Greater Orange HEADLINES in the News
Follow Greater Orange on TWITTER
TOP LOCAL ORANGE COUNTY NEWS STORIES on the WEB
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
PETITION DENIED for PANORAMA HEIGHTS
Panorama Heights transfer petition denied by Orange County Committee on School District Organization
The Petition to transfer the
neighborhood to Tustin Unified
was denied by the Orange County
Committee on School Organization (OCCSO) after holding two Public Hearings on
the proposal on Tuesday May 17th. Only
six of the eleven committee members were present and voted at the two public
hearings. Panorama Heights
The Orange Unified School Board had overwhelmingly voted at their May 26, 2016 meeting to oppose the petition (Trustee Mark Wayland was the only OUSD Trustee in favor of allowing the transfer) after the OUSD staff's fiscal report on the potential revenue lost to OUSD with the
transfer was $404,797 annually. Panorama Heights
In the first Public Hearing presented at the Orange Unified District Office, the three petitioners, Marlene Graham, Katie Mayberry and Jennifer Lampman gave a PowerPoint presentation to the OCCSO arguing that the transfer would unite the Panorama Heights neighborhood with the Tustin community and allow the neighborhood children to attend school together. They also argued that the community identifies with the youth, religious, and retail institutions in Tustin.
OUSD's legal representative Spencer Covert presented OUSD's case to the OCCSO. In his PowerPoint, Covert reviewed the financial impact on OUSD including the impact to the district's declining student enrollment. Using an excerpt from a realtor's video ( CLICK ON: Panorama story with video ) the committee members were shown how close the neighborhood is to OUSD's Panorama Elementary School and City of Orange retail areas. Covert presented arguments why the proposed transfer failed five of the 9 criteria that must be met as required by the California Education Code for a transfer: Criteria 2 (substantial community identity); Criteria 3 (equitable division of property and facilities); Criteria 6 (distribution of educational programs); Criteria 9 ( a negative financial impact); and Criteria 8-that the petition was designed to primarily increase property values.*
*One of the petitioners- Jennifer Lampman is a realtor that does business in the area.
(Click on: Jennifer Lampman Realtor)
(Click on: Jennifer Lampman Realtor)
After the OUSD presentation, Tustin Unified Superintendent Dr. Gregory Franklin reported that Tustin Unified took a neutral position on the transfer.
Fourteen people spoke during public comments for the first hearing. Eight in favor, three against and three from a neighborhood known as
that asked to be
included in the original petition for transfer. The petition to transfer to Tustin Unified would
create an OUSD territorial island of Lower Panorama
within the Tustin Unified area. The Lower Panorama situation was the topic of
questions from the commission. Lower
As required, a California Environmental Quality Act checklist was presented by the Orange County Department of Education staff and the requested transfer was found to have no adverse environmental impacts.
In the second public hearing at the Tustin Unified District Office, the petitioners in their presentation added information about the proximity of the neighborhood to Tustin Unified Schools and how the OUSD busing is not needed because parents drive their students to school.
Then OUSD attorney Spencer Covert addressed property values and the three Tustin Bonds and the entrances and exits of the
neighborhood. OUSD Assistant Superintendent Dr. Gunn Marie
Hansen reported on the exemplary OUSD schools and programs. Panorama
In their rebuttal, the petitioners again tied their petition to the neighborhood children and argued that OUSD's financial situation had not changed since 2012 when the Rocking Horse Neighborhood was allowed to transfer to Tustin Unified from OUSD. Mr. Covert rebutted about the current OUSD financial situation compared to 2012 and the differences in the two transfer petitions.
Questions from the commissioners included questions about interdistrict transfers, property values and the
The Commission voted that three of the nine criteria were not met: Criteria 2 (substantial community identity) by a vote of 6-0; Criteria 3 (equitable division of property and facilities) by a vote of 4-2; and Criteria 9 ( a negative financial impact) by a 4-2 vote.
With three of the nine criteria not met, the petition was denied.
Inside the May 26, 2016 Agenda
The Orange Unified School Board will meet on Thursday May 26, 2016 in a regular session.
The Agenda includes:
Killerfer Site items:
- Closed Session item 4 D: Price an terms of a sale of the property will be discussed
- Action Item 12 A: Final report on declaring a parking lot at the Killerfer Site surplus property.
Facilities Bond Update:
- Information Item 13 A: Revised draft of proposed Facility Bond language and updates on legal requirements and issues involved in General Obligation Bonds and updated Polling results.
- Action Item 12 C: A Public Hearing on 2015-16 Budget and 2016-17 Proposed Budget
- Consent Item 14 D: Resolution on how OUSD will spend monies from Education Protection Account
- Consent Item 14 E: Resolution allowing inter-fund account transfers for cash-flow
NEXT OUSD BOARD MEETING May 26, 2016
Next OUSD Board Meeting -OUSD BOARD ROOM
CLOSED SESSION- 5:30 pm
OUSD Regular Session: 7:00 pm
: OUSD AGENDA AGENDA-CLICK ON
For more information call the OUSD Superintendent’s office at 714-628-4040
For budgeting questions call Business Services at 714-628-4015
ARCHIVAL Information and direct news can be found at:
are independent news services of /O/N/N/
Orange Net News