ah No lawsuit challenge danger - if the Fair School Tax is written correctly. Uniform per square foot, with no illegal exemptions, and applied to both residential and commercial property without bias or differentiation.

Avoiding regressive taxation is one reason why the Berkeley, West Contra Costa County and Emery school districts have passed "uniform" Per Sq Foot real property taxes, rather than regressive (same $ for all) parcel property taxes.

In Berkeley the new education tax is 37 cents per square foot of building, in WCC it is 7.9 cents, in Emery their tax of 2014 for 20 years (86% Yes) is 15 cents. They are uniform across all property types and offer only the court allowed exemptions.

(Alameda USD may be in legal trouble for again offering “cap” of $7999 to large properties)

@SteveNelson: We are not getting anyone online interested in either this story or the editorial for B. Maybe interest will pick up as residents open their election materials tonight or this weekend.

Well actually, there are two ballot arguments for and two against Measure B. I threw in the rebuttal to the argument in favor. Steve Nelson had already made some important points. Proponents will not want voters to read those ballot arguments. So be sure to read them before you vote.

Well actually, there are four ballot arguments: 2 in favor and 2 against Measure B. Proponents may not want voters to read the ballot arguments. So be sure to read them.

There are four ballot arguments in your election envelope: two in favor and two against. Some proponents may be hoping voters only read this article, the accompanying editorial and the campaign pieces mailed out at public expense in apparent violation of Education Code Section 7054.

A "news" article about what "PROPONENTS SAY"

Reading this article might leave one with the impression that the only argument against measure B is that it doesn't screw the wealthy hard enough. No mention of any other reservation. No comment on the recent wasteful spending by the District, no analysis of if the promises made in previous measures were actually kept or not, no questioning whether the claims made in support are valid or not, and not a single quote or indication of interviewing anyone not completely on board with the tax.

Oh well.

Ah, there has also not been much Board and community discussion for why MVWSD voters are still not that interested in a higher parcel tax (compared to nearby districts that pay a Way Higher % of their residential property values, per year, to their parcel taxes.) Mr. Chiang has calculated and mentioned that it is about a factor of 3 disparity.

I'd say 1) there is a 'particular looseness' to what it is legal to spend on (backfill like "warehouse operations")
2) some economics research out of a UCSB prof sees flat-tax-structures mainly work in uniform value residential property areas. This might mean, in our area they don't work as well (some voter survey data shows this too)
3) Berkeley in particular (89% approval) has a very tight PERCENT CONTROL on spending that IS allowed. Administration cannot move "class size reduction" money to administrative staff at schools. So a minimum, has to come from Property Tax for those core programs (which also usually have additional General Fund support).

Steven Sherman claim is right no 'inappropriate' oversight votes - because ANY 'make up for lost state revenue' spending is legal, under the legal wording of the Parcel Tax(es). So "custodians", "administrative staff', and "warehouse operations" are perfectly OK in the MVWSD parcel tax world. (Administrators is Prin., Sup., Dir. and staff is secretaries and such)

You get the government you vote for, Pukein, Trump, Prop 13, ...

Why are there no comments on this version of the story? Measure B is controversial. Just for starter, taxing one amount regardless of the size, use and value of a parcel is unfair to some.

@John of Whisman Station

"Measure B is controversial."

Sure, those who feel they don't like something about the district want to vent their anger by reducing the current operational budget of our schools. Remember, this is a parcel tax to replace the long-standing tax that is about to expire, it's not a "new tax".

OR those who want to exploit the issue to enforce their subjective views on "social justice" at the expense of our kids.

"Just for starter, taxing one amount regardless of the size, use and value of a parcel is unfair to some."

That's the "social justice" argument.

This is a STATE LEVEL law that was not written "fairly" by the state law-makers. It's also why it's called a "parcel tax" and not a "property value tax" or a "square-footage tax".

The state law-makers created this mess and it effects all school districts ability to raise money. It was not until a judge recently pointed out the problem with the law that school districts had to change the way they were asking for a parcel tax from the voters.

The type that MVWSD has chosen will certainly avoid a potentially costly court battle which we don't have time for. Other potential solutions might or might not avoid legal action, but we can't know for sure.

It's not perfect, it may not be "fair", but it will take action by the state law-makers and judges to correct it.

How about we focus on what's best for the kids?

@ ST Patent It is nowhere in state law called a "parcel tax". It is rather a special qualified tax on persons and property, that must be applied uniformly, and with only certain very prescribed exemptions. It must, in particular, be applied to property (note - nowhere does the law say "parcel") without differentiation to commercial or residential property. Furthermore - the court case decision at the Appeals Court level - it cannot reapplied with exemption to vacant property. (the special tax allowed to community college districts, rarely used, specifically in the statue allows a vacant property differentiation).

Do you trust the Leadership? is a valid reason to vote NO on B! at this time, for this suggested tax.

500% GOOGLE Tax Cut? is a valid reason to vote NO on B! at this time, for this suggested tax proposal.

@Steven Nelson

OK, you should know, but please explain this information from the CA.Gov website:

Excerpts from:
www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/finance/local-taxes/voter-approval-032014.aspx

"Local Governments Levy Many Types of Taxes

Parcel Tax:
A levy on parcels of property, typically set at some fixed amount per parcel. Cannot be based on a property’s value.

May be used by:
Cities, counties, special districts, and school and community college districts.

Special Districts and School and Community College Districts Have More Narrow Tax Authority. Most special districts and school and community college districts are authorized to levy only parcel taxes to fund services. Parcel taxes generally are paid by most property owners within each local government’s jurisdiction. In some cases, however, certain groups of property owners—such as senior citizens—may be exempted. A limited number of special districts—primarily transportation districts—also may levy sales taxes.

Conditions a School Facilities Bond Must Meet to Qualify for 55 Percent Voter Approval
(Like Measure G)
The bond measure includes:
A requirement that the bond funds can be used only for construction, rehabilitation, equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities.

A specific list of projects to be funded and certification that the school district board or community college board has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing the list."

In addition, I see that Alameda school district got sued over their Measure B1, which had a 32 cent per square foot of building space.

So, I guess the countless times I've heard the term "parcel tax" is just a media thing and the ca.gov web-site got it wrong?

Former trustee Steve Nelson is correct. But you can call it a parcel tax. It must be "uniform" under state law - not flat (i.e., a fixed amount for each parcel). Any court challenge to a fairer tax would have been required within 60 of the election date. The current more fair tax schedule would not likely have been challenged by anyone. As to the "don't shortchange the kids" argument, the money raised could be used for almost anything and would free up other funds for more administrators and higher administrator salaries and benefits as well as TTO, rodeo and Massage Envy. Kids do not necessarily benefit from more funds handed to "adults." The district's operating budget is $60 million per year. $3 million will not make or break the budget. Steve Nelson says reserves are actually huge. See his ballot argument. What the district seems to need is diffetent leadership and a different tax measure. Such measures can be placed on the ballot repeatedly and frequently.

Until the district can show the people that they can be responsible, they don't deserve another thin dime.

Try showing results with what you already have before asking for more. After the debacle with Teach to One, I can't see why anyone would trust them with lunch money, let alone more millions to waste on nonsense.

Californians pay a huge amount of money for education and have very little to show for it. It isn't all about having more money. It IS about using the money you have wisely.

The LAO is correct in it's use of the colloquial term (BTW, the LAO writings are not statutes, as in statue laws). Take a look at the wording of the tax Agenda Item from the Special Board Meeting authorizing a vote on such a tax in MVWSD. The wording of the tax, can be just about anything (that isn't challenged) and the Berkeley USD tax is not called Parcel Tax.

The apparently failed flat-structure tax that seems to have just failed in San Mateo-Redwood Shores SD was called "

The Berkeley, West Contra Costa and Emery straight per-square-foot property taxes (on property buildings) were not challenged. The Alameda Tax is questionable - because it has a CAP (of $7999) and could arguably not be called "uniform" (because the rate-per-square-foot decreases for the largest properties. MVWSD Measure C also was not anywhere near uniform: ALL PROPERTIES much over 1 AC did not have any increased tax. So there was effectively a CAP of $1016 even for the largest commercial properties, and a $127'lower cap', for the smallest.

We are voting on a FLAT-STRUCTURE-TAX which was held proper by the Appeals court, which rolled back the 2004 tax of Alameda. The Appellate Court - in it's decision, kept the lowest common denominator (lowest uniform) tax that could be extracted from the special qualified tax (on property) that the Alameda voters had passed. YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THE 2nd APPELLATE COURT DECISION (upheld by the CA Supremes) if you want to discuss this! (and !) [this is your homework - not mine, you can Google to find the links]

sorry for missing info Belmont-Foster City (ops) special election (not certified yet) final result NOT PASS on their "qualified special tax". This was structured so: "The proposed tax applies to any unit of real property which lies wholly or partially in the District that receives a separate property tax bill from San Mateo County tax collection officials. Parcels otherwise ..." The colloquial term PARCEL TAX comes from the common practice, of using the designation of the real property as the assessor's parcel number. When 'real property' becomes PARCEL designated by PARCEL No. then "special qualified tax" can be easily understood as Parcel Tax. That is the shorthand the county counsels - and the LAO use.

tax failure March 28th, 65.2% (needs 2/3)
Web Link

Web Link

read CA GOV Code 50079, it is not particularly illuminating, if you don't read the full Borikas decision of the 2nd Appellate Ct. (Google Scholar will help you search for case law on this)

It's been claimed on this message board that the district is flush with funds and that California already funds its schools well. The data does not support those claims. Mr. Nelson should know full well that the district reserves are there to fund the district's future pension obligations: Web Link Below is the real reality facing MVWSD:

Federal:
President Trump's budget reduces the US Education Department's budget by 13.5 percent or $9.2 billion.
Source: Web Link

State:
California ranks "10th from the bottom among the 50 states" in education funding.
Source: Web Link

Local:
Mountain View Whisman SD Per Pupil Revenue: $10,683
Mountain View Los Altos HSD Per Pupil Revenue: $16,792
Palo Alto USD Per Pupil Revenue: $15,217
After adjusting for differences in property values, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Menlo Park pay 3x what MV residents are being asked.
Source: Web Link

Each of these communities understand the causal relationship between good schools and home values. Money alone doesn't equal good schools, but a school fiscal crisis will surely be bad for both students and homeowners.

Some see the parcel tax as a chance to rebuke recent gaffes made by the district, as some form of punishment or reward for the adults running our schools, and others reject all taxes, even though the design of Prop 13 was to place the power of taxation in the wise hands of the community (not to financially gut our schools). I have faith in the collective wisdom of the Mountain View community to invest $191 in the students, which in turn is also a great investment in themselves as homeowners.

Measure B is the reauthorization of a parcel tax that has been in place for the past 8 years, bringing in $2.8m per year, about 5% of the district’s budget. The current parcel tax expires this June.

Why I support Measure B:

- With the opening of Slater school, our district needs more funds, not less.

- Retention is a huge problem in our district. Asking the dedicated teachers who do stay to do more with less will only encourage further flight.

- Voting for Measure B is not an endorsement of the current School Board or Superintendent. It is an investment in our students and the dedicated teachers and staff who work at our schools.

- Measure B funds are locally sourced, meaning they cannot be cut by state or federal government.

- Any organization facing a 5% budget cut looks to the margins. Not only will every non-essential program be on the chopping block, so will efforts for groups such as special needs, ELL and other underserved students who need the most support.

- There are exemptions for seniors.

- Good schools = good neighborhoods = lower crime rates = higher property values

Getting pretty sick of this nonsense that the district somehow "mishandled funds" because it used a pilot program that was very successful at one school because the way that school implemented the program and kind of a failure at another school because of the way that school implemented the program. People who continue to repeat this nonsense obviously don't have a kid in the school that was enjoying the program or were too wrapped up by the parents complaining that their kids won't get into Stanford because of the way the problematic school was using the program.

I hate it when people don't have all the info and yet they continue to whine. I'm very sad to see that program go. It was a great way to allow students to move at their own pace and provide incentive for kids to push themselves. Despite it's problems (which, again, weren't an issue at one school) it was a solid investment and I'm a bit frustrated it was ended.

Now stay focused. Reducing an already tight school budget is the surest way to make our schools face even more problems and your property values to dip a little bit lower than the surrounding cities enjoy.

Measure B could just pay for the next administrators. When folks in charge cannot be trusted to spend money, DON'T GIVE THEM MORE. Get rid of them. And put a fair tax on the ballot. Not Measure B's unfair tax - which is NOT a re-authorization of the tax in place. Proponents will say anything!

Debbie Chin of Monta Loma

"Measure B is the reauthorization"

While I would not have used the word "reauthorization" to describe this parcel tax, I would say it replaces the expiring parcel tax, but other-wise I would also say...

What Debbie Chin said...

Whenever a school district is facing a budget shortfall, like when a source of funding is lost, the district will ALWAYS start cutting programs and first to go are the special programs designed to help those kids who most need help.

We have special programs designed to help the kids at Castro and Theuerkauf. We have an intervention program designed to identify kids with, lets say, less than productive interactions with teachers and fellow students and to turn these kids around.
We have summer programs, including food services for kids in our district.
We have all sorts of programs that are "optional", but of great value to the kids. These programs are always at risk of being cut-back or cancelled all together even in normal years, let alone when the district loses $2.8 million.

The district is certainly not going to make up that loss by cutting salaries of the employees inside the District Offices, so it's either a serious pay cut for teachers, or cuts to the programs for the kids who need the most help.

And keep in-mind that it would waste a lot of money to find a new Superintendent, just as it did when Super Goldman left.

MVWSD can't handle a piggy bank, VOTE NO.

Hi Mr. Chiang! I know full well that this is about money, from a new tax, not what ‘a magazine’s dashboard rates state-wide schools’ (your first link, just OK)

Vote NO on B because it is a Regressive New Tax! It gives Google at least a 500% (5x) Tax Break over what old Measure J or a new progressive per-square-foot [no cap] fair school tax would do.

Secondary -Vote NO on B because the wording of the New Tax is ‘loose’ and poorly constrained. Just like the last tax allowed TTO: Math fiasco to be funded by the parcel tax* without community/parent/teacher/Board vetting, the New Tax allows unlimited spending to be shifted by the administration. Will the leadership of the Board step up - fix it’s very loose oversight?

Web Link

The Board leadership has refused to tighten CONTRACT oversight in the last 3 months.

Mr. Chiang, I too know that we do not get as much per-student as Unified or High School Districts. That is state law. Los Altos/Sunnyvale elementary districts are the comparison - do you really want to make those? We are adding non-classroom teachers, rather than classroom teachers. We will shortly have 24 teachers-teaching-teachers and a teachers:teachers-teaching-teachers ratio of 10:1. Really Chris, out of 250 teaching positions- 24 are for BTSA and RTI. “Maybe” 3 new classroom teachers will be added, but 13 RTI teachers will be employed (up 8 - and they Must Be Experienced). So, the students to classroom ratio does not improve at all, but the spending Goes UP! (most recent Budget Assumption). This makes, Mr. Chiang, the RESERVES go down so they are projected In The Red, (Negative) in a few years.

The Teacher Retention Problem (20% shorter than County Average) existed all through Measure J Parcel Tax. There is no assurance of Teacher Retention spending in B (sloppy legal wording), or that it would be less ineffective that the Measure J spending. TTO:Math, that helped teacher retention? (sure Chris)

Add in, we are at least 12% higher than County Average in Administrators per student! And we are to add another administrator to Graham? (last Budget Assumption again)

Vote NO on B,
it is a poorly written REGRESSIVE TAX! You have the power to send it BACK for reconsideration and revision. Vote NO on B to do that.

*see the CFOs comments to the last Parcel Tax Oversight committee meeting.

sn is an official opponent of Measure B (he is not an opponent of local progressive school taxation)

PS
If Superintendent Rudolph is to be deterred from his ‘spending [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language] for DO and administrators and out-of-classroom new teacher positions - AND misadventures like TTO:Math.
Vote NO on B.

@My tax dollars of Monta Loma

"MVWSD can't handle a piggy bank, VOTE NO. "

Everyone has an opinion, most of which are politically motivated for some personal agenda, however, the actual financial experts who spend their careers deeply examining school districts and other organizations and then setting a "credit rating" for the organization.

Those actual experts have carefully examined the MVWSD for the way they handle money and have given the MVWSD an AAA rating, which is top-marks. Most schools districts would love to get such a financial rating.

This is why the MVWSD was able to get the construction loan referred to as a Certificate Of Participation (C.O.P.).

So, yes, the whole TTO experiment was messed up big time and everything said about it by the district leadership just keeps making things worse in the perception of the parents, but other than that one, I am not aware of any financial screw-up since Rudolph was hired.

And nothing I have heard of yet justifies voting down Measure B.

I am a single young guy in an apartment in Mountain View, but took the time to study and vote on this measure since it came to me by mail.

I want to help create happy faces in the community, so I drew out how I thought this measure passing would make people react:
homeowners :| (they pay more tax, but home value increases and for some their kids get better education)
apartment landowners :) (they pay less tax now, as individual homeowners must pay more)
other businesses :| (unaffected)
MV teachers :)
MV students :)


Still seems to me that a tiered-tax system is fairer, as parents living in apartments are still sending their kids to school and they should indirectly pick up the parcel tax through higher rent (as a result of higher parcel tax on landowners). But, it looks like that kind of measure has a hard time being drafted and passing due to legal implications, so Measure B being a flat tax is a necessary evil, I guess, if we want schools to get funding.

you guy - The drafting of the Measure depends on the lawyers doing the work - and WHAT they are asked to draft (bu direction of the Board = or default in MVWSD, what the administration asked).

So in Berkeley they had a lawyer draft a uniform-per-square-foot tax (building) and it fixes the minimum dollars into each specific program (by percent of revenue). In Emeryville and in West Contra Costa Co., the same uniform-per-square-foot (building) type of taxation was asked for, written, passed (and I think all unchallenged - 90 day).

The late 2015 MVWSD legal assistance had no idea how to legally draft a uniform-per-square-foot tax measure - or the administration asked that this option not be done. The newer lawyer, same as the Berkeley USD one, knows how to draft such a progressive local school tax (on real property) but he was NOT asked by the administration to draft such an option, and present two options for consideration.

I oppose regressive taxes, when progressive ones are possible and well supported by electorates (Berkeley tax- got 89% support at 37 cents per square foot of building). Building values in MV are around $800-900 per square foot - including residential land value. Commercial land is going for around $8 M per AC, or $225 per square foot.

I voted NO on Measure B.

The barrage of marketing material for this measure
reeks of a shakedown, highlighted by the remarkable absence
of salient facts.

Measure-B's purpose is to continue the taxpayer money
made available via a temporary measure passed in 2004
and renewed in 2008. Meanwhile, property tax revenue
has been increasing and yet, the MVW school district still needs
to raise more money !!

This is reflective of a culture of mugging the taxpayer
in the name of the children and avoiding the simple
fiscal pillars of living within one's means
and a transparent accounting of its budgets.


One would be wise to note that Measure-B is trying to
extend the taxpayer squeeze for 2.8Million, when we have
been squeezed to the tune of 198Million dollars for
4500-students courtesy the grossly misrepresented Measure-G
in 2012. Our property tax bills in 2016 reflected a nearly four-fold
increase in MVW ELEM OR UNIFIED SCHOOL BONDS due to this,
which will continue past 2040.
See Web Link

Without citizen action and oversight, this rot will
continue here and elsewhere into the future.