Does anyone happen to know how much money would go to the MVWSD and MVLAHSD annually if the districts got what they argued for: "that they should receive their full tax rate allocation from the region"?

The elementary school district benefits from not getting the regular property tax income from the Regional Park district. The amount of state funding is calculated based on the existing enrollment profile which includes all kids in the catchment area for the district, including the north Bayshore part. Then if the available local property tax revenue is less (it has been so) the state makes up the difference to reach the LCFF funding amount. After that local revenue such as this special deal gets added to the district coffers. So with this $5Million being seen as actual property tax, the district would probably become a "locally funded" district and then not get anything from the state to make up the LCFF total.


It's a weird situation.

@LongResident, as a long-time resident I can understand why you think your explanation would be correct because you were probably here when MVWSD became Basic Aid in the first place, it’s actually backwards on a $-per-student basis especially with today's cost of living (and cost of school employees).

This is because Basic Aid funding essentially allocates all state funding to the least-affluent districts in California while allowing more-affluent districts to keep excess property taxes. Therefore the only way to increase $-per-student from the current level under current tax/state funding code is to grow tax revenue.

A few references about school funding:
School Funding 101 (2018)
Web Link

What it means to be Basic Aid (2016)
Web Link

@gcoladon MVWSD has a pretty thorough explanation on their site: www.mvwsd.org/fairdeal.

According to the information there, the district would receive $13.9M if there were no longer special tax district status assigned to Shoreline even with NO growth there. Instead, MVWSD received $5.3M this year. And according to the information above it will receive ~ $5.7M under the temporary agreement. Which is $8ish Million or $1,600 per student less than they could be receiving if the redevelopment designation were removed.

Context for the newer residents: Before 2001 or so Mountain View and Whisman were separate districts and there was significantly less affluence within the school boundaries of either district. Both Mountain View and Whisman were “revenue-limit” districts which means that property tax revenue didn’t hit a specific (low) threshold, so state funding kicked in and closed the gap to the threshold. This was pretty common in California at the time, and it still is. In fact, in 2002 Palo Alto which was one of the few Basic Aid districts in the whole state, was fighting to keep their property tax revenue from going to the less-affluent revenue-limit districts like Los Altos.

Additionally, until the mid-1990s Whisman school district received a much larger enrollment from the MANY squadrons assigned to Moffett Airbase which was closed and turned over to NASA. This is why Whisman School District started struggling and ultimately merged with Mountain View School District to create MVWSD.

As Mountain View has gentrified, local property values have grown significantly. Most of the growth is from single family housing turnover and not corporate-owned high-density rental housing. But more taxes mean more $$ for schools, right? Yes, except higher cost of living means more expensive school employees. Teachers cost $100-150k EACH.

Historical References:
Palo Alto district fiercely protects basic-aid status (2002) Web Link

A HISTORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN LOS ALTOS HILLS (2004) Web Link

MV and Whisman school districts discuss merger (2000) Web Link

Believe me I know all about Basic Aid Districts. But there aren't any any longer. The law was changed when the LCFF was adopted, which gives more money per student and per school depending on the disadvantaged status of the pupils when calculating the state funding amount.

The status of a district can change each year. My point is that in calculating what's available from local property taxes, the state doesn't include funding from this agreement. The directly collected property tax money is compared to the aggregate of the LCFF calculation for the district. So long as LCFF is more than directly would come from property taxes, the district gets the LCFF amount. But it also gets to collect the amount from this agreement. This can result in state funds greater than the locally collected property taxes under LCFF PLUS the special deal money. Now if enrollment continues to go down and become less disadvantaged and property taxes continue to rise outside of Shoreline, then the situation will eventually be over. But until then, the deal gives MVWSD more than it would collected in property taxes bu earning them extra state funds to get the full LCFF amount.

Once the district is considered "locally funded" under LCFF, it won't get more for each new student nor will it lose funding with fewer students. But we aren't there yet so far as I know. Five million dollars is a large cushion toward keeping the district officially be classed as "state funded" under LCFF.

I looked up actual numbers. Apparently MVWSD has more than reached the locally funded status under LCFF. It's entitled to $50 Million under LCFF compared to LASD with a similar number of students but less disadvantaged being entitled to $37 Million. Property taxes not including Shoreline bring MVWSD $67 Million! They only bring LASD $50 Million. PLuse MVWSD gets an extra $3 Million for MSA and the $5M for the shoreline agreement. Wow! What keeps LASD even before the Shoreline supplement with MVWSD on a per student basis is the much larger parcel taxes in LASD, which add $13 Million to what's taken in for property ad valorem. However this agreement gives another $5 Million more ot MVWSD than what is available to LASD. 4400 studnents vs 4500.

Dear former MVWSD Trustee gcoladon, the amount for any year - that is diverted by the Shoreline tax diversion district is contained in the 'authoritative' Appendix H to the latest County "Property Tax Rate Book". It's section IX page H-7 $13,926,094.67.
Web Link

@LongReside - your Second short essay is correct, and informative BUT: You say potato - and I say POTAto. In essence - the old "Basic Aid" is the same as the new "Community Funded". That is not complex.
@School Funding Advocate: thanks, IMO this short essay is about as factually correct as I think you could make it, within space limits! {in the weeds - because Shoreline is not exactly a redevelopment district, it was Not dissolved and included as part of "RPTTF".}

@ Voice reporter Malta: the 'more exact' way to state this development might be;
The JPA board members signed the agreement and it is pending majority ratification votes by the City Council and MVWSD and MVLA Boards.
- i.e. It's a preliminary agreement.

@LongResident

"Believe me I know all about Basic Aid Districts. But there aren't any any longer."

That ^ statement is factually incorrect.

Link to Jan 2023 nonpartisan report:
Web Link

"How Local Property Tax Revenue Affects Total LCFF Funding
LCFF Is Funded Through a Combination of State General Fund and Local Property Tax Revenue. The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) and add‑ons are used to determine a district’s total LCFF target. To meet each district’s target, the state first credits each district with its share of local property tax revenue. For the vast majority of school districts, local property tax revenue is insufficient to cover their total LCFF target. The state provides funding to cover the remaining amount.

School Districts With Local Property Tax Revenue Above Their LCFF Target Are Known as Basic Aid Districts. The term is derived from the section of the State Constitution guaranteeing all school districts at least $120 per student from the state. The property tax revenue in excess of their LCFF allotments is known as excess property tax revenue. Basic aid school districts can use their excess property tax revenue on their local education priorities. In 2021‑22, the state had 118 basic aid school districts (about 13 percent of all districts), with a statewide total of $1.2 billion in excess property tax revenues."

@LongResident

"But we aren't there yet so far as I know."

MVWSD was already a "basic aid" or "excess tax" district before the LCFF law was passed in 2013. There are articles here in this very newspaper about it.

Another good resource about "basic aid" aka "community-funded" aka "excess tax": Web Link

The passing of LCFF has created a lot of confusion across the state all by itself. Then there was a 5-year funding source transition process that overlapped with a bunch of other local changes (think about what else was happening in Mountain View during that time 2013-2018). Meanwhile, cost of living hasn't made hiring teachers and staff any cheaper.

The above resource ^ shows that the nomer "excess tax" makes sense. Like the other "excess-tax" districts, Mountain View's property tax funding $$ per student is higher than almost 90% of districts. It's not like that means that school employees are rolling in extra cash because it's also more expensive to live within reasonable driving distance of Mountain View than it is to live in 90% of the other cities in CA. The only people who can afford to live here were 1) already living here before 2008 and/or 2) had a significant tech exit (which is basically also #1) and/or 3) were already independently wealthy.

So, I'll repeat, the only near-term way to increase MVWSD school funding is through additional tax revenue.

Ah - I learned something that "I thought I knew otherwise!" Basic Aid: School Districts With Local Property Tax Revenue: term is derived from the section of the State Constitution

And I had always been using the term in the LCFF CDE Regulations instead of Statute / EdCode 47632(e)

@MVWSD Parent I'd agree " the only near-term way to increase MVWSD school funding is through additional tax revenue."

Myself - I like progressive taxation rather than regressive! With Ellen Wheeler off the Board - maybe, just maybe, there is less fear of a Per Square Foot PARCEL TAX. A "uniform" tax at a "uniform" rate. Resident, commercial, AND Shoreline commercial all at the same PSF "uniform" tax. {how to get tax revenue money out of Goo... properties in Shoreline - without messing with City special district! :}
- Legal research by the firm of BWK, which advises Berkeley USD, has helped them with such a Parcel Tax. It provides around 1/4 of their local tax revenue. The Los Angeles USD tried such a Parcel Tax tax but ASKED TOO MUCH (at 16 cents PSF) - it (EE) soundly failed in 2019.

Ballotpedia - Good News, most parcel taxes in Bay Area are successful.

Emeryville's , Measure K "uniform" "parcel tax at 12¢ per square foot of building area for 9 years" QED

This year - both Goo... and Prometh.... pay only $125 per year per legal property tax parcel - the same as the smallest 1 bedroom condo owner! (!!!). When the giant Goo... building becomes occupied / Goo... tax to the MVWSD will increase by ... $125.
Ah, I think, not progressive taxation.