
Chandler Unified Board votes for $271.5M bond ask
That number is about 56% of the $487.5 million that voters rejected by more than seven points in the November 2024 election.
The CUSD Governing Board on June 11 also authorized asking voters to extend for another seven years a 15% override of its maintenance and operation budget in the same Nov. 4 election.
CUSD board member Kurt Rohrs voted against the $271.5 million bond question. He argued for a strategy of asking for less money, and returning to voters every three years to ask for more.
'I think I like about the whole process is going to a three-year cycle instead of a five-year cycle,' Rohrs said. 'It's more likely to pass at $199 (million) than it is at $271 (million).'
Traditionally, CUSD returns to voters about every five years to seek new bond authorizations to cover its capital needs. Rohrs moved to seek bond authorization for $199.4 million, which was option 3 from the citizen bond committee. That motion died for lack of a second.
Rohrs also argued voters may be overwhelmed by ballot questions this election.
In addition to the two that CUSD is putting on the ballot, City of Chandler voters will be considering six questions from the city, four of which total a $475 million bond request.
The other two questions deal with amending the City Charter.
Board Member Ryan Heap made the motion to ask for $271.5 million.
'In considering the difference between (options) two and three, what I noted … is there's opportunities to do reimagining (projects),' Heap said.
The district has been reimagining education spaces at some of its older schools. Heap said he recently toured some of those spaces and was impressed by the changes and how they are getting students motivated to learn.
Heap said he wants to make sure the right schools are being reimagined, meaning schools that face competition from nearby charter schools.
Board member Barb Mozdzen said the deciding factor for her was the technology budget. She said she saw a noticeable difference between what was offered in the $271.5 million option over what they would get in the $199.4 million option.
'We have not kept up with our technology or device refreshes and a lot of the infrastructure that is needed in these … schools to have adequate bandwidth for all students being on their devices and all teachers being on their devices during the school day,' Mozdzen said.
Board President Patti Serrano said the deciding factor for her was that the larger amount helps the district's Title I schools. Those are schools that receive federal funding to support low-income families.
'That was something that really caught my attention,' Serrano said. 'We are putting ourselves accountable to what we need to do for our Title I schools to provide the appropriate support, driving — and I want to emphasize this — every decision we make is in good faith driving our student outcomes.'
Another reason she pointed to was that there is money to reimagine Santan Junior High School in the larger option. She said that's important because a new housing development has been approved near Perry High School. Once built, those families would be in the Santan Junior High area.
Board member Claudia Mendoza did not make any comments explaining why she preferred the higher option.
Lana Berry, the district's chief financial officer, said they heard from voters and why they rejected the bond request last year. She said a key factor is that they want any money borrowed to be used in the classroom.
The $271.5 million would be split in three categories. There is $4 million for transportation, $80.7 million for furniture, equipment and technology for instructional purposes and $186.8 million for maintenance, improvements and renovations to school facilities, including security enhancements, acquisition of land and new construction.
No money would go to furniture, equipment and technology for non-instructional purposes.
The board did not consider a fourth option that the citizen bond committee gave it, which was essentially a duplicate of the $199.4 million option with one major difference. It did not include the rebuild of Hartford Elementary School, CUSD's second oldest campus.
That option was for $154.4 million.
Residents within CUSD's boundary pay back the money borrowed through bonds with their property taxes. The district says their tax rate will not increase.
If they vote to authorize the 15% override, they will also pay that money through their property taxes.
Voters approved the override in the 2021 election. District voters have only rejected it twice in 10 elections. Those came in 1988 and 2012. In both cases, they approved it the following year.
The override is good for seven years, but begins to lose value in Year 6. For that reason, the district asks voters to renew the override authorization every four years. That gives them the ability to ask again the following year if it fails.
If it fails two straight years, then the district will lose a third of that money in Year 6, and two-thirds in Year 7.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
5 days ago
- USA Today
Penn to erase Lia Thomas records, ban transgender athletes from women's sports in Title IX agreement
The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and strip the record of former swimmer Lia Thomas as part of an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education. Penn entered the resolution agreement Tuesday, July 1 to comply with Title IX, the DOE announced, as the university had been under investigation surrounding the case of Thomas, who became the first openly transgender athlete to win a NCAA Division I title. Thomas won the women's 500-yard freestyle event in 2022. She also tied for fifth in the women's 200-yard freestyle. The NCAA did not respond to a request for comment. Under the agreement, Penn will restore the swimming records and titles of its female athletes that were broken by Thomas. The university will also not allow transgender athletes to compete in female athletic programs, and it has to send personal apology letters to impacted swimmers. Thomas holds Penn records in the 100 free (47.37), 200 free (1:41.93), 500 free (4:33.24), 1,000 free (9:35.96) and 1,650 free (15:59.71). The decision comes as the Trump Administration has focused on banning transgender athletes from competing girl's sports. In May, President Donald Trump had promised "large scale fines" on California after a transgender athlete was allowed to compete and won two medals in the track and field state championship. "Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women's sports are protected at the University for future generations of female athletes,' U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement. The DOE's Office for Civil Rights' opened a Title IX investigation into Penn on Feb. 6 − a month into Trump's presidency − surrounding Thomas. Title IX is a law passed in 1972 that forbids sex discrimination in at any academic institution that receives federal funding. On April 28, the office concluded the university violated Title IX and issued a resolution agreement proposal, or it would either refer the case to the Justice Department or begin another process to cut the school's federal funding. In March, the White House cut $175 million in federal funds for Penn related to the issue. The university said in a statement it will comply with Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. University president J. Larry Jameson said it is a "complex issue" and he was pleased to reach the agreement for the investigation. "Our commitment to ensuring a respectful and welcoming environment for all of our students is unwavering," Jameson said in the statement. "At the same time, we must comply with federal requirements, including executive orders, and NCAA eligibility rules, so our teams and student-athletes may engage in competitive intercollegiate sports." Jameson added the university has "always followed – and continues to follow" Title IX, as well as following NCAA and Ivy League policies. Penn will begin the process to review and update the women's swimming records set during Thomas' season on the team "to indicate who would now hold the records under current eligibility guidelines."


Newsweek
5 days ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Withholds Federal Money From Schools: What To Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's administration has acted to withhold billions of dollars in federal education funding from states and local school districts, impacting a wide range of programs and threatening the financial stability of schools across at least 33 states and territories. The administration notified grantees that funds previously slated for teacher training, after-school programs and services for English learners and migrant students would not be released on July 1 as expected, pending an ongoing departmental review of fiscal year 2025 grant funding, Politico reported Monday. Estimates place the total amount affected nationwide between $5 billion and $6.8 billion, including at least $811 million earmarked for California alone. The move came with limited advance notice to states, many of which had already hired staff and planned programs expecting the money to arrive. Newsweek has contacted the White House, Education Department and Office of Management and Budget by email for comment. President Donald Trump's administration has acted to withhold billions of dollars in federal education funding from states and local school districts. President Donald Trump's administration has acted to withhold billions of dollars in federal education funding from states and local school districts. Getty Why It Matters The Trump administration's freeze affects more than 10 percent of federal K-12 education funding delivered to states, directly endangering after-school initiatives, professional development for teachers, support for migrant families and English language learning. School leaders and advocacy groups warn that the delayed disbursement will create budget shortfalls and may force cuts to key services for vulnerable students. Carissa Moffat Miller, head of the Council of Chief State School Officers, stressed the critical need for prompt distribution of the funds, saying they are essential for hiring staff and educating students. Many education officials have characterized the freeze as an unlawful attempt to advance the president's policy preferences through fiscal leverage, and legal challenges appear likely. What To Know Scope of Funding Freeze The affected funds include major federal grant programs such as state teacher training grants (Title II-A), 21st Century Community Learning Centers for summer and after-school activities, Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants (Title IV-A), and programs for migrant education (Title I-C) and English learners (Title III-A). Notices sent to state education agencies indicated that the Department of Education "will not be issuing Grant Award Notifications obligating funds for these programs on July 1 prior to completing that review." Government Rationale The White House and Education Secretary Linda McMahon previously signaled their intent to reassess or cut these programs, citing the desire to align funding with the president's education priorities, including opposition to bilingual education and some diversity initiatives. The Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has said funding could be rescinded through a "pocket rescission," a tactic allowing the administration to propose returning unspent appropriations to Congress for cancellation, Politico reported Monday. State Impact and Response California and other states received only a few hours' notice about the freeze, with local leaders expressing alarm at both the timing and the sweeping impact of the decision. "They cannot withhold funding from states, from the education systems from students just because they want us to comply with their political agenda. This was money that was appropriated by Congress and the president cannot unilaterally keep it from students," David Schapira, chief of staff for California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, told ABC7 News. Speaking to the Los Angeles Times, Thurmond described Trump's move as "illegally impounding billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to serve students this fiscal year." Federal Law and Legal Outlook Federal law typically prohibits the White House from unilaterally withholding funds appropriated by Congress. Any presidential request to rescind funds must be approved by Congress within 45 days, or the money must be spent as directed. Schapira told ABC7 News that California has previously challenged similar funding actions in court and has "been successful," suggesting legal challenges are forthcoming. Impact on School Budgets School districts, many of which have already made staffing and programmatic decisions based on projected federal revenues, face immediate financial strain. Tara Thomas of AASA, the School Superintendents Association, said the freeze would push unfunded mandates, impacting all classrooms. What People Are Saying Carissa Moffat Miller, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers, told Politico on Monday: "The administration must make the full extent of title funding available in a timely manner. "These funds were approved by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in March. Schools need these funds to hire key staff and educate students this summer and in the upcoming school year." David Schapira, chief of staff for California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, told ABC7 News on Monday: "They cannot withhold funding from states, from the education systems from students just because they want us to comply with their political agenda. This was money that was appropriated by Congress and the president cannot unilaterally keep it from students." Tara Thomas, spokesperson for AASA, told Politico on Monday: "School districts rely on these critical funds to comply with federal law. Withholding these resources simply pushes more unfunded mandates on schools—placing additional strain on already limited budgets—and the consequences will be felt by all students and across all classrooms." What Happens Next The Department of Education has not indicated when the funding review will be completed or whether the grants will ultimately be released. If Congress does not approve a rescission request within 45 days, the law requires the administration to distribute the funds as originally planned. States like California have signaled readiness to take court action if necessary. The timeline for resolution is unclear.

Yahoo
27-06-2025
- Yahoo
Santa Fe city councilors want say if mayor decides to fire three key city officials
Santa Fe voters in November could see a proposed city charter amendment on their ballots requiring the City Council's consent before the mayor can remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk. Currently, the city charter requires the mayor to get the council's consent when appointing people to the three positions but not when removing people. Councilors Pilar Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Amanda Chavez presented a resolution Wednesday to the council to change this. The resolution comes as election season is in full swing in Santa Fe, with seven mayoral candidates vying to replace Mayor Alan Webber, who is not running for reelection. Faulkner and Garcia said the resolution was not prompted by concerns about any candidate for mayor, but rather the councilors' broader concerns about checks and balances in Santa Fe's governing body, which has a full-time "strong" mayor. "If you have a powerful mayor and a weak council, you don't really have a safe or effective or responsible way of managing the city," Faulkner said. Faulkner said the city manager, city clerk and city attorney work for both the council and the mayor. Therefore, she said both the council and the mayor should have the ability to fire, or say no to the firing of, people in those positions. "If you don't have that balance, then there's the potential for the mayor to be the de facto city attorney, city clerk and city manager because the mayor holds those individuals' positions and is the only one that holds those positions in a place of authority," Faulkner said. In Santa Fe, the city manager is the highest-paid position. City Manager Mark Scott makes $225,000 annually, The New Mexican reported in February. "They are charged with a lot of responsibility, and I think the governing body needs to be able to be involved with those decisions," Garcia said. In creating the resolution, Faulkner was also thinking about its long-term implications. "You can say that an individual who is a mayor is a good person, and they will not abuse the power, but we don't know if every mayor we're going to get would be a good leader and not abuse the power," she said. If the council votes to pass the resolution, and if voters approve it, it will take effect Jan. 1, Garcia said. The new mayor would then have to get council approval before removing a city manager, city attorney or city clerk. Mayoral candidate and former Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler said she believes the mayor should have the authority to appoint and remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk without council approval. "If a City Council wants to be involved in that, you can't have several masters," Vigil Coppler said. "The city manager reports to the mayor, period." Councilor Michael Garcia said he is 'on the fence' about the proposed charter amendment. Though running for mayor, he said he is approaching the legislation from the perspective of a government administrator. Michael Garcia said he would consider supporting the resolution if it was amended to make an exception for when a new mayor first takes office. As it is currently written, Garcia said the legislation does not allow an incoming mayor to choose his or her own leadership team, something he does not think is appropriate. 'It could really handcuff an administration' to appointees who may not support the new leader's agenda, Garcia said. Faulkner said she disagrees with such an amendment. "It's not the mayor's team; it's the city's team," Faulkner said. The deadline for the council to adopt ordinances or resolutions that establish a ballot question is Aug. 26. Lee Garcia and Faulkner plan to propose two other charter amendments, they said. Michael Garcia said he has been considering introducing a charter amendment requiring the mayor to submit the fiscal year budget proposal to the council by Feb. 1 to allow more time to discuss it and make revisions, but the legislation may work better as an ordinance. Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Chavez's resolution will go to the Public Works and Utilities, Quality of Life and Finance committees before returning to the council for a vote July 9. "To me, it's like a security dilemma," Faulkner said. "When both parties are equally vulnerable and equally armed, there's less of a chance of conflict happening because everyone knows there's a balance of power." Staff writer Carina Julig contributed to this report.