October Special District Roundup
A middle school moves, Hayward representation improves, and BART is trying not to lose... more money.
HUSD: Movin’ and Fundin’
The Bret Harte Shuffle
Bret Harte Middle School is set to move from its current location to the former location of Highland Elementary School. At an October School Board meeting, the HUSD heard pros and cons of choosing to move the aging middle school to either the site of Highland Elementary or the site of Strobridge Elementary (both currently closed).
The move was informed by community involvement and staff analysis. Some of the benefits and downsides to each site are included in the below slide from the meeting.
The location, in almost the geographic middle of the Bret Harte catchment area, was a big benefit, as well as those above. The primary concerns about the Highland location were traffic issues, though other recommendations of next steps are included in the following slide.
The traffic study and coordination with multiple agencies will take some time, but the Board voted unanimously to move Bret Harte to the Highland site.
The need for moving the campus came after an analysis was done on the earthquake safety of the building when it was determined that it would cost more to retrofit the existing campus than to simply demolish a different one and build a whole new campus there. That being said, that’s still a lot of money, which leads us to the following item.
Bond. School Board Bond.
In order to meet the $977,000,000 price tag of their Facilities Master Plan, HUSD is going to need a big one-time cash injection. This is usually done via bond measures, which are loans that the district takes out and are then paid for over time by a nominal increase in taxes. We’re going to see a few of these on ballots this coming year, including a likely re-up of the Measure C Bond from the City.
But for HUSD, asking for a bond is a no-brainer. The last 3 bonds ($205,000,000 in 2008, $229,000,000 in 2014, and $381,700,000 in 2018) all got over 70% approval from voters when they only need 55% to pass. The district did manage to refinance the bonds to save money, just like any other loan, so the idea is that this upcoming bond will not “[increase] taxes beyond what the voters anticipated from the last bond.”
So how much are they asking for? $550,000,000 in one lump sum that will cost $60/$100,000 of assessed property value. So the good news for the renters is that you won’t, directly at least, have to pay for anything! And most homeowners will see a modest increase in their property taxes, especially as assessed value is usually far below “market” value.
And if none of this makes sense to you, it’s good to have you here, fellow Millennial.
This money will likely be used, among other things, to pay for the reconstruction of Bret Harte. You can expect this to show up on the March 5, 2024 Primary Ballot.
HARD: Mo’ Money, No Problems
Not many Hayward-related things happened at HARD this month, aside from some negotiations around the proposed contract for doing energy efficiency projects for the District Office.
But one thing that did come through was some updates on Capital Improvement Projects. HARD has $240,000,000 in Bond money available for various projects around the District. And we just wanted to drop in some of the more interesting (and expensive) projects that are in the works in Hayward plus the project’s budget.
D and Clay Street Acquisition: $1,633,000 (for a new park)
Foothill Trail Master Plan: $920,000
Bidwell Park Renovation: $15,750,000
Hayward Plunge Renovation: $714,000
Palma Ceia Park: $1,500,000
Tennyson Park Renovation: $11,500,000
Eden Greenways: $572,000
Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Center - Wetlands Habitat Room: $202,250
Centennial Park Master Plan: $60,000
Centennial Park Wall/Fence: $200,000
Meek Park Renovation: $500,000
Memorial Park Renovation: $385,000
Mt. Eden Park: $5,000,000
San Felipe Community Center: $692,000
San Felipe Park: $510,000
Southgate Community Center: $1,000,000
Weekes Community Center: $587,000
Weekes Community Park Renovation: $2,042,000
CalTrans Parcel Group 8: ????
That’s a lotta money! And that’s only for the projects in Hayward proper that I could see which haven’t already had most of the money spent on them already. So when you start to see construction going on in any of these areas, you’ll know why.
AC Transit: District Dancing
AC Transit has been a little busy with redistricting for the last month or two. Because they were going to get sued over having 2 at-large Directors, AC Transit decided to take on a redistricting effort and change their number of districts from 5 to 7. That means there will be 2 new districts and 2 new people that will need to fill those seats.
The more important question is: Where will those districts be? There hasn’t been anything 100% confirmed yet, though the Board did narrow it down to 2 (very similar for Hayward) maps
This map has Fairview, Fremont (where literally nobody lives), Hayward, and Newark lumped together.
This map has Cherryland, Fremont (literally 0% of the population), Hayward, and Newark lumped together. Either way, Hayward and Newark are gonna be the best of AC Transit Buddies here shortly.
The interesting question will be who fills that new seat? I doubt it’ll be either of the at-large seats as there’s a good chance those At-Large Directors don’t reside in Hayward. So keep your eyes peeled for names coming up on the ballots.
BART: Back With A Deficit
As you’ve doubtless heard by now, BART has a big budget deficit (like almost all local transit agencies). Prior to the Pandemic, 60% of its revenue came from fares. Now the number has dropped to 23%, with the gap being filled by emergency Federal money. And while office occupancy in San Francisco (the primary driver of their revenue) has gone up to about 40% of pre-pandemic levels, BART ridership is still lagging behind that (though only by a few percentage points).
All that is a long way of saying that since BART relied so much on commuters to San Francisco and a lot of SF Techies are working from home, BART’s funding is in big trouble.*
So what’s the plan to deal with it? There are several different things that the Board considered.
Cost Containment: Business Process Improvements and Non-labor reductions were the biggest returns on investment, but these initiatives suffer from long lead times and potential harm to rebuilding ridership, respectively
One-Time Funds: Capital maintenance deferrals (again?), Asset sales, and dipping into reserves
Defer Retiree Medical Liability Payments: This would cost a lot and wouldn’t be repaid until 2049, by some models.
Take On Debt and Defer Debt Payments: This would, again, cost a lot in the long run, but could save hundreds of millions in the short-term.
One thing they won’t be considering is service cuts**. Because most of the cost of running BART is in the actual trains and rails and stations, cutting costs there doesn’t make up for the hits that they would take in service reductions.
Who knows what BART will eventually decide, but short of some kind of Public Transit Renaissance, they’ll definitely have to explore changes in how they do business.
*It’s worth pointing out here that VTA, another regional transit authority, has not been suffering in the same way because a significantly larger portion of their revenue comes from taxes as opposed to far revenue. This is not only a more stable source of funding, but also more equitable as ticket prices can be kept lower to serve low-income people.
**Another thing they apparently won’t be considering is development of existing under-used land. For example, this large lot in Hayward has been used as a storage yard for years while also being a priority development area for the City. Many transit authorities globally have pivoted from rail companies that happen to own land to land-owners that happen to run a railway.