Why did SMUSD Superintendent Alex Cherniss contradict 6 of his principals on the state of school facilities???

Six (6) San Marino School Principals over 4 years wrote and published high praises for the conditions of our school facilities and systems.

San Marino High School: “San Marino HS facilities are comfortable, spacious, air-conditioned, and well designed for instruction.  Sports facilities are have been significantly upgraded.  School facilities are a source of pride for our district.  They are well maintained, clean, safe, and functional.  No complaints have been filed.” 

Carver Elementary: “Carver school facilities are well maintained in a manner that is clean, safe and functional.  The academic facilities are comfortable, spacious, air-conditioned, and well designed for instruction”

Valentine Elementary echoed the same as Carver Elementary plus added:  “We take pride in our beautiful gardens and large grass playfield.  Inspections show NO areas of deficiency.  No complaints have been filed.”

Carver, Valentine and Huntington Middle School gave the “State of Repair” of its facilities and systems the highest grade of “Good” and Overall Rating of “Exemplary.”

The same or similar reports of exceptional facilities and ratings have been recorded over 4 consecutive school years by 6 principals.  

San Marino High School did rate its Mechanical / Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning systems (“HVAC”) as “Fair” but above the lowest grade of “Poor” (for 2017-2018) and an Overall Rating of “Good.” 

A new HVAC system for SMHS does not need $148 million of tag-along projects.  The new HVAC system can be self-funded by SMUSD with some salary and non-teaching position hiring freezes, e.g. not backfilling the assistant principal or retirees returning as consultants.  Try doing more with less.

And the schools are in a “Good” state of repair, “Exemplary” Overall Rating, safe and functional, spacious, air-conditioned and well designed for instruction.” The “spacious” facilities at the High School and both elementary schools should not need additional or new facilities in 2 years when the ballot measure might be floated again for more classrooms, and sports facilities that have already undergone extensive upgrades.

If 6 principals say facilities and systems are Good with no complaints filed, spacious and well designed for instruction, why does the Superintendent say otherwise and contradict his own “managers ?”

The under-construction Barth Athletic Complex requires $12 million dollars for modernization.  Who approved the antiquated design for the new complex that now needs $12 million of modernization before it is even completed?

This is what you do when you didn't have enough funding to complete the Barth and pushed construction into the future to be funded by part of the Alex Cherniss proposed $148 million bond.

Why didn't any of the SMUSD School Board members like Shelly Ryan, Lisa Link, Chris Norgaard, Nam Jack and C Joseph Chang ask questions? Or Read the statements from the 6 principals? Or Do their homework to understand why a yet to be built athletic complex requires upgrade?  

REMEMBER the new $10,000 cap on tax deductibility of property and state income taxes that will add to your taxable income.  Any San Marino homeowner who bought his home in the last 15 years will very likely have a property tax bill of $10,000 or more.  Now all your state income tax deductibility will go away and the amount will be added to your Federal taxable income line on your IRS 1040.

United Citizens For Responsible Government Newsletter #2

UCFGR Newsletter #2

United Citizens for Responsible Government Newsletter #1

UCFRG Newsletter #1

FACT CHECK: San Marino Mayor Steve Talt's statement regarding Outsourcing Building Dept to Los Angeles County

Statements were made by Mayor Steve Talt and another attendee at a Tues meeting regarding outsourcing our building dept to the LA County Dept of Public Works.

Steve said something like "we are not going to hand it over to a bureaucrat" and "if you have a problem today, you can go see the City Manager to ask to see Aldo"

Another attendee was concerned we would end up with lots of "McMansions." 

The following is a "Fact Check" on the statements made. 

I attach the LAC DPW presentation on outsourcing.   LA County DPW Presentation on Outsourcing 

Our City will be supervised by a licensed "Senior Civil Engineer"  who is considered the Office Manager, like Aldo.   NO "bureaucrat" involved.   And a Plan Check engineer is availble to answer questions and review plan check changes ON THE SPOT.  Seems even faster as you don't have to go through the City Manager to get to the Plan Check Engineer.  Not sure if Aldo is a licensed engineer or not.

I spoke with Mr. Alameddine from LAC DPW this morning to get answers to my questions.  Here is what he said:

1) The Senior Civil Engineer is a licensed engineer assigned to San Marino as the Manager.  He will be at the DPW office on Baldwin across from the mall.
2) This Sr Engineer will supervise licensed Plan Check engineers and licensed Inspectors.
3) If we want staffing in our City Hall say for 3 days a week, that can be arranged.  Outside of the 3 days, homeowners, architects, contractors etc can take their changes and questions to the Baldwin office or the Fremont office (both within 10-15 min of San Marino) to have their change requests and questions handled.
4) As for "McMansions" the LAC DPW does not get involved with the City's planning decisions or approvals for a project.  LAC DPW only enforces what the City has approved for a project along with State and Federal regulations.  There are County amendments to certain codes but it is up to San Marino whether to accept or not accept.
5) LAC DPW will enforce San Marino municpal codes.  Our DRC, Planning Commision, and codes do not allow for "McMansions."  Plans are submitted to DRC and Planning Commission for approval so if the approved plans do not show a "McMansion" then a "McMansion" will not be allowed in Plan Check and inspections.  DPW will enforce that.
6) Also from an earlier communication, if a homeowner reports what looks like un-permitted construction activity, a LAC DPW inspector would be dispatched to investigate.  If there is an emergency after regular business hours, like a fire, an inspector would be available to inspect the structure for safety concerns.

We pay for the time that is used by our homeowners and their projects.  Today, we pay for full-time staffing even if there is not enough work or planchecks that uses 40 hrs a week.  With LAC DPW, if we want a staff at City Hall 4 hours a day, 3 days a week, we pay for 12 hours.  Same for inspectors; we pay for the hours the inspector is inspecting.  If we don't want City Hall staffing, we pay for the hours spent by plan check engineers and inspectors at DPW office and field inspections.  All can be part of the charge the homeowner pays for the permit.

I hope this clarifies what Steve said.  There is no "bureaucrat" involved if we outsource our Bldg Dept to LA County.  Not sure where Steve got his information from regarding a "bureaucrat."  The attached document has more details on the process.

Councilmember Dr. Huang had suggested a City budget that is 10% less than last year's, but the City Manager was not capable of even delivering a flat budget with no increase.  Outsourcing the Bldg Dept is a great way to reduce our expenses and also provide an opportunity for revenue generation that will benefit the City.  It will save the City money by not having fulltime staffing and growing pension liabilities. 

A paragigm shift in how our City is run is not "a trim around the ears and neck line" (at a barber shop).  Mayor Talt, we need a complete crew cut to take our City back from the employees who are holding tax payers hostage.

Finally,  it was said during our meeting that our City cannot be run like a private enterprise/business because of union complexities.  How do Boeing, General Motors, US Steel, UPS and many others manage to run their businesses that involve multiple unions?  I am sure the United Auto Workers and United Steel Workers unions are more militant than our fire and police unions.  Maybe we need more  experience on the Council who have run businesses with more than 50 employees to deal with the complexities.  

(When it is time to discuss an Admissions Tax to help pay for our fire and police expenses, I hope elected officials will do their homework and only make statements that are factual.  Pasadena has an Admissions Tax (Municipal Code 4.48.040).  There are no 1st Amendment rights issues and there are exemptions for schools, health clubs, fraternal and social organizations , etc. etc. that are clearly documented in both the Pacific Grove ordinance and the Pasadena ordinance.  San Marino does not have to re-invent the wheel.) 

A 3rd San Marino School Bond because SMUSD cannot control its spending habits

The San Marino Unified School District mantra is: "... best District in the State deserves the best facilities in the State...." 

So far, SMUSD has not had the best facilities and our district still manages to be consistently ranked #1.  How much higher than #1 can SMUSD be ranked if we have a 3rd school construction bond?  Will a new swimming pool help our students academically and perform better in state-wide testing?

Please remember, our students do well because of the importance the parents place on education.  Many parents spend more than the $750 a month I used to spend for extra after-school help on math and Chinese.  It is because of the extra help that many of our students get outside of school that keeps the district ranking up; not because of facilities, support staff or administrators.

I took a look at our 2016 Property Tax bill and it shows $1,515.52   for 2 construction bonds and $ 1,225.27  for 2 school parcel taxes.  A total of $ 2,740.79             .

The proposed new bond (at $60 per 100K of assessed value) will add another $ 1,291.20  to my property tax bill.  A grand total of $ 4,031.99 or 15.4% of my entire property tax bill because SMUSD has an unsatiable appetite for spending other people's money.   For some homeowners, the percentage would even be higher.

Some parents I've spoken to already pay an amount similar to the proposed bond to get their children after-school help that is not available from the school.

Like the new gas tax, aren't we paying twice?  Where did all the gas tax collected from the last 20 years that was earmarked for road repairs go?  Where did all the money from the last 2 school construction bonds go?  Was it a good return on our additional property tax burden?

SMUSD data from a Public Records Act request show that  In the 2015-2016 school year, there were 136 students who attended SMUSD schools but did not sleep in a San Marino home.  These are children of City and SMUSD employees. 

Another 55 businesses sent 96 children of employees to our schools (but at least the businesses paid property tax either directly or through their rent payment).

Employment related transfers are not mandated by law.  If it costs more to educate a student than what the state reimburses the school district, employment related transfer requests do not have to be approved according to the Education Code.

Since the cost of educating a San Marino student is definitely more than the state reimbursement and has to be subsidized by additional property taxes, aren't these parents receiving an un-reported and un-taxed employment related benefit?  Let's control the cost of educating non-resident students first before asking for another hand-out.

Is it fair to ask property owners to shoulder another school construction bond when the last 2 bonds are still being paid off and on top of 2 parcel taxes?  I wonder if  School Superintendent Cherniss pays any San Marino property tax?

It's the students and their parents that make SMUSD #1 - not facilities.

P.S. For a school district with budget constraints, they have now hired back 2 recently retired employees to continue working (Carver elementary principal as a consultant and Ex Superintendent Kleinrock as SMHS Asst Principal.).  SMUSD does not have budget problems; it has a spending problem.