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.
