The problem with a flat per square foot parcel tax is not so much whether it would be legally enforceable, but whether it would pass. In 2003, Measure E, the first MVWSD parcel tax measure that would have imposed a flat tax of 5 cents per square foot, failed by 292 votes, primarily because of vocal and well-funded opposition by the local business and apartment owner communities. If that tax had passed, some large parcels would have been taxed as much as $50,000 per year. When the time is right to put a new measure on the ballot to replace the current tax that expires in June 2017, it needs to be a measure that complies with the constraints of the law but also that realistically can garner enough support to pass by a 2/3 margin. Otherwise our school district will have to forgo $2.9 million of critically needed funds to educate and support the kids in our District. Our kids deserve better!

The largest parcels are tax neutral at 1/2 cent per square foot. The smallest parcels are tax neutral at around $150 per parcel. If this form of dual parcel tax can be legally supported at the time, we will also have to acknowledge that the administrative costs are higher, as the County Assessor's records for lot size are not always accurate.

Could the Governor's budget proposing to give schools more money have had anything to do with it? MVWSD's LCFF shortfall was $7 Million in 2014-2015 and they got an extra $3 mIllion dollars recurring plus $2.5 million one-time relating to last year paid this year. Then next year, the budget will up their funding ANOTHER $3 Million for next year and give them ANOTHER one-time payment this time of $3 Million.

It seems like they'll have enough money without the parcel tax. It certainly might make a few people vote no on the parcel tax that would previously have supported it.

The budget has nothing to do with it. The support has softened because of the dysfunctional board and the specific actions of Nelson and Coladonato in wanting to try to pass an illegal tax. Voters won't support a tax that will end up costing the district half a million in litigation costs. Add that to the quarter million Nelson has already cost the district in the settlement to the former superintendent and you can see his legacy to the students of this district.

Kudos to Mr. Nelson and Mr. Coladonato for standing up for the small property owners against the apartment and business building owners. They provided an attorney's opinion that the tax they propose would pass legal muster. The rest of the board, Wheeler, Lambert and the appointed guy want to ram their parcel tax that charges a single family home the same as a 100 unit apartment building.

You are spot on, BUT-- I believe that Calodonato WANTS the tax to fail (maybe Nelson too). The choice of attorney to write their "legal opinion" and Gregs' history point to that.

Didn't Nelson vocally (on this forum) oppose the current parcel tax?

Steve Nelson also opposed Measure G and has done his part in convincing the voters not to trust the board with another bond measure!

I opposed Measure G because there was $225 M in red ink ($198 M Revenue - $423 SFIP Facilities Plan) in spring of 2013. I have always supported the MVWSD Parcel Taxes. In the past the MVWSD parcel tax proposals have always been progressive. Although regressive parcel taxes are perfectly legal - I do not support them.

Before the end of 2016, I will be trying to work with a (one) coalition partner on the Board to draft a progressive parcel tax that will also increase the total revenue to the District beyond the $2.9 M/year of the current tax. This will not happen for many months.

Steven Nelson is one Trustee of the MVWSD, this is his opinion

The idea that a school board would intentionally leave money on the table, when it sounds like a parcel tax actually had a decent chance of passing if we parents went out and fought for it, just infuriates me.

Our kids, unlike the ones in Palo Alto and Los Altos, will suffer as a result.
Thank goodness our education foundation MVEF is there to provide art and music and spend our donations wisely, on the things that make our sterile schools fun and engaging, at least occasionally.

I hope all those who are down on the parcel tax and (rightly) disgusted by our Board will consider putting the money they would have paid through a tax toward a far more competent and functional organization.

@MVEF of Monta Loma

"...when it sounds like a parcel tax actually had a decent chance of passing if we parents went out and fought for it, just infuriates me."

Plenty of solid reasons to be infuriated at the Board, but keep in-mind that to pass a parcel tax requires 66.6% of the voters to approve, meaning as it stands today, the margin of victory is a mere 1.4%.
And that is before those opposed (for a variety of understandable reasons) have not yet begun to campaign against it.
Support is clearly soft and all it takes is a few voters to get pushed to abstain from mailing in their ballots and it's game-over.

Many people don't actually oppose a new parcel tax, but they do oppose giving such a victory to the current Board. They may be happy to approve it after November depending on what the voters do about the 3 current Board members up for re/election. If the voters change the Board, that sends one message, if the voters don't that sends a very different message.

"...MVEF is there to provide art and music and spend our donations wisely, on the things that make our sterile schools fun and engaging..."

"I hope all those who are down on the parcel tax and (rightly) disgusted by our Board will consider putting the money they would have paid through a tax toward a far more competent and functional organization."

Interesting idea, just a few questions:
1) Can the MVEF actually provide basic operational funds to the district rather than just the "fun and engaging" stuff?
2) Can the school district actually be expected to depend on the MVEF, or the MVEF be able to rely on the donations of the public to allow the schools to actually make operational budgets from?
3) Is the MVEF actually equipped to administer an additional $3million on top of the $1million it already handles?

The MVEF may be a wonderful and trustworthy group and does great things for the more flexible functions of our schools, but I don't think we want to rely on the MVEF for basic functions on a year to year or 5-year-plan basis.

@"@laura blakely"

I know Greg Coladonato personally and I've asked him about his thinking about this tax, and this isn't some kind of false flag operation to sabotage the parcel tax. Greg says it's unfair that very large parcels which house many families whose kids use the school system pay as much as a little cottage with no kids.

I'm not trying to speak for him here, just expressing my impression of what he's doing.

Contact the man with your concerns, ask him yourself, rather than coming up with conspiracy theories.

Most large parcels are commercial rather than residential. There is more money available for education if we can figure out the right way. Or we could have gone ahead with the status quo. How we will have to figure out how much risk to assume and how many lawyers to budget for. Maybe for two years these funds may not be absolutely necessary, but after that, who knows.

I wasn't suggesting that MVEF take over operational functions or anything even close to that.

What I was suggesting is that people who care about the schools and kids here might consider giving a donation, or extra donation, to MVEF, since we are not paying extra money toward a parcel tax.

The art and music programs through CSMA are excellent and make a HUGE difference to kids. It gets them excited about school, benefits their cognitive and social development, and teaches them skills like practice and teamwork.

Every MVWSD property owner will be paying the same Parcel Tax that they have until the end of June 2017. This means the MVWSD will be getting the same local revenue that it has until that time. If another tax is approved to start just after the current Parcel Tax expires- there will be no or little loss of revenue to the MVWSD schools.

It seems that you forgot why you decided to sue the district over the Measure G funding so here is a reminder for you: Web Link

It was a frivolous lawsuit, wasting not only staff time, but also money that could have been used for instruction of students. Don't try to make yourself out as something that you aren't. You personally have cost the students of this district dearly with your abusive behavior.

The comments attached to the article linked by @ Steven Nelson above are pretty instructive. I sure all the folks who were egging (now) Trustee Nelson on back then are happy now. Just to review, the SFIP was about 3 years old when Measure G passed. Based on the views of Nelson and others, a year long community process was undertaken again after bond passage. As a result, no significant construction work was started until the summer of 2014. Since Trustee Nelson has indicated his intention to run for reelection, I suggest those of us not happy with the following continue to hold him accountable for his role in: Extended community process delays to middle school classroom projects, more than extensive discussion of middle school performing arts spaces, employment settlement with former superintendent, unprofessional conduct in board and committee meetings,
I could go on, but unlike Trustee Nelson, I have a day job!

@ Old Steve The Minutes of the MVWSD (and the Voice reporting) reflect that I voted FOR the middle school facilities projects in Sept 19, 2013 when they were permanent-modular new classroom building construction (and staying within the $50M budget allocation and timelines). AND I voted No (twice) when the administration later proposed larger stick-built versions that 'busted the timelines' and budget. But official Minutes and Votes are just words to some? us git back to work?

SN is an elected Trustee of the MVWSD, these are just his opinions, not votes

That was a nice and well-deserved slam on SN. I can't WAIT to vote for someone else next election.

@Steven Nelson:

I really do have better things to do than argue history with you, but since you continuously dispute facts in my comments, here we go again:

In the spring of 2012 you filed suit against the district. In September of 2013 you voted to approve a certain project. My key time period is that in between those times, modernization of existing classrooms (not new modulars or stick built buildings). I believe we could have advanced much faster without your campaign and subsequent conduct as a Trustee. My only point was that general construction costs escalated significantly during that period, offsetting any program savings attributable to "transparency & community involvement".

@@PACT parent of Monta Loma

"I wasn't suggesting that MVEF take over operational functions or anything even close to that."

OK, but that was a reasonable inference.

"What I was suggesting is that people who care about the schools and kids here might consider giving a donation, or extra donation, to MVEF, since we are not paying extra money toward a parcel tax. "

I would love to see people with lots of disposable income donate larger amounts to the MVEF for the good works the MVEF does and does in a properly managed manner. As long as the MVEF can continue to properly handle the money.

However, I don't agree that the parcel tax is dead, just delayed long enough to see what the voters do about the Board in November.