League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Alameda County, CA February 4, 2014 Election
	Hari Titan Answers Questions Candidate for Board of Education Member; City of Piedmont

The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont and asked of all candidates for this office.
Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Questions & Answers

1. What is your opinion on the School District’s use of Capital Appreciation Bonds versus Current Interest Bonds?

To fully understand CABs and easily explain the way they work in relation to CIBs I built a bond-tax calculator that validates with key calculations found in multiple KNN presentations (Series E and AHT): HariTitan.com/bond-tax-comparison.htm

Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) are similar to a fixed interest rate mortgage and exemplify the "pay as you go" philosophy to financing.

Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) defer any payments to the new creditor(s) until after existing debts are paid off in an attempt to keep overall bond tax rates constant. This "no new taxes" and "no payments to the creditors until..." philosophy comes at the price of higher interest rates with unpaid interest exponentially compounded onto the original bond amount borrowed.

A CAB is always more expensive than a CIB with the same maturity. A CAB could be described as a temporary tax relief for people living paycheck to paycheck with a higher total cost. This situation is not the same as living on a fixed income. The payment flexibility of a CAB is estimated to cost Piedmont taxpayers an additional $6.8 million in extra interest charges over a comparable CIB [source: KNN Public Finance]. That money could be saved for other renovations in the future.

As a taxpayer and user of renovated buildings, I feel all of us should participate in paying for extra debt we incur -- "pay as we go", which means CIBs. The length of the maturity for the CIB affects how low the additional taxes are and also how many future taxpayers are sharing the costs of the renovation.

CABs should only be used if (1) CIBs are not an option for the required bond (e.g. Series E) and (2) voters are told a CAB may be used and what the total repayment amounts are expected to be as part of the disclosures for that bond measure.

2. How should the School District support implementation of the Common Core Curriculum?

The State of California has allocated a one-time increase in school funding to support the implementation of Common Core education and evaluation of students. This funding will be distributed on the basis of enrollment for professional development, instructional materials and technology. Local districts must develop plans on how to spend these funds over the next two years and hold public hearings on these plans.

Schools also need to provide a new report card to parents that maintains the Common Core paradigm while being easy to read and understand. Parents and educators will also want to find the right limit of computer screen time in the classroom.

In the first year of implementation, student test scores will not be provided by the testing agency. However it may be beneficial if we can request aggregate scores for the classrooms to help identify areas which could be improved in the following year.

3. How will the District’s budgeting process be different under the Local Control Accountability Plan?

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) moves from a State-controlled system that emphasized inputs (largely in the form of categorical funding which required funds to be spent on specific projects and programs) to a locally-controlled system in which local agencies decide the best way to spend funds, focused on improved outcomes. The LCFF includes the following components:

• A base grant for each local education agency equivalent to $7,643 per unit of A.D.A. This base grant is $2,375 more than the average revenue limit provided prior to LCFF implementation.

• A 20% supplemental grant for English learners, students from low-income families and foster youth to reflect increased costs associated with educating those students.

• An additional concentration grant of up to 22.5% of a local education agency's base grant, based on the number of English learners, students from low-income families and foster youth served by the local agency that comprise more than 55% of enrollment.

• An economic recovery target to ensure that almost every local education agency receives at least their pre-recession funding level, adjusted for inflation, at full implementation of LCFF.

The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) requires Districts to increase or improve services for English language learners, low income, and foster youth students in proportion to supplemental and concentration grant funding received. All school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools will be required to develop and adopt local control and accountability plans, which will identify local goals in areas that are priorities for the State, including pupil achievement and parent engagement.

---

Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.

Read the answers from all candidates (who have responded).

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Contest
SmartVoter Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

---

Created from information supplied by the candidate: January 4, 2014 21:44
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.