The Murrieta Valley Unified school board could redraw school boundary lines in the next two years as it looks to accommodate growth in student population.
At a special meeting Wednesday, July 31, the board heard from a consulting firm on the possibility of redrawing district lines to accommodate more students at elementary schools and middle schools within the district.
“Murrieta (Elementary school) is expected to be overutilized two years from now,” Karen Jackson, a representative from Woolpert, the consulting firm, said in the meeting.
In the next two years Murrieta Elementary will be at 105% capacity and in the next 10 years the elementary school will be at 168% capacity with the current layout, Jackson said.
Schools should be in the 80-90% range to allow for flexibility and special education spaces.
Superintendent Ward Andrus said Murrieta Elementary school will have 900 students when the 2024-25 school year starts Aug. 14 and could grow to 1,700 students in the coming years, if the district does not address the attendance lines.
The current strain on elementary schools and the expected growth in the city was detailed by Jackson at the Wednesday night meeting. Jackson explained what the process could look like if the board chooses to go down this path.
Murrieta Valley Unified school board members, from left, Julie Vandegrift, Superintendent Ward Andrus, Linda J. Lunn, and Paul F. Diffley listen during public comment on Wednesday, July 31, 2024, at the school board meeting. (Photo by Terry Pierson, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)
“I felt an urgency to begin the conversation,” Andrus said during the meeting.
He said he had to shift plans for the district after a bond which would have funded a new school was voted down and wanted to take the time to dedicate to future steps.
The district agreed to purchase land earlier this year as the site for a new school, Andrus said. Without the proposed bond, the district can not build the school. Andrus and others within the district looked for another solution to handle the projected growth.
General use bonds are used for construction, rehabilitation, buying and leasing property, and furnishing school facilities, he said.
On June 13, the board voted to turn down an almost $200 million bond, which would have replaced a bond expiring later this year. It would have brought in $198,000,000 to the district, estimated at $26 per $100,000 of a property’s assessed value.
The bond needed a 2/3 vote to make the November ballot. Board members Paul Diffley, Linda Lunn, and Nancy Young voted to approve the bond, while Nicolas Pardue and Julie Vandegrift voted no.
Andrus said the proposed bond would not have raised the tax amount, rather it would remain static and extend the expiring bond.
By the end of the year the board will have three active bonds, Andrus said. Measure K, passed in 2002, is a $98 million bond set to expire in 2029; Measure E, a $120 million bond passed in 2006 and will expire in 2033; and Measure BB, a $98 million bond passed in 2014, is expected to be paid off in 2050.
Pardue said in the meeting, he is not voting no on a bond but he doesn’t feel like the district has all the information and he would prefer to see the bond in 2026.
Vandegrift said she and Pardue are trying to protect their neighbors and friends.
“This is a sea change and when you have a sea change you have to be as prepared as you can, we need to look at the material and think about it over the summer and begin to act as soon as we can,” Diffley said.
The community and the board have been split on the issue.
Two board members were able to take away the community’s right to vote, Lunn said in an interview earlier in July.
“Nick and Julie constantly complain about Sacramento government overreach, making decisions for us, not allowing us to make decisions, and they are not allowing our own community to make our own decision,” Lunn said in the interview.
At Wednesday’s meeting, the community continued to be split.
“We need another bond,” Pam Diffley, wife of board member Diffley, said. “We don’t have to spend all that money right now but we will need it for the next 20 years.”
“The discussion of redistricting would not be happening tonight if there was an opportunity for the citizens to vote on the bond,” Kris Thomasian, a previous school board member, said. By waiting until 2026 for a new bond measure, the board was pushing out the possibility of a new school to 2030 and would have to redistrict again causing distress to students and teachers in a short period of time, she said.
“Where has the funding for the four active school bonds gone,” Sarah Todd, a parent in the district, said. She said doesn’t trust this board to spend money responsibly and would prefer to see the bond on the 2026 ballot when the board members change, she said.
“The bond measure lacks any thoughtful analysis,” Jack Guerrero, previous candidate for Riverside County Board of Supervisors, said.
The bond should be pushed off until a time where the economic situation has been stabilized and the board can provide assurances that the funds will be funneled to student facilities, he said.
Related Articles
UC President Michael Drake to step down after more than 50 years in university system
Direct admissions: How to get into college without applying
Law school grads could earn license through work rather than bar exam in some states
$240 million school bond is on November’s ballot in Moreno Valley
CHP justifies use of force at UCLA Gaza protest due to ‘assaultive resistance’
“I have not asked you to kill this,” Guerrero said. “I have asked you to defer consideration until a more reasonable time in the future.”
Community members have sent several emails to the board urging Pardue and Vandegrift to change their vote.
“Julie and Nick, you often speak about parental rights, yet it seems you are hesitant to trust parents and community members with the opportunity to vote on this important issue,” Stephanie Holloway, a parent in the district, said in a July 27 email.
“In accordance with Board Bylaw 9322, I am requesting that the Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education place the bond measure for the local November election on the agenda for your August 8th meeting for a re-vote,” Ellen Larson, a previous board member, said in a July 30 email.
Diffley confirmed in a July 30 email the board would bring the bond back for a vote at its next meeting at 5 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 8 at the District Support Center, 41870 McAlby Court.
