Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Staff Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees hear public concern over staff housing finances as superintendent says 30 units have interest
Summary
Board discussion and public comments flagged funding transparency and outstanding costs for the district's staff housing project; Interim Superintendent Skelly said 30 apartments have been allocated and leases remain unsigned.
Trustees heard multiple public comments and a staff update Jan. 30 about the district's staff (teacher) housing project, where residents and a trustee pressed for clearer accounting of costs and the number of staff the project will serve.
During the public-comment period, a community member identified as Nancy said she had repeatedly asked for full financials for the project and described an outstanding construction-related rent liability of $1.8 million that she said did not appear in an earlier pro forma. Nancy told trustees she had been tracking the project since the fall and expressed concern about continuing district expenditures while interest from prospective residents appeared to decline.
Interim Superintendent Dr. Skelly and other administrators responded with an update, saying the numbers are "fluid" because no leases have been signed and that 30 apartments are planned for the staff-housing development. Skelly said 30 people were currently listed as interested and that the board will receive a breakdown of certified and classified staff allocations at the board's next meeting. He also said the $175,000 furniture item approved on the consent agenda was not a new expenditure but an authorization to spend previously allocated funds.
Trustees pressed staff for clarity about how Measure T (the district's capital measure) funds interact with the project, asking whether Measure T funds might be used to cover the $1.8 million rent shortfall mentioned by the public. Skelly said staff would need to consult counsel and bond counsel before committing Measure T funds and that the board had previously allocated $30,000 for community outreach on the related property option-to-purchase work with a consultant (Carducci).
Trustee Conley raised a separate but related facilities-finance question during discussion of consent item L (roofing design): Measure T'related roofing work was previously estimated at about $15.5 million across sites, yet a design contract under consideration listed a $10.5 million design figure; Conley asked why the numbers differed so much. Staff explained that the $10.5 million was a design-phase figure expressed as a percentage of estimated construction and that the construction estimate and the measure'level projection were different budget lines. After discussion the board approved item L on the consent agenda (motion by Trustee Conley, second by Trustee Henry; motion passed unanimously).
No leases had been signed as of the Jan. 30 meeting; trustees directed staff to provide more detailed financial documentation and to consult legal counsel about allowable uses of Measure T funds if those funds were to be applied to the project.
