Coladonato and Nelson are delusional and absolutely infuriating. Coladonato is what, a realtor? And he thinks he's the expert on tax law? Nelson gets to grandstand that he has $50K to put down to chase windmills? Because what the district really needs right now is a legal battle?

I'm glad Supt. Rudolph is standing up to these two clowns.

I don't care how they structure it. Won't vote for it either way.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

This one is pretty basic. People who have more should pay more.

What is next? A court ruling that every tax must be the exact same dollar amount per person, regardless of wealth or income?

If the law is bad, the legislature can change it. Democrats support progressive taxation, and they control the whole thing. If they won't do it, vote in someone who will.

But don't ask small landowners to pay all the bills while Google and Tri-County pay next to nothing.

The govt. is overflowing in money for projects such as High speed rail and the water tunnels, yet the schools still need to ask for more money. I say talk to the Governor!!

No on any new taxes!!! Before any new taxes, how about address the double dippers and the people making pensions of over 300,000. So much govt. waste and they still want more and more. Typical liberal mentality.

@for the schools: Calling someone an idiot just because they do not agree with every parcel tax proposed is the height of arrogance and fiscal ignorance. I would like to examine this tax request more carefully, but they come constantly, no matter how much was approved previously and for what. The should NOT just be knee-jerk supported just because it is "for the schools".

@Different Greg: It is NOT that simple, as obviously the law potentially disagrees with you and this has lost in court before. If it were to fail again, the schools would get ZERO rather than the originally planned tax. That is stupid and counterproductive.

They should proceed with the plan that WILL fund the schools if it passes, not with a plan that has failed in the court in the past.

If they then can change the law so that it is not an issue, THEN they should proceed differently.

My main concern is not the substance of the tax --- it will end up being the same for each parcel regardless of size and value. My concern is that the School Board must submit it for voter approval during next Year's November general election, the election with the highest voter turnout. In the past, the School Board has cynically manipulated the tax approval process by submitting tax bills during low-turnout special and primary elections. Why? It's much easier to pack the ballot box with teachers' and parents' votes in a small turnout election. I say, hold their feet to the fire and submit it for November 2016.

Hmm, but they don't really need the money. Other revenue sources have gone up and then some.

If this gets put off 1 year, that will become clear. What's the hurry?

It might be possible to legally have a parcel tax based on a uniform rate per square foot (the ones in the news have been overturned due to different rates). That said, without strong legal direction, it's foolish to open a small cash-strapped district up to the possibility of a lawsuit.

Seems like the prudent thing to do is go with the flat tax rate and join, or initiate, a group of districts seeking clarification / over-turning the current law for the next go round.

Hopefully common sense prevails.

The title "TRUSTEE BUTT HEADS" kind of says it all.

Coladonato is one of the two main guys in the Silicon Valley Taxpayer's Association.
Web Link
They're opposed to all school bond measures.

Steve Nelson sued the school district over the last bond measure before he was elected.
Web Link

Is there any way to get 4 votes then?

Trustees sre right to seek a tax formula more equitable than a flat per parcel tax; however, if a parcel tax must a flat, what else would be available? School districts only have the taxing powers given by state law. By the way, when a petition for review of a legal determination by a Court of Appeal is denied by the California Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the issue at all. Almost all petitions for review are denied because the Supreme Court does not have time to take more cases. Much of its time is spent automatically reviewing death penalty cases.

Board members Coladonato and Nelson should show some good judgment, and put up the money to pursue a "declarative judgement" on the issue. If they won't, then that tells the rest of us all we need to know about their judgment.

@different Greg,

Ad valorem property taxes pay most local expenses. Schools only get a portion, subject to legislative budget whim. Parcel taxes are controlled locally and cannot be expropriated. Our little K-8 district is not going to revise Prop 13, nor can we get legislation around the Alameda Unified decision passed in time. Principled or not, neither Nelson nor Coladonato have established reputations for being practical. Google contributes plenty on their own, and Tri Counties has proven they will work against community interest if they see it against their own. This board may not have four votes for a new Parcel Tax, then the voters can see where the money goes as programs directly funded by the expiring Parcel Tax disappear. I don't believe Politics should ever risk "good enough" for perfect. I also don't agree with Nelson and Coladonato all the time anyway.

The earlier parcel tax that was defeated by property owner opposition in 2002 had no cap, so a dramatically disproportionate share of the tax fell on commercial property owners. A tiered rate makes more sense, but if that legally risky it is bad move for the district.

From where I sit a couple members of our school board forget that they are playing on a team, and they let the perfect become the enemy of the very good. I wish those guys would just calm down and let the district staff do its job with community input and an appropriate level of board direction and support.

I have supported past parcel taxes for the MVWSD. However, this time I will wholeheartedly oppose any new parcel tax until we have a Board of Trustees who have the children's interest as their top priorities. The current Board is too interested in fulfilling campaign promises and stoking their own egos to trust them with further funding decisions.

To quote the article:
"... property owners sued the Alameda Unified School District over the district's Measure H parcel tax, which levied different amounts based on the size of commercial and industrial properties. Parcels under 2,000 square feet were taxed a flat $120 annually, whereas the larger parcels were taxed 15 cents per square foot up to a maximum of $9,500."
and
"...school districts can only pass special taxes that "apply uniformly to all taxpayers.""

So, there were TWO categories with separate tax methods in AUSD's case: flat tax if under a threshold, per ft. if over the threshold. Why wouldn't a single, uniform calculation be legal, i.e.: no threshold with all properties sharing the same calculation?

Yes. We should have schools.
Yes there are plenty of students who would attend if Slater were re-opened.
Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to consider a parcel tax. Obviously this is an effort to manipulate local residents into backing down from pushing to have neighborhood schools.
Yes. This sort if manipulation is appalling.
Yes. If you do the math, we already more property tax than ever before. And in fact in 1993 when housing prices had crashed, we still had more schools.
Yes. The fact that the board operates in this manner is in all likelihood indicative of a larger issue of deception and decision making by compromised ethics.
Yes. You can cloud the issues any way you want to, but you can't continually claim not enough students, too many. More property tax than ever, not enough.
Yes. This is nothing more than a political ploy to hide and shadow unethical decision making and more likely, corrupt dealings, kickbacks from contractors and local businesses, for which there is evidence a-plenty .
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

The law requiring that school district special taxes "apply uniformly to all taxpayers" is a really bad law, obviously passed to benefit wealthy taxpayers.

The flat tax proposed by the school board clearly fits the legal requirement and is just as clearly bad:

Low-income renters living in a small duplex will pay a larger part of their income to reimburse their landlord for the cost of this tax than low-income renters of an equally small apartment in a 50-apartment complex.

The middle class owners of a small 750 square foot condo will pay a larger part of their income for this tax than the millionaire owners of a 75,000 square foot palace.

I hope everyone is aware that the Parcel Tax is replacing one that the district already has that is expiring. They are not asking for more funding than they get, they are asking for the funding the schools currently get to be continued. There may be some increase requested, but it's not an entirely new tax out of nowhere.

Here's an idea, why not let the tax expire?

We have enough money and the tax served its purpose, it was temporary.

Trouble is the government spending beast NEVER has enough, it's always more.

As a percent of median home sale prices, PAUSD and LASD homeowners pay 3x more than MV homeowners in school parcel taxes. So if Mountain View was paying the same percent as Los Altos and Palo Alto (note: percent, not total), the parcel tax would be $320 in MV. If only we believed in our schools the way Los Altos and Palo Alto do. Holding back support because of the school board is a chicken or the egg argument. We all want great schools, yet we only get great schools through investing in our schools (in dollars and paying attention to school board elections). Starving our schools will only make a bad scenario worse (starve is not an exaggeration once state retirement obligations kick in, pushing district retirement contributions from 8% to 19%, which private company faces such future obligations Web Link If a parcel tax possibly means: smaller classes, more science, more arts, or retaining talented teachers, then such a tax only helps homeowner values in the long run. Yet the misinformed view that MVWSD already over-taxes our community means that when we do get a parcel tax on the ballot, it will only add enough to cover currently funded programs, and not add enough to give MV the K-8 school services equal to it's world class reputation. The data below speaks for itself, and the differences between MVWSD and the rest of our local schools would be even more stark if not for the daily sacrifices by teachers and parents to stretch the dollars to give MVWSD children an education that adds up to more than our community funds.

Mountain View Whisman SD (per pupil revenue: $10,683)
Mountain View Education Foundation: $600,000 raised
Current parcel tax: $127 (for a <8,000 square foot home)
$951,000 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.01% of the current median home sale price)
Web Link

Mountain View Los Altos HSD (per pupil revenue: $16,792)
MVLA High School Foundation: $1.3 Million raised
Web Link

Los Altos SD (per pupil revenue: $11,805)
Los Altos Education Foundation: $3.2 million raised
Current parcel tax: $790 per parcel ($193 increase in the last election)
$2,342,500 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.03% of the current median home sale price)
Web Link

Palo Alto USD (per pupil revenue: $15,217)
Palo Alto Partners in Education: $5.3 million raised
Current parcel tax: $758 per parcel ($120 increase in the last election)
$2,165,500 median home sale price
(parcel tax is 0.03% of the current median home sale price)
www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Clara/Palo-Alto-Unified

Colodonato was clear before the election that he considers this a stepping stone post to a bigger role in Libertarian anti-public school politics. I wish he would step on out already. Take the anti-funding rhetoric to Palo Alto where PiE gets parents to donate $2 million/year for extra staff (that's not even counting each school's PTA fundraising).

The argument is silly if you base taxes on who benefits. Commercial and industrial sites do not use schools though they hire educated people. However students are paid for their investment in schooling. Treating all parcels equally treats all taxpayers equally even though most do not benefit from using schools. Taxing a person who does not own residential property more is pure greed since residents are the ones who benefit most from having a school in their neighborhood. The court ruling is merely an attempt to put limits on corrupt politicians who seek ways to subsidize their projects.

In a better world only residents would pay for schooling w taxes.

Agree with John. This was supposed to be a temporary measure. Now it's just part of the budget and they want to increase it. Unfortunately, given the unstable environment over at MVWSD council, I'm not eager to give them any more.

@zoop hahahahahaha! Thought the same thing!

@Just infuriating of Jackson Park
Great word for our elected Board "infuriating".

"Coladonato and Nelson are delusional and absolutely infuriating."
No argument from me.

"Coladonato is what, a realtor? And he thinks he's the expert on tax law?

Actually, he's a politician and one who has been actively a Libertarian (anti-school-funding type), a Republican and a Democrat, depending on which association would be most likely to get him elected to something. He only ran for MVWSD School Board because he failed to win a seat in the State Assembly.

"Nelson gets to grandstand that he has $50K to put down to chase windmills? Because what the district really needs right now is a legal battle?"

There's nothing wrong with an individual, or group of individuals bringing suit against the state because they don't like some law. Nothing wrong with petitioning the state government to change the law. But, holding a school district hostage to achieve a political goal, that is wrong.

"I'm glad Supt. Rudolph is standing up to these two clowns."

I'm not sure Dr. Rudolph wants to be seen as a "ring master" for our little circus. Hopefully, the November election will solve our major problems?

@OldMV of Old Mountain View wrote:

"My concern is that the School Board must submit it for voter approval during next Year's November general election,"

The district has several options for when they submit this to the voters. The most likely will be this coming May 2016. I would prefer May 2017.
Most school districts now use dates other than the November major elections to submit their funding requests.

"the election with the highest voter turnout."

Based on many recent examples, a mail-in ballot in May actually gets the HIGHEST voter response than the "big" election in November will.

What's more, the voters who have only a few things to consider, like a parcel tax voted on in May have shown to be vastly MORE informed about the issue than voters in the November election.

Basically, when you only have a few items to consider, people tend to understand those issues more deeply, but when they have dozens of candidates and initiatives on a November ballot, most people don't bother to research anything beyond the top candidates and perhaps some of the most controversial state-wide initiatives. Little things like a school parcel tax get little or no thought from the voters.

"I say, hold their feet to the fire and submit it for November 2016. "

I say the REAL way to "hold their feet to the fire" would be to hold ALL school funding votes AFTER the November 2016 elections and make the newly elected School Board members show us how they operate as a team and let them make a plan for a new parcel tax for the voters in May 2017. A total mail-in ballot where the voters will have 30 days to look at it and make up their minds before mailing in their ballots.

Here is a link to one education law firm's posting on the decision [ Web Link ]
' The Legislature’s intent was to strictly limit what school districts could do, and it wrote a law that “does not empower school districts to classify taxpayers and property, and impose different tax rates,” the judges wrote.' Berkeley USD memo
Here is a link to the full Appellate Court decision [ Web Link ]

The spreadsheet (per sq ft) detail provided an estimated total revenue increase of $6 M over the current tax (and over the $191 proposed per parcel per year base). Some $800 thousand extra per year. The spreadsheet is a public document, and available from the District Office.

"Severability provision" in a legal measure allows a uniform base tax (say $191) to stand completely separate from any challenge to a 'uniform tax rate' (say per sq ft) clause. Our current Parcel Tax has such a provision. If the court decision had been against us, 6 years ago, we still could have charged the minimum tax ($127) to all properties uniformly. A uniform $191 base and 1/2 cent per square foot uniform rate would be equally severable.

Steven Nelson (I serve on the MVWSD Board, and/but do not speak for it)
BTW Chris Chiang, Piedmont USD has a $2,0406 parcel tax !!!

I believe the current parcel tax (like most) had a sunset date to ensure that it would pass, so voters would know that they could come back and reconsider; not that the money was only needed for a while and then the need would go away. Having worked on the first couple of parcel tax measures, and knowing how other well-funded districts (see Christopher Chiang's excellent information above) treat their parcel taxes, no one ever thought that the fact that we need a parcel tax was a "temporary" thing. In fact, I think LASD's tax had no sunset date, and they are just required to vote to re-authorize every so often, at which time they can increase the amount. Not 100% certain that that is true, but that's what I heard.

I will vote NO on ANY new tax until:

1) Teachers unions are disbanded,
2) There is meaningful public pension reform (see item 1)
3) Tenure is abolished (see item 1)

@Waste & More Waste,

Do you rent or do you own? Have you ever raised children? Teachers make less than almost any job with 5 years of college. Benefits have always helped, that is where unions come in. In California property value most directly correlates with perceived school quality. Better schools, sell your house for more. Teacher quality is the only variable schools control that can impact the education of children. So if you rent, and don't want any kids you know to get good jobs, feel free to hold back. Or you could move to a community that shares your values. I hear Texas is nice this time of year...

Mr. Nelson:

In your post, you present established case law that suggests your graduated tax scheme is highly likely to face a court challenge-- probably a successful one. A few scenarios for your enjoyment, both of which I believe more likely than your fantasy outcome.

- The apartment lobby collectively believes that your scheme has even a slim chance of eventual success in the courts. We know from the last Council election that they will happily drop significant cash in a Mtn View election, and know how to use said cash to get their desired outcome. Parcel tax fails.

- In spite of recent history and the fact that the school community has zero faith (thanks to you and Trustee Caldonato) in the Board of Trustees-- your parcel tax somehow passes. It is challenged in court.

I note from the link you provided that Borikas v Alameda went on for FIVE YEARS. You childishly offered $50K of your own money to defend the tax. Good for you. The initial MVWSD parcel tax was challenged in court on a case that was deemed frivolous I believe. Case tossed in short order. I am willing to bet that the legal bill for that short-lived case exceeded $50K. How much will yours cost? How far up the legal food chain would it go before it almost inevitably fails?

Its probably too late to get voter support for ANY MVWSD parcel tax at this point. Many of us deeply regret supporting the recent construction bond that you have had such a big role in making a mess of. The only hope for passing a new parcel tax is for one to be constructed in your absence. It is past time for you to resign.

Funny one argumentative Steven Nelson comment canceling another Steven Nelson comment!

Another "funny" thing. Something the current parcel tax supports: Performing Arts teachers and Librarians while Measure G funds continue to pound away building PFA Centers and remodeling or rebuilding libraries. Hmmm...a PFACenter without a teacher?

And BTW, statisticians in the audience: Please don't try to shame us by making the argument using stats that MV doesn't pay the same tax per student as LA or PA without adding the stat that after paying those taxes, most LA and PA folks probably have a little more 'something something' left in their pockets than most MV folks do. Maybe pays for the private after school lessons, travel, and prestigious colleges?

What MV parent doesn't want something better for their school kid? What old MV person without a kid wants a smart young tech checking their vitals or protecting their homestead? And why are MV students still using dated technology when we have tech giants in our back yard? Where are these statistics?

I don't have these statistics either, but my guess is that MV folks would support what the "temp" parcel tax supports if we thought the taxation was distributed fairly so every few years we didn't have to yell and throw the same tired stats around to be heard!

So Board, if you are serious about it, then budget it in in the first place and get past the sos temp parcel tax drama every few years! Please get off your box and get workin' for us!
A Stefanie Nelson

It is not appropriate for the new superintendent to publicly scold a board member.

He serves at the pleasure of the board.

With exception of the recently appointed board member, the board members were elected by the public and, as such, represent a constituency.

I respect Coladonato for advocating a principled approach to taxation.

@Old MV Parent,

I attended the meeting in question. Dr. Rudolph was simply doing his job. He needs to inform the Board what is or is not reasonable in his professional opinion. Both Nelson and Coladonato like to have their say, and sometimes have it by raising their voices to Dr. Rudolph and the other Board members. If you are going to insist on perfect decorum at all times, please arrange for Trustee Nelson to show some leadership in good governance by leading by example. The stream video does not do justice to the range of emotions in that board room. By the way, Dr. Rudolph certainly was hired by the Board. But let's be careful of the "serves at the pleasure" idea. If you check the contract, termination for convenience has a price. Given Nelson's behavior, Rudolph's response would likely be found justified, potentially draining off another large payout. Let's give the good Dr. a chance to improve the health of the board and district.

I have now read the decision and its explanation (called the appellate court's "opinion") in the case of Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District (available online by searching for its official location in volume 214 of the California appellate reports, 4th series, starting at page 135 (214 Cal.App. 4th 135) decided in March 2013 by a unanimous 3-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal in San Francisco. The decision-opinion was "certified for publication" which means it is binding on Superior Courts across the State. Only a change in the underlying laws or a contrary published ruling by another Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court could render the decision-opinion in Borikas disputed or overruled. In June of 2013, the California Supreme Court denied both a petition to review legal issues in the case and a request for an order directing that the Court of Appeal's decision-opinion be "de-published" and so not binding except upon the parties in the one case. Neither action by the Supreme Court expresses any opinion as to the legal merit of the decision-opinion of the Court of Appeal. The primary underlying law (CA Government Code section 50079) has not been changed by any later enactment. Since many folks do not like long posts online and I am awkwardly using my phone to post at this moment, I will post again shortly with a comment on the case and what might be done next. Meanwhile, anyone interested should start by reading the decision-opinion in the Borikas case. It appears that our school district trustees have read the case - which surely is more than most trustees do in other school districts.

> publicly scold a board member

frankly, they should be scolded a lot more. I would settle for there being penalties for board members scolding other people.

"I would settle for there being penalties for board members scolding other people."

I'm sure the San Jose Sharks would loan out a penalty box for that purpose...think of how much fun one could have with that...

@ resident of Waverly Park, I have no intention of resigning, anymore than Old Steve of Rex Manor has any intention of running for an elective school board office.

I understand your challenge, and believe me, given your free time and wealth I'd certainly run. With better conduct on your part, you and would have much to discuss about ed & fiscal policy. Given your conduct, and the way it impacts all of US you represent, I will work and contribute to make your reelection campaign unsuccessful!

Steve Nelson -- "I have no intention of resigning, anymore than Old Steve of Rex Manor has any intention of running for an elective school board office."

What a shame -- you would be doing the board a HUGE favor if you did.

And quite frankly, putting you into a penalty box during board meetings is long overdue.

Is there a lawyer on the MV school board, or is the board just flying by the seat of its pants with wishful thinking for what they think Should be legal vs what Actually is legal? Seems to me that they don't understand the concepts of legal precedent and stare decisis. If the school board starts trying to make its own law, then they'll learn pretty quickly that that's a very foolish thing to do.

@OldMV -

Ha! When I was at the last board meeting, it certainly appeared that Trustees Nelson and Coladonato believed they had a legal degree and could overturn legal precedent through the "but it's not fair" wishfulness that preschoolers exhibit. Meanwhile, Trustee Lambert, who does have a legal degree, agreed with the firm hired to manage the parcel tax campaign that it would be foolish to take the approach suggested by Trustee Coladonato because of the established legal precedent.