Town Square

Post a New Topic

School board OKs reduced budget

Original post made on May 24, 2009

With the failure Tuesday of the statewide ballot initiatives, officials with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District met in special session Wednesday to discuss the ramifications of the defeat and how the district will handle the expected loss of another $6 million in revenues.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, May 24, 2009, 2:25 PM

Comments (10)

Like this comment
Posted by Community courtesy
a resident of another community
on May 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Dear Dolores,

Please thank Geoff for providing this very informative story. TDW's Forum might ask each segment of our district the question, "how does this impact parents, students, and residents without children in SRVUSD? Each group cares in specific ways and we can hope they will share their thoughts.

From my perspective, our fiscal crisis is shared throughout our economy and we must find a way to provide the best education available with exceptional reduction in funding. In my view, the solutions are local, within the district, and can be achieved by all district "owners" participation, direction and consideration.

But the answers are from all district owners, please?

Hal, as a community courtesy

Like this comment
Posted by ROY
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 7:19 am

I know one way to contribute approx. $500,000 a year to the budget.
Simply retrofit the districts lighting with energy saving lighting. Between the California Energy Commission, PG&E and the savings each month, it will cost the district ZERO dollars to do this.

Soumds to good to be true dosen't it, well ask the Board what has been done?

Like this comment
Posted by Green Jeans
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 8:49 am

The toxic clean-up costs for even ONE broken "energy-efficient" light bulb will more than offset the imagined savings.

Like this comment
Posted by Roy
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 9:04 am

Green Jeams, Where are you getting that info from?

Like this comment
Posted by Dawn
a resident of Alamo
on May 25, 2009 at 9:34 am

Green Jeans may have gotten his information from the BioCommunications Research Institute, which outlined their concerns about these bulbs in a release last year:

Web Link

There are several reputable sources online that discuss the danger of mercury poisoning from these CFLs. Did you know that if you don't dispose of your burned-out CFL at a hazardous materials recycling center, you are required - BY LAW - to seal the bulb in TWO plastic zip bags and place them in your outdoor trash? This is because if they break - and they're made of glass, so they will break - the double bags are supposed to keep them from leaking mercury into the landfill.

(How long do you think it will take before the broken glass cuts through the bags under a ton of shifting trash? Ridiculous.)

Like this comment
Posted by Rick
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 10:18 am

I completetely agree with the increase in class sizes. I also think the furlough days are great. Kids are stuck in school too much anyways. Let them have more breaks. Cutting some paraeducators is a good idea, such as bi-lingual educators. We don't need so many tutors either. They never really help. There's a point of diminshing returns with kids who think they have ADD and can't learn like all the rest in a classroom, but must be catered to individually. We may need to cut into art. Oh well. The truth is, a kid can paint or doodle on their own time. They don't need to be little picasso's to experience the pleasures of the broad and abstract experience that is art. Let them make their own art. We shouldn't cut music, because it has been proven that music helps a child's brain grow universally, and it is not easy to learn an instrument on one's own. Do not cut PE. We need our kids doing more physical things, instead of sitting around in classes all day. And, of course, STOP GIVING SRVUSD MONEY TO OAKLAND, RICHMOND AND EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!

Like this comment
Posted by Don
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 10:43 am

Those of you that are referring to CFL's are absolutely correct. They are more toxic than incandescent light bulbs due to their mercury content. However, there are mercury recycling agencies that specialize in disposing of fluorescent/CFL lamps. The school district is already using these facilities for disposing of their linear fluorescent lamps. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that CFL's should ever be thrown in the garbage.

On another note, you are making the assumption that the author above was only referring to CFL's. The fact of the matter is, very little of the school district's lighting falls into the incandescent to CFL lighting category. The majority of the district contains OLD linear fluorescent and some HID (metal halide, high pressure sodium, etc.). All of which could be upgraded to newer technology T8 and T5 fluorescent lighting.


An existing 3-lamp 1st generation T8 fixture which uses 88 watts, could be retrofit with a 2-lamp 3rd generation T8 system which would only consume 48 watts.

An existing 400W metal halide fixture in a multi purpose room which consumes a total of 458 watts, could be replaced with a 6-lamp 3rd generation T8 fixture which would only consume 218 watts.

I guess what I'm saying is, "Don't get caught up in the belief that a CFL is the only energy efficient lighting out there!"

Oh...and for those of you that ask, "How is the district supposed to pay for all the new lighting with all the budget cuts?" There are low interest loans available to schools, which allow them to completely upgrade their existing lighting systems. The best part...The payment on the loan is less than the energy saved each month, making the project CASH POSITIVE from Day 1. Once the loan is paid back (usually 2-3 years) the district realizes the savings.

Like this comment
Posted by Roy
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 10:59 am

Thank you Don, I didn't catch that he was referring to CFL's only.

This is great information, I hope all of you can see what the school district could be doing to save money.

Like this comment
Posted by Don
a resident of Danville
on May 25, 2009 at 11:11 am

One more note about the newer linear fluorescent lamps. They contain significantly LESS mercury than the majority of existing linear fluorescent lamps being used in our schools currently.

Like this comment
Posted by Sally
a resident of Danville
on May 28, 2009 at 11:29 pm


I'm too curious as to how a loss of 6M in 'district revenues impacts parents, students, and residents without children in SRVUSD'.

My husband and I have no children, (yet) and believe in trying to find a way to provide the best education available. There are many resources available within our community... possible reach out for community volunteers in those areas that may get cut... PE, art, 5th grade music, librarians, counseling. There are many people in our community who are highly educated that can and may volunteer.

It's in our best interest to ensure that students receive the best education possible. I'd love to see some involvement from the people who have no children in the school system. Like myself, I work during the day but would still like to contribute.

This is not a solution for those that may loose their jobs but it may provide some community involvement while still providing the best education possible for our district.

Just a thought.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Please give us a hand while we flout federal law
By Tim Hunt | 12 comments | 666 views