They are using pre-fab buildings at Castro/mistral to stay in budget. Can the other sites do the same?

The Board should reconsider its plan for bond money in light of the impending exit from Mountain View of most low and middle-income families due to rising rents.

It's great how funds are being used on children and education rather than the police and their illegal spyware technology.

"It would reflect poorly on the board"

You'd think that's their goal anyway.

One of my biggest regrets as a board member was not realising that our district leadership lacked in-house construction experience, and that I didn't push harder for the district to hire an in-house construction person to handle the bond. I believe an in-house construction expert would have forced the district and its stakeholders to develop a spending plan that matched the amount we really had, and would have been more comfortable with a more robust construction schedule.

A board's effort to ensure public fundings are being spent well has resulted in the opposite, an even greater amount of public funds (and good will) being lost to board paralysis. Let the professionals do their job within the scope of the exact bond funds we have remaining, no matter how politically unpopular their cuts may be.

I hope the board will strongly consider investing its extra general revenue (included lease and Shoreline revenue) in training and retaining a great teaching force, rather than this multi-million dollar obsession with construction and reserves.

It looks like the PACT school has successfully lobbied to divert the money earmarked for the reopening of Slater toward improvements to Stevenson. The priority should be the reopening of Slater and not the comfort of the relatively affluent PACT students.

@Disappointed of Old Mountain View claimed:
"It looks like the PACT school has successfully lobbied to divert the money earmarked for the reopening of Slater toward improvements to Stevenson."

"looks like" being the operative mistaken term there.

No, this idea came from the District staff, not from Stevenson.
I was shocked to see it being suggested by the staff in the budget suggestions they presented.
I oppose touching the money from the rentals for construction purposes.
There are various OTHER ways to budget the work on Stevenson without touching that Slater set-aside money from the German school rental.

FYI, Stevenson itself, as currently shown in the option drawings, would only cost $17 million. That's less than any of the other 3 schools that need a total rebuild to meet the official District Standards.

"The priority should be the reopening of Slater and not the comfort of the relatively affluent PACT students."

Building a new Slater has been officially estimated at an additional $30 million and another $20 million to replace the county run preschool for special needs kids that is currently sitting in the way of building a new Slater.

To open Slater will cost a total of $50 million.

I'm not objecting to opening a new Slater, even at $50 million, I'm just pointing out that to pay for a new Slater as a priority would mean NOT doing anything to upgrade 3 other schools and some big cuts at a fourth school.

So, to build Slater now would mean diverting everything to Slater and not touching Theuerkauf, Landels, Stevenson and seriously cutting into Monta Loma repairs.

If the Board or District can find a new source for the $50 million needed to open a new Slater, that's fine by me, but not by stealing away the resources from 4 other schools to do it.

Once again, Slater advocates need to stop their long-running tactic of attacking other schools to raid the resources they want and stick to working together to find NEW resources.

Let's work together to open a new Slater, not work against each other and waste millions more by delaying these critical projects any further than they have been already.

When will this district learn that buildings alone do not make a great school? If that were true, Theuerkauf would be the best school in the district as it has the nicest campus. Stevenson, along with Bullis Charter school (the #1 ranked public school in all of California) would be terrible. Both are crammed in portables.

Spend the bond money allocated for new/upgraded buildings but nothing more! The rest of that money should go to programs that actually help our kids learn. We've seen from Stevenson and Bullis that kids can learn just fine in less than ideal structures. Maybe there's something else those schools are doing that makes them great. Maybe that is how we should spend our money going forward to make other schools in Mountain View great.

Extremely disappointing lack of leadership and an absence of stewardship from this Board and superintendent.

"Extremely disappointing lack of leadership and an absence of stewardship from this Board and superintendent"

remember this at future elections.

@Momma
"They are using pre-fab buildings at Castro/mistral to stay in budget."

They are using "modular" construction at Mistral, but not at Castro.
Yes, it does save millions to use modular construction methods.

"Can the other sites do the same?"

ONLY at Stevenson and Mistral are they allowed to use the cheaper modular construction.
Which partly explains why Stevenson is so much cheaper to rebuild than the other schools. The preexisting utilities and other site prep is another huge cost savings at Stevenson.

The new Slater will be built with the more expensive "stick-built" construction methods and all new utilities and other site prep from scratch.

The new Castro will also be fully new-built and stick-built construction.

The Board defined the "District Standards" specifically states that ONLY the "choice schools", meaning only Stevenson and Mistral, may be built with the cheaper "modular construction" methods.

All of the "neighborhood schools" must use the more costly "stick-built" construction methods for everything.

Next Thursday's agenda was released here:
Web Link

Check Item IX.A and Item X.C. This is the first time I've seen a plan that doesn't pit school against school and neighborhood against neighborhood. There is something in it for each school, and it doesn't require a new bond measure.

It does involve moving the revenue from the Whisman school lease into the general fund, but it also has a clear path to reopening a school in the NE quadrant in a way that benefits the other schools.

The challenge will be getting it approved by the board. If this plan makes sense to you, please go to the Thursday meeting and tell the board, or email them separately. This is the best plan I've seen for the kids of Mountain View so far.

@ST Parent:

"The new Slater will be built with the more expensive "stick-built" construction methods and all new utilities and other site prep from scratch. "

I don't think that anything about the construction of Slater has been decided, has it? The plan I linked to above has it being built with modulars.

I just looked at agenda for next board meeting....

OMG $57,000 for executive coaching for this superintendent?

Tell me this is not true

This is crazy, Here is the contract for the executive coaching

Web Link

Looks like the superintendent had the same amount spent last year for the same thing. There are no metrics or outcomes. Looks like the same contract just rolled over with dates changed.

So what did we really get for the $200,000+ annual salary we pay him already?

Not pleased.

I will be watching the the Board meeting this Thursday to see which Board members rubber-stamp this sham of a contract.

If they do, shame on them for being hustled.

Again, stewardship of public dollars is a big issue.

Steve Bell of North Whisman

Mr Bell,
First I want to re-state that I have always supported building a new Slater as long as it can be done without stealing away resources from the other currently operating K-5 schools. I am not deterred in this by the $50 million price tag either.

"@ST Parent:
"I don't think that anything about the construction of Slater has been decided, has it?"

Many times in various Board meetings the Board and Superintendent has stated that only the choice schools may be built with modular construction and all "neighborhood schools" must be stick-built. This can be found in the minutes of some meetings and in the video of several meetings.

And all the plans and drawings and budget estimates presented at Board meetings that specifically dealt with Slater, Slater has always been shown as stick-built. Thus the $30 million cost for Slater and the $20 million side-effect cost of building a new preschool to replace the one in the Slater spot today.

Of course, as with everything this Board does, they can continue to waste time and thus money and can go back on their word on any decision they have made in the past.

So, I suppose the Board could decide to make a special case for Slater to allow Slater to also be modular. That will save millions, but still the new Slater will be over $24 million even with modular plus the cost of the new preschool.

When building Slater to be a "lesser" school in any way to the other K-5 schools has come up, there is a political push-back. The official plans up to now has been to build a new Slater to 450 capacity and stick-built.

Any way they build Slater, it will still be the most expensive K-5 school in the district.

"The plan I linked to above has it being built with modulars."

I will read up on that and get back to you when I have a comment about this new and very different plan.

@Steve Bell
"Check Item IX.A and Item X.C."

Mr. Bell,
I have looked over the several pdf files attached to the June 16th full agenda.
I found 2 new-ish things.

First is the $5 million savings by making Slater a special case neighborhood school built with the modular methods, like Mistral and Stevenson. That would mean Slater has come down from $30 million to $25 million. This is a nice savings, but still Slater will be the most expensive K-5 school.

Second was the assumption that the county would be forced to pick up the cost of relocating and rebuilding their special needs preschool, not the MVWSD budget. I wonder if the county knows it will be asked to spend $20 million when the preschool gets kicked out of Slater?

If correct, those would be significant to the MVWSD budget.

"This is the first time I've seen a plan that doesn't pit school against school and neighborhood against neighborhood."

Late last year when 4 trustees said they would not close Stevenson (or any of the other operating schools) and then the "Slater Now" presentation stated they did not want Stevenson closed, that was the big change. Once everyone agreed that closing any school was unacceptable, then we all could move forwards looking for solutions that helped everyone.

I'm only sad that it took years of delays and wasted millions to finally come to that conclusion.

"There is something in it for each school, and it doesn't require a new bond measure."

The idea of leveraging MVWSD rental agreements to get what is essentially a "construction loan" (ie COP cert of participation) has been mentioned before. I recall Trustee Wheeler mention this several times.

I also always assumed that the German school rent set-aside was intended as collateral for some sort of loan to build Slater.

"It does involve moving the revenue from the Whisman school lease into the general fund, but it also has a clear path to reopening a school in the NE quadrant"

That I agree with.

"in a way that benefits the other schools."

This I can see for the over crowded schools being able to shift kids across to other schools making a ripple effect that puts kids in Slater. How it helps other schools I am still trying to figure out.

"The challenge will be getting it approved by the board."

You never can tell with our Board.

"If this plan makes sense to you, please go to the Thursday meeting and tell the board, or email them separately."

Let's say I don't yet see anything new that I object to in this plan.
I never understood why the Board and Super were always so opposed to modular construction methods for the neighborhood schools or opening a "starter school" at Slater.

"This is the best plan I've seen for the kids of Mountain View so far."

Let's hope the details all make sense and there is no hidden gotcha here.

If I had to work with Steve Nelson on a regular basis I would need lots and lots of "coaching" too. I practically have PTSD from serving on a district committee where he would pop in and scream at people. And don't make eye contact-- it's like staring into a vortex of insanity.

I think coaching amounts to therapy, really. A lot of organizational leaders use coaches to help them deal with difficult situations--or in this case, personalities.

I'd rather pay for a coach than yet another search firm to find a replacement.

57k/year on therapy could very well be cheaper than lawsuits/recruiting

I disagree that we should be paying $57,000 for therapy for the superintendent.

And I do not believe that any of the search firms that applied for our last search requested $57,000.

That "executive coaching" contract looks very fishy to me. Same contract as last year, with no metrics or outcomes. Just ongoing gravy train at tax payer expense.

Coaching is not the issue, its the cost and the content of this contract.

I will also be watching to see which Board members approve this contract on Thursday.

This Superintendent was deemed as needing 2 years of mandatory coaching at time of hire (google it and you'll find Ellen Wheeler saying so).
There are typically no metrics and outcomes in these kinds of contracts. Given that MVWSD is a public entity maybe we could ask for the log of meetings.
We got a decent Strategic Plan in one year - not like we got nothing out of the $200k+&57.000. I imagine the coach helped with some false steps taken here and there (which were later corrected).
Let's rally around the Plan and make something out of it. No Superintendent can do it alone and it's a good use of everyone's energy.

The logic should not be "well at least we got something out of a bad deal", and then go ahead a repeat the bad deal.

We should expect more from our public officials or vote them out.

I read that contract. It does not state details that should be expected in any business contract. No explicit deliverables. In Silicon Valley?

Not OK.

There are several statements - oft repeated by ST Parent, that the Board & Superintendent dictated or voted that "stick-built" or "modular permanent build" was the construction choice dictated to neighborhood or choice schools. There is no such vote on school building Public Policy. Discussion and preliminary plans / are not votes on public policy.

There was a vote, at the beginning of school year 2:3 for using a 'modular permanent construction' to bring down the costs of Castro&Mistral. The construction consultants/the CBO / the Superintendent /the Castro&Mistral Principals came up with that cost saving plan, over the summer. The Board voted, 2:3, to change from move expensive plan ("stick built") The motion to use a smaller construction project, with Modular Permanent construction FAILED.

Since that time: the district has presented several preliminary 'modular permanent' construction proposals - which have been discussed (and the west-side Castro site Kinder classrooms were approved). There is no specific vote - of locking construction of school-types into specific "stick built permanent" or "module built permanent".

I'm sorry this topic is so complex. It makes it confusing to follow.

Steven Nelson, MVWSD Board member, these are his own opinions

@Coaching, I hear your quacking. The night I was elected, in 2012 I liked this guy's quacking much better!

Nov 7, 2012 Barack Obama victory speech
"That's why elections matter. It's not small, it's big. It's important. Democracy ... can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions ..., it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.
That won't change ..., and it shouldn't. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about ... issues."

Superintendent Rudolph is the biggest joke of a leader the district has ever had. He's only damaged us since he's been here. To hear that we've spent $257K+ with "coaching" and he's still horrible and rude is disheartening. I've had contact with him in a time of need and been pushed to the side, without a care in the world for my small but important need. He is rude to his employees and is a disgrace to this district. Shame on anyone who votes to approve this contract. This man does not understand silicon valley and clearly our board does not either.

@ MVWSD mom, I've only lived here 32 years (Santa Cruz / Scotts Valley is an enclave of SV). And I've only worked for one of the iconic Silicon Valley employers (Xerox PARC) and that only for a decade. I'm sorry you have felt personally damaged. I do not think Dr. Rudolph is a disgrace to the District or this community. I do not feel any shame about voting to bring him in to the Chief Administrative position in this organization.

Steven Nelson is one of the five members of the MVWSD School Board, this is his personal opinion

Ridiculous! We need to spend more money on teachers, less on construction. I have kids in the substandard buildings at Stevenson but what really bothers me is how many excellent, experienced teachers we lose every year to other districts with higher pay. This is the district's biggest problem. This is where they need to spend the money. Buildings don't teach the kids.

why not move the PACT kids into the public school system already in place. this plan would allow the funds to open Slater again. The idea of a school for a selected group clearly doesn't benefit the budget, the over crowding shuffling kids cross town. Parents that feel the need to be hands on could still help. Simple huh.

As an employee of the district, I can tell you that Dr. Rudolph is not rude to his employees. He is polite and cares deeply about each one. He is a breath of fresh air. He has gotten this district focused and moving forward with the new strategi plan. Working with the current board, especially one member, is very challenging and yet Dr, Rudolph has shown respect even when he is being treated rudely in meetings. His contract should be renewed and extended.

@oh brother
"why not move the PACT kids into the public school system already in place."

Trying that move cost the district 2 years construction delay already and millions lost dollars because of the delay. The Whisman/Slater advocates obsessive desire to steal from other schools for themselves cost the district years of delays and millions and harmed the district in many other ways too.

Had the Whisman/Slater advocates said they did not want Stevenson closed from the very start and never offered options that included closing any of the other schools (Slater proposed closing Theuerkauf, Castro, Monta Loma and most often Stevenson.) and instead had started out working WITH the other schools at the start of Measure G, then millions would have been saved and the construction on Slater could already have begun along with modernization of all the other operating schools.

Also lost were thousands of hours of parents away from their kids and endless arguing in Board meetings and more thousands of hours wasted in Task Forces and Committees.

All this effort just to prove hat we all knew from the start, building Slater by closing Stevenson or Theuerkauf or Castro was not a benefit to the district and was very costly.

Trying again to steal resources from Stevenson or any other currently operating schools will simply result in more years delay and more millions lost.

Even the "Slater Now" group eventually saw the error of their past strategy, even Trustee Nelson saw the error in that strategy and because they have all agreed not to close Stevenson, we have all been able to move forwards without wasting millions more dollars.

"this plan would allow the funds to open Slater again."

Your wrong. The Stevenson school is only going to get a maximum
of $17 million for a rebuild. The Slater school will require
$25-$50 million to open a new school at Slater. The $17 million you want to steal from Stevenson wont cover the cost of a Slater school no matter how they build it. And the effort to steal that money from Stevenson will result in most of that money getting lost to delays and thus even less money for Slater.

Even if the district were to kick out Google day care and lose over $1 million each year in rental money, that stolen $17 million from Stevenson would still not be enough to restore the old Slater school. The minimum cost of taking back the old Slater school is over $20 million at least.

"The idea of a school for a selected group clearly doesn't benefit the budget,"

Of course it does since the Stevenson school is open to every K-5 kid in the district. Every kid has an equal chance once their parents request Stevenson. And the "selection" is done by random lottery run by the District Office, NOT anyone at Stevenson.

"the over crowding shuffling kids cross town."

Which is another way Stevenson helps the other schools. Anyone at the over crowded schools can apply to the district for a transfer to Stevenson, thus reducing the over crowding.

Without Stevenson, all of our currently over crowded schools would be way more crowded than they are already.

"Parents that feel the need to be hands on could still help."

No, they could not because none of the other schools have much infrastructure in place to organize and make good use of even the parents they already have to volunteer. Only Stevenson has the culture of mass volunteerism built-in to the entire function of the school. No other school in our district have systems in place that can handle even a fraction of the volunteerism available.

"Simple huh."

Only when you ignore all facts that don't fit your real agenda.

@Stevenson parent

"We need to spend more money on teachers,"

Agreed. That is true all over California public schools too.

"less on construction."

The voters approved Measure G money specifically for construction, that money may not be used for paying teachers or anything other than facilities. Other available money is also only for facilities.

You want better teacher pay? Help pass the next Parcel Tax in early 2017.

"I have kids in the substandard buildings at Stevenson"

Getting Measure G passed was largely due to the voters being made aware of the 100% substandard conditions at Stevenson and a couple other schools that needed better facilities as well.

"but what really bothers me is how many excellent, experienced teachers we lose every year to other districts with higher pay. This is the district's biggest problem."

This is a state wide problem, but yes, it sure seems to be historically worse in Mountain View.

"This is where they need to spend the money. Buildings don't teach the kids."

Which is why I opposed taking money from the rental income to build facilities with. I am content with Option A which does not require diverting the rental money to build a new District Office.

The cost of a new built Stevenson so our school can meet school building codes and meet the official District Standards for our schools will only be $17 million with either Option A or Option E. The $5 million extra dollars needed for Option E that they will get from the rental money is for the new District Office construction, NOT for Stevenson construction.