|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View Whisman School District is poised to place a parcel tax on the ballot this November, with plans to take a final vote later this month.
At a Thursday, May 30, meeting, the school board reviewed a proposal to ask voters to approve a tax of 15 cents per square foot of building area, with a cap of $1,750 per parcel. If passed, the measure is expected to raise $5.4 million annually for eight years.
In a straw poll, board members unanimously indicated support for moving ahead with the tax structure that district staff presented. The board plans to take a formal vote to place the measure on the ballot at a Thursday, June 13, meeting.
The district is looking to put the tax on the November 2024 Presidential Election ballot. It would require two-thirds support to pass.
The tax would replace the district’s existing parcel tax, which will expire after June 2025. The current tax charges a flat rate of $191 per parcel, which raises roughly $2.8 million annually.
The new measure would move away from that flat tax model and instead levy a tax based on square footage. Residents would be charged 15 cents per square foot of building area, not the full size of a parcel of land. Essentially, the smaller your home, the less you pay.
The math works out such that residents with homes less than roughly 1,275 square feet would save money compared to the current $191 tax. Those with bigger homes would pay more.
The average home in Mountain View is 1,734 square feet, district spokesperson Shelly Hausman told the Voice. That would work out to about $260 per year.
The annual tax would be capped at $1,750. To hit that cap, a building would have to be more than 11,666 square feet. That realistically means that few, if any, single-family homes would hit the cap.
The tax would also apply to multifamily buildings and commercial properties. Unimproved parcels would be charged $25.
The district previously hired a polling firm to survey voters about their support for a parcel tax. Of the three options polled, the one that the district is now pursuing (15 cents with a $1,750 cap) was the most popular. It got 67% support, through a combination of respondents who said they would definitely vote yes, probably vote yes and were undecided but leaned towards yes.
That’s right on the border of the 66.67% support needed to pass.
At Thursday’s meeting, board members discussed the importance of educating the public about the specifics of what the parcel tax will mean.
Board President Devon Conley said that she had high hopes for pursuing the square footage model, but that it will pose a “communication challenge.”
“I think it’s better in the long run for our community, but making sure our community understands exactly how the tax is being determined is going to be really important,” Conley said.
Board member Chris Chiang said that he fully supports the measure and pushed for the district to highlight specific programs that will be funded by the tax, and to differentiate it from the programs supported by the Mountain View Educational Foundation, which raises money for the district.
“Anytime we can tie this parcel tax to human stories of how this is impacting our kids and how it’s different from the foundation funding, I think we have a really good thing for the community to hear about,” Chiang said.
He also asked whether the parcel tax would fund new programs or just sustain existing ones.
Superintendent Ayindé Rudolph said that the district viewed the measure as a renewal of its existing parcel tax. While the current tax raises about $2.8 million annually, and the new one would bring in $5.4 million, Rudolph said the district wouldn’t be looking to fund new programs due to the current fiscal climate.
He added that with Google shutting down two child care centers that it rents from the district, there will be a drop in lease revenue. Google has paid the district roughly $3 million annually in rent.
Most Popular
Rumors fly about potential closure of Mountain View's Cinemark Century 16 movie theaterSeptember 1, 2026 7:04 pm
I’d absolutely agree that this is better as a ‘continue programs/ continue tax’ type of government revenue justification. I think there is a bit of reporting problem – using “Average size” question from Voice reporter and therefore ‘a computation’. “Median size” tax calculation was what the Superintendent/staff oft mentioned. / 50% of private homes have more size BUT 50% of homes have smaller size than median.
What is inflation in Last 8 years (since $2.5M tax started)?
https://abag.ca.gov/tools-resources/data-tools/consumer-price-index
Look at the Bay Area inflation index: I get Ap ’24 351% – 264% equal 87% inflation in eight years. So $2.5M x 1.87 = $4.7M.
If Trustee Conley is worried about passing / would it not make sense for her and +2 (majority) of Trustees to cut the RATE so it Could HONESTLY be Argued;
“This New Tax, with a fairer rate structure, is designed to Only bring in the Same Inflation adjusted revenue as the current expiring tax”.
Superintendent Rudolph’s Total Revenue “$5.4” million – 4.7M calculates out to $700,000 more-than-inflation. This may be balanced by no inflation clause in the current sample text of the proposed replacement tax.
???? Does this apply to non-public property {new Google Shoreline } built upon a lease-hold on a public non-taxable Parcel ????