Parents seek larger slice of Shoreline taxes Schools & Kids, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Feb 2, 2011 at 7:09 pm
In one of its most challenging discussions in recent memory, the City Council on Tuesday will talk about the possibility of relinquishing to local schools a larger share of property taxes from North Bayshore companies, including Google.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 5:59 PM
Posted by localmom, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 2, 2011 at 7:22 pm
A critical piece of the funding picture is the Federal Title I funds, which flow to only some of the elementary schools (Theurkauf, Castro and Landels, the others I'm not sure of), which benefit children of low socioeconomic status. Due to the fact that 2 schools have not met their API targets (test scores) over the past 2 years, they are in "Program Improvement". Instead of appropriately directing resources to save these failing schools, Mr. Goldman publicly stated in the MV Voice on 1/12/11 that "the district will have to seriously consider whether it is really worth receiving the Title I funds, or if Mountain View Whisman might do better to go without the money and the burden of accountability to the federal government." I urge involved parents to INSIST that this money still be accepted; it is the only significant source of complementary funds from the Federal Government and all local funding sources for the MVWSD has been severely impacted of late. If these funds disappear, students suffer, particularly the most vulnerable.
I also strongly agree that the Shoreline funds should benefit the schools. There is no argument there. I hope the City Council agrees or they can expect some serious opposition from parents in the next election cycle.
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 1:46 am
Daniel has done a particularly fine job in covering this over the last few years. In 2008 the issue was not much discussed because the amount to the elementary district would only have been $2.5 M. Shoreline would have kicked MVWSD into Basic Aid. But it would have been a tremendous amount of political work for the parents. No council candidate supported the schools over Shoreline in the LWV Candidate Forum (I sent in the question).
MV Voice covered it on front page.
Besides the large chunk of money now - there is also the equally important issue of school funding inequity. Mountain View has at least $1610 less per student in revenue than Los Altos (2007 federal data base). [I agree with Localmom BTW]. When you look what that amounts per class, and continue K-8, that's A LOT of instruction.
Daniel one very small error. "Nutshell" Shoreline can collect all tax increases since 1969. This is the archaic TI or Tax Increment that you will hear (along with Frozen Base). This is all really moot - Shoreline now diverts 99% of the property taxes from schools, and only a bit is shared back (8%).
Posted by Mark, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 9:36 am
The schools are beginning to sound like the Federal, state and local governments: "We need more money from you taxpayers." ... how about the SCHOOL DISTRICTS living within their means, just like the rest of us schmucks do? After Prop. 13, the real estate market exploded as property taxes were drastically cut ... home owners and the value of their homes are the beneficiaries ... and now those same home owners/parents want yet another break? Home owners will get theirs when they sell their homes for loads more $ than they paid for them ... how about us single folks, us renters? Why do WE have to pay yet MORE for schools that DON'T MEET STATE STANDARDS??? There's gotta be a better, more fair and just way to spend the funds in question instead of just handing them over to schools ... I'm willing to bet that much of that $ will go to teacher salaries and WILL NOT directly benefit the students themselves ... I'm just sayin' ...
Posted by Taxpayer Too, a resident of the St. Francis Acres neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 9:58 am
@Mark, your rant against taxes seems mis-directed. Sharing the shoreline taxes will not increase your taxes by even one cent (especially if you're a renter). Note also that there is a much greater public accountability on school funds (you can elect, recall the board) than on the shoreline fund (very few folks even know who runs that fund and the fund managers are certainly not directly elected).
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm
"$5.2 million in "reimbursements" for ongoing police, fire and administrative services..."
This portion of the expenses for the Shoreline Community raised my eyebrows. It isn't clear in the article, but do these reimbursements represent costs generated by the listed service specifically for the Shoreline Community, say on a per square acre cost for service?
Creating a separate pot of money that isn't covered by the same level of public scrutiny and access as the rest of the City budget provides the opportunity for this separate account to act as a slush fund.
The only way to dispel this notion, is to have an independent 3rd party audit of the finances of the Shoreline Community.
From past performance, it appears the Shoreline Community district has succeeded in developing once worthless land, into a highly prosperous area for the City. Its continued existence should be determined by the cold, hard numbers a 3rd party audit can provide.
Posted by Donna, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 1:42 pm
@Hardin: "Creating a separate pot of money that isn't covered by the same level of public scrutiny and access as the rest of the City budget provides the opportunity for this separate account to act as a slush fund."
It's a separate pot, but it has the same level of public scrutiny. The Shoreline budget and the general fund budget (and the downtown revitalization district and a bunch of other separate funds) are approved simultaneously through the same process.
Posted by MV, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I applaud Mr. Pollart. There is no arguement here. Shoreline is well developed and Google wants to develop it more with its own money. I don't understand why can't they share the property taxes with school which are not well developed district like the rest of us.
The city council favors corporations, apartment builders instead of families with kids. Next election we need to take a closer look at who we elect.
Posted by Taxpayer, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I think City Council members are not looking at the whole picture for Mountain View. Just recently, they want to built 2 large apartment complexes on either end of El Camino. I would assume that children will be living in these complexes and will be entering into the school system. Where are we suppose to get the fund to educate these additional students? Should be just sent them to hang out at the Shoreline Park because it is so nicely maintained?
Having Google in Mountain View does not help the city as a whole because one source of tax revenue is being lost - sales tax from eating out. Since they provide free meal, the Google employees have no reason to go out and eat which translates to no business growth for Mountain View and no sales tax revenue.
It would have been better to have Intuit as at least the employee would have generated business for other Mountain View businesses.
Posted by jupiterk, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 3:34 pm
I think the school board is greedy and they are not happy with 250K+ or 300K+ salaries plus the benefits that they are getting. they want more. They are using the parents to come up with this plan so that they can steal more from the pot. Bunch of Thieves. BTW, I don't payu any property taxes but I do pay rent. So my some of my rent goes as property tax. What we have is just another Bell city and Most city council, school boards are run by rotten corrupt people. They are just no happy enough with the amount of money they steal from folks like me and want more.
Posted by MVMom, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 4:44 pm
@Jupiterk--Get real. The school board trustees are public servants and essentially volunteer their time for the good of all the families in the District. The California Education Code caps the maximum stipend they can receive at $240/month. They are offered some health insurance coverage. But they each spend many, MANY hours each month meeting with the District, preparing for meetings, working on reports, evaluating matters before them, attending school functions and community meetings. I'm sure the stipend equates to pennies per hour. You may not like every decision they make, but they each do what they think is the right thing to do in good conscience. No one is ever going to get rich working in the California public school system--and 99.9% of the folks working in the system do so because they care and want to give kids the very best education possible with the limited resources available. I applaud our public schools!
Posted by jupiterk, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 4:52 pm
My point is about all the officials who are getting the 6 figures salaries with benefits. I was not referring to the trustees. What I am not sure is are these trustees pushed by the other school district officials to get the money from the parcel tax so that the officials can pay themselves 10%+ plus raises and other perks. I think you are missing the point. The teachers and school district officials are making tons of money , if you didn't know already. There is one guy making 300K+ and he wants more because he think deserves more, that is what he thinks. Do you honestly think the quality of these schools is going to improve if we throw another $10M or $10B. These crocodiles will eat everything.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 5:51 pm
"It's a separate pot, but it has the same level of public scrutiny. The Shoreline budget and the general fund budget (and the downtown revitalization district and a bunch of other separate funds) are approved simultaneously through the same process."
Thanks for clarifying that. I went online to MV's home page and brought up the annual budget for this year and you are correct, the Shoreline fund is presented in the budget analysis, along with other special funds. Here's what I gleaned from the documents.
1. The General Fund is about $100M available dollars. The Shoreline Commmunity Fund is about $52M available dollars. Other than the remarkable size of the Shoreline Community Fund as compared to the General Fund, is that the Shoreline Fund is hands down the most lucrative revenue generating instrument the City has, even when you take into account the expenditures on a year to year basis. Before expenses ($11M), it doubled in size from $23M to $52M.
2. A look at the balance sheet for the Shoreline Community Fund shows an increase in revenue from $25M to $28M from 2008-2011, while expenses have decreased from $33M to $19.5M during the same time frame.
3. The main driver for the decrease in expenses is Capital Projects, which spent $12.8M in 2008 and $800K in 2011. There's not alot planned to be built this year.
4. The next largest expense is General Fund Administration, at $5M. To put this in perspective, the next largest General Fund expense for any other City department is Waste Water, at $1.2M.
So a salient question is, what is paid for under Shoreline's General Fund Administration to make up $5M of costs? The documents I looked at online don't drill down to that detail.
To be sure, I'm no expert in audit finances, but there's enough on record that brings questions that I think would be good to get clarified, so its understood where the money is going. And, this isn't a reflection on the quality of the Shoreline program. Obviously, its an incredibly valuable instrument for the City, but because of its distinction, it requires even greater scrutiny to make sure the dollars it generates are spent wisely, and above board.
Posted by reader, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 9:47 pm
to localmom, Hardin, Steven Nelson, Taxpayer Too, Donna...
Could you please consider running for City Council? Your remarks seem to indicate that you have the intellect, insight, impartiality, and good judgment needed for the job. I'd like some high quality candidates to choose from at election time.
Posted by localmom, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 3, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Let's discuss school funding. The US Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, publishes the following data:
MV-W annual per-pupil spending: a lousy $9,513. Nearly $700 of this is federal money (and likely much of it the endangered Title I funds).
Anyone heard of Wellesley, MA? They spend $14,865/student/year. Evanston, IL (home of Northwestern U) spends $14,258. I have no idea where this is, but Happaugue, NY spends $19,000. The bedroom community near Boston of Framingham, MA, spends $15,454. Ewing Township, NJ (outside NYC) spends $15,356. Los Altos Elementary spends only $12,169 (near the bottom nationwide but not NEARLY as skimpy as MV-W). Belmont, CA: $10,919. The only district lower that popped up in my search as a "comparable" was Murfreesboro, TN, known for high school band competitions: $8,202.
Folks, the cost of living in MV is probably 3 times what it is in Tennessee! And comparable or more to those other well-off, educated communities I just named. PLEASE stop saying MV-W is wasting money on overpaid staff. There may be a tiny bit of waste, but the budget is FAR too small for these kids to compete in the Real World. Children all over the country are getting a much better-funded public education and this needs to be fixed!! How many of your co-workers moved here and how many graduated from the MV public schools??? Yah I thoughts so.
By sharing the Shoreline funds, no on is being asked to pay higher taxes or dig into their own pocket. The city needs to realize what an incredible resource is being wasted...young minds...a district that can't introduce more computers into the classroom (in Silicon Valley!!), that does not utilize Smart Boards, where kids write things in longhand. I agree that if the district GETS another $5 million/year they should have a plan for it with technology and student items, not just teacher salaries, but I think the teachers just signed a long-term contract recently so that shouldn't be a problem. And guess what, even if they get the $5 mill, that's only $1,136/student which just about brings us into line with Belmont. NEED TO KEEP WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM! BTW I agree, building more housing is NOT the answer, it is part of the long-term funding problem, because each new students splits the dollars even more.
Posted by localmom, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2011 at 7:08 am
Hi Kristine, facilities are paid for separately, by bond issues. I think the last one was over 10 years ago and was fully spent on renovating the campuses (actually just bringing them up to modern standards, wiring, HVAC, etc). Can't use annual educational funds for buildings. Could buy sports equipment but usually parents donate that!
Don't know if admin salaries have risen so dramatically. Ask the school board. However there are probably no more than 150 admin people for 4,400 kids so I"m not sure how that would be a dealbreaker if there is more money in the classroom. Maybe some could be allowed to retire and not replaced. Still don't see how that changes classroom needs.
Lastly not sure where that $8,000 average figure comes from. I don't think Silicon Valley is average in ANY way. We have more PhDs, MDs, JDs etc in MV than in your "average" Ohio community, and we need to educate children for the future. BEsides our cost of living is 30% higher (or more) so we should be spending at least $11K by those calculations, just to hit "average"...
Posted by Thinker, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2011 at 6:41 am
Lets get real. If the school district gets a huge influx of cash and schools improve, not only will our kis benefit, but anyone who owns a home in MV will benefit. Quality of schools is a huge driver of property value. Just ask our Palo Alto neighbors.
Posted by Steven Nelson, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 7, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Thinker - This also has been reported by the MV Voice. It came up in the context of a large condo complex on the PA-MV border (Greenhouse II)? trying to annex itself to the PA schools and get out of MVW and the high school district. It turns out this is opposed by both local districts (no children in that complex at the time attended public school). Susan Sweeley - (now MVLA High School Dist Board Pres.) was quoted on how much just the 'border shift' would increase the prices of the units. I call this "the Greenhouse II Effect"! Sweeley is a local real estate agent and is well aware of this effect in this complex (and of course between LA and MV also).
Posted by MVWSD Teacher, a resident of another community, on Feb 7, 2011 at 7:49 pm
"The teachers and school district officials are making tons of money..."
As a MVWSD teacher, I can tell you that the teachers are not making tons of money. I have a Master's degree and make less than ~50k a year. I love my students, parents, and school, which is why I stay. I work 10-12 hour days 5 days a week, then put in another 5-6 hours on the weekend. I use my own money for supplies and when the kids learn the parents take the credit and when they don't, they blame the teacher :-) I teach beacuse I love kids, but it really bugs me when people claim we make "tons" of money. Compare our pay scale to Palo Alto. MVWSD teachers are the lowest paid in Santa Clara County.
Posted by trademan, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Feb 8, 2011 at 2:44 am
Check you pay stub MVWSD teacher since you are mostly being short changed. Look it up on the salary schedule. If you have a Master's degree and a credential you will be making more than 50k a year--if not in your first two years, very soon after. And you are only working a 10-month year. Lots of people work 10-12 hour days. And many teachers claim it, but actually don't.
Posted by Local renter, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Feb 9, 2011 at 10:52 am
Mayor Jack pointed out that only 12% of the population is school age last night. Is the subtext "only kids should care" ? A more prudent pol might add parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts to their voting block calculations.
Of course parents will fight for their kids but let's also credit others in the community with being enlightened enough to see that everyone benefits from educating the next generation of citizens to be productive and useful members of society. I'm not talking about property owners seeing their house values climb but about how we all benefit by building a good community, one kid, one class one school at a time.
Better to spend it on schools now than prisons and food stamp programs later!
Posted by FYI, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Feb 9, 2011 at 5:48 pm
"And you are only working a 10-month year."
Teachers get paid to work 10 months. Can you afford to take 2 months off without pay? Since the economic crisis most districts have eliminated summer school, so many teachers are forced to take non-teaching (even lower paying) jobs over the summer to supliment their income. Before you judge what a teacher does in this district, get to know one.