A sparse audience showed up to listen and comment on the
proposed
‘new city’ development in Coyote Valley and its impact on the
Morgan Hill School District during a workshop Wednesday hosted by
the School Board.
A sparse audience showed up to listen and comment on the proposed ‘new city’ development in Coyote Valley and its impact on the Morgan Hill School District during a workshop Wednesday hosted by the School Board.
The purpose was to gather information and opinion about the district’s options as the development moves forward. All of the proposed development would fall within the district’s boundaries, which extend from San Martin northward to Bernal Road in south San Jose.
The proposed development would ultimately contain 25,000 new homes, 50,000 new jobs and 80,000 residents.
“It is incumbent upon you to consider the impacts of the development on your district as it exists today,” Jack Schreder, of Jack Schreder and Associates, told trustees. He is the district’s consultant on this issue.
Although CARE (Community Alliance for Responsible Education) spokeswoman Victoria Battison attended, along with former School Board candidate Jasmine Woodworth and her husband, Scott, and boardwatcher Elizabeth Mandel, they did not address the board.
The only community members to comment during the nearly two-hour meeting were former School Board Trustee John Kennett, Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President Donna Foster and concerned citizen Bob Benich.
“I was really glad John was there,” Trustee Shelle Thomas said of Kennett after the meeting. “A trustee for six years, someone who knows the issues and obviously has an interest in the district.”
Kennett told trustees he had not come to give them advice, but mostly to bring in the historical perspective.
“I just wanted to give you a couple of reminders in the history of Coyote Valley,” he said. “A piece that we have not heard discussed in the press or anywhere at all. In the 60’s … was the decision to include Coyote Valley in the Morgan Hill School District. In 1977, the East Side High School District was going to build Santa Teresa High; the superintendent approached Morgan Hill and said, ‘How about we take over Coyote Valley,’ and the governing board at the times said no.”
Kennett pointed out that School District revenues are based on property taxes, that perhaps the district wanted to retain that money, and perhaps the East Side High District wanted to start receiving that revenue.
One year later, he said, Proposition 13 was enacted, and the board had another chance to divest itself of Coyote Valley, and opted not to.
The public spoke out against changing boundaries in 1998, with the bond measure to build Barrett Elementary, renovate Live Oak High and build Sobrato High, Kennett said. Surveys were conducted through public forums and Home and School Club meetings.
“The stakeholders said we don’t want to be a part of Oak Grove or a part of East Side,” he said. “Six years ago in a discussion of transferring out that part of the district, parents spoke out loud and clear.”
All the students in the current district are the responsibility of the district, Kennett said.
“You must serve all students,” he said. If you exclude students because it costs too much to serve them or because you don’t like where they live, that’s not right … You can’t just cast them off, as much as that has some simple appeal.”
Some have expressed fears that when the Coyote Valley project is completed, there would be more voters there than in Morgan Hill and San Martin.
Union president Foster had questions about district options, some of which were answered by Suzanne Carrig, Senior Research Analyst for the Santa Clara County Office of Education’s Center for Educational Planning.
Carrig presented, at the beginning of the workshop, the four options the district may follow if a boundary change is to be made: a transfer of territory to some existing district; create an elementary district in Coyote Valley that would feed into a high school district, likely San Jose or East Side; create a new unified, K-12 district; and others options that could be created.
She told trustees that many different groups can request one of these options, including the property owners in Coyote Valley, registered voters, school boards, certain local agencies or the county committee in charge of district reorganization.
Each of the options, Carrig said, has a process that would be followed. The transfer, the creation of a new elementary district and the creation of a whole new district all begin with a petition, followed by public hearings and a study by the county to determine whether the situation meets nine criteria set by the State Education Code.
In the case of a transfer and the creation of an elementary district, the next step would be action by the county committee and an election.
In the case of the formation of a new unified district, the county committee would make a recommendation, after the study, to the State Board of Education, which would take action, and then an election.
Foster wanted to know if, in the case of a transfer, would the receiving district have the right of refusal.
“Yes,” Carrig, “Their consent or non-consent is information we would provide to the county committee. Of course, they would have the right to appeal.”
Benich said he believes the district needs to move forward with the process of forming a new district.
“Now I’m convinced more that ever that we have a path we can take for the formation of a new Coyote Valley district,” he said.
Benich said the nature of the development, which he referred to as “Santana Row style” is one of the major issues the board needs to consider.
“It’s almost going to be mandatory, in an acreage that small (11,000 for the development) … that schools are going to have to be multi-story,” he said.
Trustees also discussed the financial impact of retaining Coyote Valley versus requesting a transfer or formation of a new district.
More data is needed, Superintendent Carolyn McKennan said.
Trustee Mike Hickey said he has two basic issues.
“One is the representation on the task force, and we have sent a letter about that,” he said. “The other is, at some point do we determine do we want to petition (for transfer or formation of a new district). When do we make that decision?”
McKennan said more time is needed.
“You need one more piece of data, and that is financial,” she said. “We were naive in thinking that it (data-gathering) could be done shortly. It takes weeks and it is costly.”
Thomas said she, too, would like more information before committing to a decision.
“In looking at reorganizing, what might we give up,” she said. “I’d like to look at in general what would your revenue be … in keeping Coyote Valley, with the industry in Coyote Valley, the power plant (Metcalf), would that make us a basic aid district. And I think we need to look at where we are now, how far away from a basic aid district are we?”
A basic aid district is one that receives more revenue per pupil that the state-determined amount for the district and so only receives a nominal amount per student from the state. Morgan Hill is a low wealth district, which receives the state-determined amount.
Deputy Superintendent Bonnie Tognazzini said Morgan Hill is approximately $5 million away from being a basic aid district, but that the numbers are fluid, and the district has been that close for many years.
The Coyote Valley Specific Plan Task Force will hold a workshop Saturday, June 12, 9 a.m.-3 p.m. at McEnery Convention Center on San Carlos Avenue at Market Street in San Jose. Mayor Dennis Kennedy and a delegation from the South Valley summit plan, including school board George President Panos, would meet with Mayor Ron Gonzales Monday, June 14, at 4:30 p.m., just before the Task Force meeting at 5:30 p.m.. 151 W. Mission St, San Jose, Room 202 a and b.
