|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View Whisman School District wants to restart talks with the city of Mountain View to reach a deal on divvying up millions of dollars in revenue from a special tax district that has been the subject of fraught disagreements between the two parties.
The district could lose out on $6.5 million this school year, barring an agreement. School board President Devon Conley sent a letter to the city last week, requesting that an ad hoc committee meet to try to work out a long-term agreement for Shoreline Regional Park Community funding. The city doesn’t appear amenable to that idea, at least for now.
Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews told the Voice that the city won’t consider a long-term agreement until Mountain View Whisman signs a three-year extension that’s already on the table and would guarantee continued funding. Andrews said it appeared the school district “is playing an unnecessary game of chicken.”
The city and school district are at odds over splitting revenue from the Shoreline tax district, which covers much of Mountain View north of Highway 101. The vast majority of property tax proceeds from within the district, which includes Google’s headquarters and other tech offices, goes into a special fund set aside to maintain and improve the area. The city acts as stewards of the money and for nearly 20 years has agreed to share some of it with Mountain View Whisman and the Mountain View Los Altos High School District, though less than they would receive if the tax district didn’t exist.
The city and two school districts had been in multiyear negotiations trying to reach a long-term agreement on how to split the money, but no deal came to fruition. In 2023, the three entities signed a one-year extension, which expired on June 30 of this year.
The city and high school district agreed to a three-year extension, but a couple weeks before the existing agreement expired, Mountain View Whisman’s school board voted to approve a different, one-year deal. After the surprise decision, the City Council directed its staff to sign a two-party agreement with the high school district if Mountain View Whisman doesn’t get on board with the three-year version.
With no deal currently in effect, Mountain View Whisman risks losing $6.5 million in annual revenue, which could prompt budget cuts. The school districts are typically paid in December.
In her Sept. 5 letter, Conley asked to schedule a meeting “to continue the work toward developing a long term successor agreement together” and proposed three dates.
Andrews told the Voice that the city isn’t open to such a meeting “in the near term” and is instead focused on executing the three-year agreement.
“It appears like the district is playing an unnecessary game of chicken at the expense of the wellbeing of Mountain View students and teachers,” Andrews said via email. “These tactics raise real concerns about MVWSD’s interest to continue good faith discussions about a long-term agreement for continued annual payments from the Shoreline Community.”
When asked what the district’s plans will be if the city isn’t open to meeting, Conley responded that she couldn’t speak on behalf of the school board until it discussed the matter. She added on Friday that she hadn’t yet heard directly from the city, but looked forward to doing so.
“Both the school district and the city have expressed a desire to find the best solution for allocating the Shoreline Regional Park Community Tax District funds, especially considering the budget implications for both agencies,” Conley said in an email. “I remain hopeful we can find a time to collaborate on how to best support our students and our community.”
High school district Superintendent Eric Volta, whose district has already agreed to the three-year extension, told the Voice that his district is “always happy to meet with our community partners when it comes to providing what is best for our students.”
“I believe that MVWSD and the city are also acting in what they believe is in the best interests of the populations they serve,” Volta said via email.
In her letter requesting the meeting, Conley described the situation as one where the city proposed a three-year extension last fall and the school district proposed a one-year extension in June.
That’s a framing that the city rejects. Andrews said that the three-year term was at the request of Mountain View Whisman, and wasn’t initiated by the city.
Last September, the school district asked the city for a letter of assurance that Shoreline tax district payments would continue through June 2027, after the Santa Clara County Office of Education raised concerns about the district’s inclusion of the revenue in its budget projections for future years. The City Council voted in October to authorize extending the funding agreement for three more years.
City staff drafted the extension and sent it to the school districts. Mountain View Whisman requested language prohibiting the tax district from issuing bonds. The city rejected that proposal, arguing that bonds could be necessary to maintain the area and build necessary infrastructure.
In June, the school board approved its own one-year extension with a prohibition on bonding. Mountain View Whisman has also said that all it wanted was a letter assuring continued funding for budgeting purposes, not a formal extension.
Andrews said that the city’s intent is to work toward a long-term funding agreement, but that the three-year extension needs to come first.
I don’t understand the city’s position here. If they weren’t the ones who originally requested the 3-year extension (and it was truly just needed for the County Office of Education), then why are they now insisting that a 3-year plan has to be in place before they’ll meet to discuss long-term plans? There must be more to this story.
There is- the city doesn’t want to give up the right to issue bonds on this money. It’s “free” money, the city doesn’t have to go to the voters to ask for the right to issue bonds on it, they can just issue the bonds. If they don’t have money from developers any more to fix potholes, theoretically they could use bond money from this tax district to do so. If the tax district didn’t exist at all, MVWSD and MVLA would be getting a lot more than $6.5 million- but the city couldn’t issue bonds on that estimated revenue. MVWSD has a lot of reasonable arguments to make on this, but unfortunately the message isn’t getting through. The city doesn’t want to risk a possible savior for its lack of new developer fees.
The city wants to suck up all the bi ding capacity and leave none for the kids. So they can build a sea wall. They should be ashamed of themselves.
*bonding capacity
Incompetent financial decisions in MVWSD have left them seeking funds to bail themselves out, but they are not entitled to those particular funds. It’s as simple as that. The elementary school district should lose its bid for a parcel tax extension as well. Enrollments are way less than expected. The district has an extremely large property tax base outside of the North Bayshore area. It gets $77 Million in property tax revenue from the other areas compard to Los Altos School District getting $57 MIllion from property tax revenues. Greedy superintendent in MVWSD is paid double what he should be and his staff benefits are obscenely high like the district paying for him, to have old buddies as paid advisors and emotional security. Gross.
It is 2me incredible to even think CONLEY is expecting to get elected to City Council / when she can’t even bring herself to “put the City proposal, on the Agenda”. Board President Conley, along with Superintendent Rudolph have together arranged that there cannot Be a Board vote on the City/ Mountain View Los Altos High School District 3 year proposal.
If you vote for CONLEY, for Council, you IMO will just be voting for this type of “immense stupidity” in governance finance. i.e. shoot Yourself in the foot
[fighting the disparity, in Shoreline “special law” since before any SHARE SHORELINE parent even realized its effect]
Mercury News Feb 4, 2011 / Smartvoter.org Pollard_j / Item 4.01 Council Minutes 02 02 2011
Why, oh people of the City, in the past there was Peace?
“Mayor Siegel disclosed that he has had several meetings with Mr. Pollart and expressed his appreciation for the civility displayed.” Page 4 / Minutes
It’s difficult to feel sorry for this district base on the way they spend our taxes.
$189,000 contract for guided meditation with a “certified master energy healer.”?
https://www.mv-voice.com/education/2024/08/23/parents-grill-mountain-view-whisman-over-coaching-mindfulness-contracts-for-district-admins/
The district wouldn’t play games like this if they took finances seriously. Rudolph is pushing things too far in reckless ways.