|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Voters will get to weigh in this November on whether to approve a tax measure that would generate roughly $5.4 million annually for the Mountain View Whisman School District.
The school board voted unanimously at a Thursday, June 13, meeting to place a parcel tax on the November 5 ballot. The measure will require two-thirds support to pass.
It would levy a tax of 15 cents per square foot of building area. That means that the owner of a 1,500 square foot home would pay $225 annually for the eight year duration of the tax.
The measure includes a $1,750 cap per parcel, which means a property would have to be more than 11,666 square feet to hit the cap. The tax would apply to single family homes, as well as multifamily buildings and commercial properties within the district’s boundaries. Unimproved parcels would be charged $25.
If passed, the measure would replace an existing parcel tax that voters approved in 2017 which expires on June 30, 2025. That measure levies a flat $191 tax per parcel and raises roughly $2.8 million annually.
Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph previously told the board at a May 30 meeting that the district views the new measure as a renewal of the existing parcel tax, and that it would be used to continue funding the same programs.
At Thursday’s meeting, Rudolph provided more specifics, telling the board that the parcel tax would pay for items like expanding transitional kindergarten, providing after school programs for socioeconomically disadvantaged students and employing guidance counselors.
“It pays for a wide complement of things to make sure that our kids have a well-rounded education,” Rudolph said.
Five members of the public spoke about the tax proposal at Thursday’s meeting, most raising concerns about supporting the measure. One speaker drew attention to controversial items that a 2020 bond funded, including fencing and security cameras on school campuses. Other speakers questioned the board’s diligence in overseeing district spending.
“It’s upsetting and I can’t in good conscience vote for any more spending until I feel like the dollars are being spent wisely and scrutinized,” one speaker said.
Board member Laura Blakely noted that while bond money has to go to building construction and infrastructure projects, a parcel tax is able to support operating costs, including programs for students and staff salaries.
Board member Chris Chiang said that he would encourage residents who have frustrations with the district to not oppose the parcel tax, but rather to hold the district accountable in other ways. Chiang encouraged community members to join the parcel tax oversight committee if the measure passes.
“Voters also have trustees they can hold accountable if they’re dissatisfied. But I think taking away dollars from the kids is the least effective, in my opinion, way to present change in a district,” Chiang said. “It just brings a crisis and hurts the kids.”
I’m going to guess this doesn’t pass. Even renters that dislike their landlords more than the lack of oversight of the school district spending/communication with public knows its capped for landlords anyway so there is no incentive to vote yes. The bitterness of the misdirection of the last school district tax increase funds is still present in large numbers.
The district should have accurately phrased the last tax increase properly.
Revenue from the tax increase will give the superintendent that already makes ~500K a 1 million dollar interest free loan, so he can purchase a house. It will then add fencing around the school creating drama with the parks department, so the public will have something to ready about. This is necessary to stop people from turning items found into lost and found at the school (HUGE security risk that must be stopped at all costs!). If I recall correctly the last tax increase mentioned the same things and added in some STEM classes/activities too and I think may have actually included one word “security” at the very end. Who knows what they will actually spend this increased money on, likely pay increases/bonuses for non-teaching staff.
Quoting the article: “Board member Chris Chiang said that he would encourage residents who have frustrations with the district to not oppose the parcel tax, but rather to hold the district accountable in other ways. ”
Chris, I am one of those frustrated by the way MVWSD has been run lately. Here’s how I would like the Board to be accountable: replace the Superintendent before the election. If the Board does that, I’ll vote for the parcel tax.
If you don’t like the sup, replace the board. But don’t hold it against the kids.
The supt salary and loan is a drop in the bucket and commensurate with anyone else we would hire. You guys think we can hire someone for less money? You are oblivious.
All the money goes to teachers and their union raises.
The is is the best bang for the buck for homeowners. The one thing that drives home values is the school quality. School is already seriously underfunded versus comparable peers. Esp when looking at national pupil spend rates
Dave, the security/fencing came from a bond, not from the parcel tax. You are mixing apples and oranges.
As the Official Ballot Measure opponent of the last regressive Parcel Tax, (because there was a PSF or a flat-tax choice), I think this Replacement is just fine. Agree with Trustee Christopher Chiang. This Education Special Tax is at a “uniform” rate; it is almost all on property “improvements”, it has a dollar Cap (protects corporate interests of Prometheus, Google and etc), and as most voters surveyed replied it’s “fair”.
The Parcel Tax Oversight Committee recorded in great detail the recent years spending: item IV.F. May 16
[link to the agenda materials]
https://mvwsd.novusagenda.com/AgendaPublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=4684&MeetingID=233
Ramirez (all What “money”)?
[money – but not off this particular Fund/ the Superintendent was just Voted a Raise of +5%(?), +8% next year, then +8%, then +7%. Seems at least +30% over 4 years (compounds)
Trustee Chaing Voted NO! But Blakely and Berman / up-for-reelection / voted YES! ]
I’m aligned with Bruce Karney’s comments. Our child attended all of MV’s public schools and we walked neighborhoods to drum up support for the first parcel tax and have voted to support all the previous measures to support our local public schools. I’m so tired of all the drama that’s come from this MVWSD leadership team and will not support any measure until we have new people in place who can work collaboratively with the City and Parents and pledge keep our school grounds open without development as after hours park space or always open in the case of schools that will never be opened as schools again.
Nope. The new tax is more than Double the current tax and there is nothing to hold the board accountable. Put that IN the ballot and I might change my mind. But “hoping” they do the right thing “this time” is like expecting to get milk from a steer.
Thanks Ramirez for the correction, it was a bond. You can easily mix apples and oranges. For example, if you sell me an apple that’s rotten to the core as a sweet delicious apple, do you think I will believe it when you say you are now selling delicious oranges? I’m going to choose your actions over your words, and assume its rotten like the apple was. That’s is exactly what is happening here with the previous bond and this tax increase.
Speaking of apples and oranges, that’s what its like comparing our school district/superintendent to a typical district/superintendent in Florida (Oranges) for example. Florida with better education results has an average school district size of 45,000 students, compared with 4500 students for MVWSD. Between the superintendent and all the Director/Chief Officer/Principal role positions your at over 9 million in salaries (2022 Transparent California), about $2000 per student is leeched off in salaries before you even get close to the highest paid teacher. Are all those roles really needed for K-8?