Wait. I thought the 27% Mountain View children statistic includes those south of El Camino Real and southeast of Springer who reside in Mountain View as well, i.e., 27% for the entire LASD in the City of Mountain View? If this is correct, why are they not considering 1575 Holt Avenue for a school? There are a lot of unanswered questions, including the use of the former Hillview Elementary School.

1575 Holt Avenue, Los Altos resides in the Cupertino Union School District.

Los Altos is served by both LASD and CUSD.

LASD and other school districts have sold of a lot of property over the years under
various circumstances. Trying to claw it back to solve a current need for space is unrealistic. Grant Park was once a Cupertino Union school, yes, but it's far away
from any enrollment growth in LASD. LASD closed and sold off one of its own schools in that area on Carmel Terrace and it's now been turned into homes and a 7th Day Adventist elementary school. Mountain View Whisman owns 10 acres at Cooper Park and it's next to a 5 acre city owned Park, so it's operated right now as a 13 acre city Park and a 2 acre private preschool. A

The thing is LASD is not short on land, just buildings. MVWSD uses its land much more efficiently and provides school bus service for kids who are sent to non-neighborhood schools. LASD isn't doing that. It only does this to kids in Mountain View, where the 1/4 square mile territory north of El Camino Real is divided up and splintered off to 3 different Los Altos schools which otherwise would have around 350 kids, which is too small for a school. LASD is depending on these Mountain View kids to round out the numbers to a workable school size of 550 kids K-6. If they switch ti K-5 like most every other school district in the state, then the schools go down to below 300 each.

So the last two comments are lacking data. What relates to the tax measure is that LASD is spending something like $2 MIllion per year over and over again on leasing portable buildings and inefficient energy use that could be fixed by spending some of the 2014-approved bond money as the voters were promised. This GG thing is a way of covering the carrying costs of NOT ACTING on the facilities improvement projects from Measure N.

So, vote No if you believe in energy efficiency and in carrying out previous promises to voters.

I will be voting no on any new, or established parcel taxes for LASD, until the LASD board has a clearly defined plan on how they are spending the measure N funds. This plan needs to be discussed in the open in front of the voters, not in closed session.

If they come up with a reasonable plan that is in the best interest of educating students at each and every school, then I will vote yes on parcel and bond taxes.

Measure GG is another "flat structure tax". All property parcels pay the same tax, regardless of parcel size or building size. A large commercial building pays the exact same tax bill as the smallest residential condo. Or, the largest mansion in the hills, pays the exact same tax bill as the smallest 1920's 'village' house.

Perhaps, even if you do support more local taxes, for supporting the excellent local public schools, you do not support this type of flat tax structure. Should someone making a million in income a year, pay the same income tax as someone making $90,000 as a public school teacher? Seems maybe absurd doesn't it?

Several East Bay school district have very large revenue parcel taxes (more than 20 percent of budget) that are entirely based on per-square-foot (building) for parcels. If Los Altos voterss do not pass the current proposal (Measure GG a flat structure tax) maybe the next LASD Board may consider a more progressive, per-square-foot parcel tax that can raise the same total revenue.

SN happens to be a Trustee of a neighbor school district, the are his own opinions
(see posting of a public memo under the "Schools & Kids" heading)

The Trustees are doing way to many things behind closed doors. There is more to the district than the North End of Los Altos. I can't believe that they think spending money on an office building on El Camino is a good idea. It is in fact completely stupid. They have land at Covington and they need to use it. I am convinced that the only way to get through to them is to vote No on the parcel tax.

@ Voter and Voting No

I get it, but our schools need the money. Voing No will hurt our kids the most. I totally agree with you that the board is doing some very questionable stuff, and they really seem to be putting certain schools before others.

I am going to vote for Tanya for LASD Trustee. Having someone on there that is not hand picked by the inner circle will help shed some light on the situation. I know many of my neighbors agree with me and are also voting for her.

LASD does not have financial oversight over BCS because BCS is chartered by the county, not the district. My understanding is that BCS has agreed to disclose financial info to LASD re: the parcel tax. But it is also my understanding that in the past BCS has not been forthcoming with information that LASD has requested, even when ordered to do so by the courts. LASD will be held accountable to taxpayers for 100% of spending from the parcel tax. I've searched online for more info, but it is still unclear to me exactly how LASD will oversee spending of the BCS share. Therefore am voting no.

I'm more worried about accountability on the part of LASD than I am about BCS. They've cooked the books to say they need this 2nd parcel tax whereas it's dubious that they do. For one thing, if Prop 55 passes, that gives them an extra million dollars per year. If they build new school buildings, they can stop spending a million dollars a year renting portable buildings. If they just BUY out the other half of those portable buildings with Measure N bond money, that can save them another $500K per year. If they would put solar on their roofs in a no-cost deal with a solar provider, that can cut 10% off their energy costs each year. And so on. It's almost like they want as a big of a budget as possible, so we need to feed that beast.

BCS on the other hand spends $2K per student less than does LASD every year. And we taxpayers only pay 60% of it, for reasons that escape me.

The Trustees are keeping everything behind closed doors. It has to stop. They are doing it because they are protecting Covington. They don't want to share that site. I can't trust them with more money to spend. They will just waste it on lawyers.