City Council reverses decision, opts for longer Cubberley lease | Town Square | Palo Alto Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

City Council reverses decision, opts for longer Cubberley lease

Original post made on Jun 18, 2020

Palo Alto's meandering path toward a new lease at Cubberley Community Center took another twist on Wednesday, when the City Council agreed in a closed session to sign a 54-month lease with the Palo Alto Unified School District.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, June 17, 2020, 9:45 PM

Comments (12)

7 people like this
Posted by Ken Horowitz
a resident of University South
on Jun 18, 2020 at 1:04 am

So again another five years renting plus contributing to a Cubberley infrastructure fund plus paying all the maintenance costs, the City has to date (over 35 years)paid for a dilapidated Cubberley high school site over $250M. Mark Twain is attributed with the definition of insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting different results. Palo Alto residents should not be fooled that PAUSD has any interest in developing Cubberley into a joint school/community center. They just want to be hold onto the land.
So the City needs to get out of this agreement as soon as possible so it can find a permanent home for the nonprofits and community groups. Maybe the new Ventura site would be better location since it is more centrally located. Let’s use our City dollars wisely. When the City rents, that money is gone. Bye. Not returning. But when it pays a mortgage, it works toward full ownership. This lease agreement with PAUSD is a bad deal for the City.


12 people like this
Posted by Ken Dauber
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 18, 2020 at 8:59 am

This story says that "Vice Mayor Tom DuBois said the council has received conflicting messages from district leaders, with some saying they don’t like the new lease and others indicating that they want to get Cubberley space back so that they can use it for classrooms."

In fact, as I wrote to the City Council last Sunday to correct a similar statement in the City Council agenda, there was no request from district leaders that the City change the Cubberley lease to free up space for classrooms, or any other district purpose. The lease change was entirely at the City's initiative and request:

"However, there was no request from PAUSD to the City to retain portions of Cubberley for the district's use. The Board of Education discussed the lease agreement at two public meetings. At both of those meetings Superintendent Austin stated that the decision to reduce the scope of the lease agreement was entirely at the request of City staff. At no point did the district ask the City to give up any of the space it leases at Cubberley. If you approve the amended agreement and the City does vacate space at Cubberley, I expect that the district will make use of some of it for educational purposes -- but that's in the nature of trying to make lemonade out of lemons."

I agree with Tom that the City and the district should be discussing longer term improvements to Cubberley. I don't actually think that the change to the lease has any implication for the viability of those conversations. The school board has appointed an ad hoc com committee to have those discussions.


5 people like this
Posted by Ken Horowitz
a resident of University South
on Jun 18, 2020 at 9:39 am

Conversations between PAUSD and the City have been going on for many, many years. And there have been my multiple committees and consultants have been hired to seek a compromise. And now PAUSD has an other ad hoc committee. Lots of hours and money spent with no progress. It is time to put it in writing with this new agreement. Also does the current state of the old Cubberley structures ensure for the health, safety, and security of the building occupants and assets in the event of an earthquake. No one has addressed this issue. I think that needs to be included in the new agreement. PAUSD can have Cubberley, it belongs to them. But the City should not be enabling them. If the City thinks it is a good idea to give them money, that’s fine! But renting is a bad idea. The money is gone, never coming back.
Let’s find a permanent solution for a community center at a different location or as Tom Dubois suggested improve the eight acres the City owns.


19 people like this
Posted by Budget Massacre
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 10:12 am

Ken,

The situation is pretty clear to most people, I think. PAUSD liked being a landlord because it meant a flow of money to the District simply for being a land-owner. Now, you have to find tenants for the remaining portions at a similar rent, or make due with less revenue. In the short term, that's acceptable to you because Covid needs will prevail for the next year.

Additionally, your district massively overspent its massively large budget. Your tenant leaving made you look even worse on that front. Unexpected, maybe, but what did you all think a month-to-month lease meant?

Yes, being a landlord is sometimes a pain. Sometimes you need to fix things, find tenants, deal with temporary vacancies, and do a modicum of work involved with getting money for holding property that you don't want to use. Tough life.

I find it sad that the needs of the non-profits there get no thought or consideration in this wrangling between PAUSD and the City. To us, it looks like two bloated public bureaucracies fighting with each other, and wasting a lot of our money in the friction.


6 people like this
Posted by Cat Mom Leonorilda
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 18, 2020 at 11:11 am

Despite the ongoing dangers posed by Covid-19, PAUSD and the City are intent on evicting tenants from Cubberley with no concern for the possible detrimental effects on the health and even the survival of the human tenants involved. Additionally, both parties place no value on the work of the nonprofits currently housed at Cubberley—what is their reasoning? Nonprofits and human beings are mere nothings when it comes down to saving money—this at the same time that the City forges ahead on public works projects that are unnecessary at this time. People and nonprofits are nonentities and as such totally expendable to the City and PAUSD.


5 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2020 at 11:39 am

Posted by Ken Horowitz, a resident of University South

>> If the City thinks it is a good idea to give them money, that’s fine! But renting is a bad idea. The money is gone, never coming back.

I always thought of the Cubberley deal as a way for the city to pay PAUSD not to sell off the site to developers, keep the fields available for recreational use (there is a shortage of playing fields in the city) and, keep the site open for PAUSD to finally wake up and reopen the site as a third HS. So, sure, the money is never coming back, but, at least they didn't sell it off like they did all the elementary school sites. It actually is a much more logical site for a high school than the Gunn site. Too bad they decided to expand Gunn, which should have stayed a smaller school considering the local traffic configuration.


8 people like this
Posted by parent
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 1:56 pm

Some misinformation about the school district's role here:

PAUSD "massively overspent its massively large budget" - No. Due to the shelter-in-place and school closure, there was lost revenue (school facility rental, meal sales) and some additional expenses (more students meals, Chromebooks, hotspots). Since the district didn't lay off its workers, most costs stayed about the same. Revenue ended up about 1% less than expected, and was that about the size of the shortfall. It was neither massive nor over-spending.

The District "doesn't want to be a landlord" - PAUSD was already the landlord at Cubberley - they leased it to the City. As at their other leased sites (Garland, Fremont Hills, San Antonio), they prefer to lease to a single tenant who takes the whole site and handles its own maintenance and services. This is much simpler and lets them focus on their mission - educating children.

"Wrangling between PAUSD and the City" - PAUSD didn't "wrangle." By all accounts, including the City's, the city manager came to them and said "We have to dramatically cut our lease expenses" and superintendent said, "OK, we'll take back some of the space and try to use it." The school board approved the proposed lease without any changes in one meeting with about 5 minutes of discussion. Since they've got their hands full with re-inventing school for the fall, I can see why they wouldn't want to spend time on this.

The school leaders have said over and over (including Dauber above) that they were happy with the arrangement that was in place for 30+ years and had no desire to change it. When the City decided they needed to do so, they accepted it and moved on.


10 people like this
Posted by Budget Massacre
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 2:58 pm

$3 million is a lot of money to me. Maybe not to the PAUSD.

Your budget is a quarter BILLION dollars a year, and you overspent it. Whoops.

It was in fact Dr. Austin who said PAUSD had "no interest in being a landlord." That was strange, because they already were. We agree that PAUSD liked the former agreement, in part, because it required very little to no oversight or attention to get that revenue stream.

The district and the city have been wrangling about Cubbberley for years. Simply search Palo Alto Online, if you want to see the massive archive of historical articles on this issue. Whoops again.


4 people like this
Posted by Reality...
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 3:08 pm

Do Palo Alto schools really have that much budget and overspent? If so, why don't they keep a 5% buffer and get ahead of pensions if it's not needed?

If Mr. Massacre (lol) is correct on the size, 5% would be a lot of money. Or, do we keep a buffer that big in the annual budget, but perhaps it was used?


2 people like this
Posted by parent
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 5:17 pm

@Reality - PAUSD spent about what they planned, and then had a 1% revenue shortfall for the reasons mentioned. They do keep significant reserves, and that funded the shortfall, with quite a bit left over. They are expecting lower revenue next year, so have cut expenses. They may have to do the same next year, depending on the revenue picture.

@Budget Massacre - you keep repeating misleading statements - why? Do you want to confuse people? Yes, the District is a large organization with a large budget - about the same size as the City's. No, a 1% revenue shortfall is not "massive" - if you make $250K a year, it's the same as a $2,500 shortfall.

I agree, it seems that PAUSD would rather not run a community center, as the city has been doing at Cubberley. They aren't set up for that. You imply the schools are somehow shirking their duty by not doing so, but it's clear why they don't want to.

Historically, PAUSD simply has said that they want to be able to build a future school at Cubberley, when and if needed, and until that time lease out the property to fund the schools. They have no other plan or interest. That doesn't seem like "wrangling" - it seems like common sense. You seem to agree that there certainly was no wrangling in the current instance.


2 people like this
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 18, 2020 at 8:00 pm

Cubberley is such a wonderful location. It would be wonderful to recreate it and correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there an agreed upon design!? I would love to see a school there, and adjacent smaller community facilities would be ideal.


10 people like this
Posted by Budget Massacre
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 18, 2020 at 8:40 pm

$3,000,000 is a lot of money. If you work for or with the district, you might be accustomed to thinking of it as only as thirty $100,000 settlements for under-serving your constituents. In that perspective, not such a big deal. Routine for PAUSD.

But as a progressive obsessed with inefficiency in allegedly "progressive" institutions, I prefer to think of it as five hundred thousand Meals on Wheels meals. In short, food for 500 hungry Americans for a full year.

That is the amount of your over-expenditure. Non-trivial, to say the least.

But call it 1% if you prefer. That's where (sadly) most progressives belong, at least when they're associated with public bureaucracies.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.


Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Fighting an 'uphill battle,' Palo Alto's longtime MacArthur Park to close until 2021
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 4,393 views

Do peaceful protests do any good? How about the more violent ones?
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 2,530 views

Traffic Lights for the Whole Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,942 views

Did a hedge fund just steal your EV rebate?
By Sherry Listgarten | 0 comments | 1,375 views

Tough back-to-school decisions
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 364 views