...."

Ya think?

I am the Chair of the "Yes on Measure R" School Bond Committee as well as the current president of the Las Lomitas School Board and I would like to clarify one of the figures in this article for readers and for voters.

The article states: "If more than 55 percent of those voting approve the measure, it would bring the district's bond spending to $154 million, or $113,821 per current student." While this is technically (close to being) correct, that calculation assumes that all spending will be done in one year (it won't) and only one year of students will benefit by these bond dollars (25 years+ of students will benefit).

If Measure R passes, the more accurate calculations are (at the peak of bond issuance): $137M bonds divided by 1400 students per year divided by 25 years (length of bond) = $3914 per student (at peak bonding). Obviously the district pays these bonds down as quickly as we can to save taxpayer money and additionally as a sound financial district with very strong fiduciary controls we have a history of getting the highest bond rating, which also saves taxpayers money.

Another way to view the spending is to compare to other school districts in the area. Please note that Las Lomitas is a smaller district so has fewer households to pull from. What may be relevant to voters is the tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation, which according to Keygent Municipal Advisors (provided to Portola Valley School District): For 2017-18 was:
Belmont-Redwood Shores $78.20

Las Lomitas $35.20 ($65.20 if new bond passes)

San Carlos $64.30

Portola Valley $24.30 (Could go up to $54.30 w/new maximum-sized bond)

Woodside $41.80

Redwood City $41.20

Menlo Park City $38.50

Ravenswood $35.20

We need to pass Measure R because our roofs are end of life, our HVAC are end of life, our fire and security systems are end of life and we need to do this work as soon as possible. The longer we wait to do this critical work, the more it will cost our district and our tax payers. Those of us who have children in the district benefit now, but we have all benefited by the community members who built and repaired these schools before us. For those without children in the district, when your house is sold it will be a selling point to be in the "Award Winning Las Lomitas School District."

For more information on Measure R, please visit our website at http://www.yesonr2018.com and also see our list of endorsements of community leaders here: Web Link

A reader has asked where the bond spending numbers in this article come from.
The numbers are from EdData. See the Los Lomitas data here: Web Link

The bond spending is the total amount of bonds each local school district has had approved by voters since 1995. Because the districts are of different sizes, the amount of bonds issued per current student is compared.

The total is for bonds passed since 1995, not for currently outstanding bonds. The numbers do not reflect annual spending.

Here are the raw figures:

Menlo Park City School District
1995 - $22 million
2006 - $91.1 million
2013 - $23 million
Total - $136.1 million
Current enrollment -2,972
$45,794 per student

Woodside -
(98 - $10.2 million bond failed)
99 - $5.2 million
2005 - $12 million
2014 - $13.5 million
Total - $30.7 million
Current enrollment - 407
$75,430 per current student

Portola Valley
98 - $17 million
2001 - $6 million
2018 - $40 million (not yet approved to be put on ballot)
Total - $93 million
Students now - 604
$104,304 per student if new $40 million bond approved

Las Lomitas
99 - $12 million
2001 - $12 million
2013 - $60 million
2018 - $70 million (not yet passed)
Total - $154 million
Students now - 1353
$113,821 per current student if $70 million bond approved

There are absolute limits to what residents can pay. Another multi-million dollar bond? Vote NO.

John Earnhardt wrote:
"our HVAC are end of life"

Uh...this has already been paid for.

Observe. This is a direct quote from the project list in Measure S, passed in 2013: (source: Web Link

"Replace older windows, ceilings, heating, ventilation, air conditioning"

(HVAC stands for Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning)

Please. Stop making people pay for the same thing twice.



John Earnhardt wrote:
"our fire and security systems are end of life"

These, too, have also already been paid for.

Again, from the list of projects in the 2013 Measure S bond:

"* Upgrade fire alarm systems which are compatible with local fire department regulations, repair fire safety equipment, add sprinklers and fire safety doors to make students safe in the event of an emergency.
* Replace/upgrade existing security systems."

Please. Stop making people pay for the same thing twice.



John Earnhardt wrote:
"our roofs are end of life"

This, too, has ALSO already been paid for.

Again, from the list of projects in the 2013 Measure S bond:
"roof replacement"


Please. Stop making people pay for the same thing twice. Everything you cited was ALREADY paid for in Measure S, less than 5 years ago.

"Information posted on the district's website says the following projects are planned for phase two of construction at La Entrada"

Just to be clear, there was NO MENTION at ANY TIME during Measure S that it was intended to be a Phase 1 of 2. The district stating or implying otherwise is complete fiction.

Again, here is the language in Measure S. The vast majority was is claimed to be needed for Measure R HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED IN MEASURE S.

If you don't want to believe me, then just read Measure S yourself:

Web Link


It is absolutely in the best interest of the community to vote NO on Measure R. Voting otherwise is enabling bad financial management and a blatant contempt for voters.

They they think you can't read and can't search the internet and don't remember Measure S. We need to prove them wrong.

Yes, the current school's physical structure is antiquated and in some places unsafe, however, as others have pointed out, fixing these problems should have been addressed in 2013's Measure S.

A look at the Las Lomitas School District's budget may reveal some inconsistencies and "magical" money movements between accounts. Money is there. Maybe that hidden money can't be used for facilities but I think that needs to be proven.

Administration at LLESD is very closed mouth and also in need of a revamp.

Vote NO on Measure R until we know exactly what they can already pay for!

Yes! Our whole block is a Yes, except for the one old couple.

Wind Fan wrote: Yes! Our whole block is a Yes, except for the one old couple.

Did you consider for even one minute that the "old couple" may not be able to afford yet another hike in taxes? We have many school bonds on our tax bills. One more could put the "old couple" out of their house. Perhaps you have unlimited resources but many in MP do not.

Vote NO.

Remember when the school district needs $70 million of new taxes in order to replace existing buildings that the oft castigated (by the Almanac) Fire District restricts its FTEs and its current year expenditures in order to fund, every year, the depreciation of its facilities. The Fire District has no parcel tax and no construction bonds.

Mr. Carpenter’s Fire District is perpetually overfunded thanks to its fixed allocation of our taxes that makes no sense. This is something that needs to be changed. Our property tax funds should be spent where they are most needed. It would be a public service if The Almanac could report on how this came to be and what can be done about it.

Needs fixing:

Complain away! To the STATE where your complaint belongs. The money the MPFPD gets is set by the STATE. NO ONE locally has any influence over it.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?