School board wary of big parcel tax increase

The Mountain View Whisman School District has had a pretty good track record at the ballot box in recent years, blowing by the required 55 percent vote for its Measure G bond measure and garnering an overwhelming 80 percent of the vote in favor of its Measure C parcel tax in 2008.

But with Measure C set to expire this summer, school board members aren’t banking on the same level of support. At a board meeting earlier this month, a majority of the trustees say it’s time to play it safe and go for a smaller parcel tax renewal in order to avoid the risk of the measure failing in the special May mail-in election.

Over the last year and a half, the school district has gone through a protracted process on the road to renewal. Measure C, which expires July 1, generates about $2.8 million each year, which is used to maintain smaller class sizes, compensate teachers and pay for after-school programs. Unlike Measure C, which taxes property owners differently based on the size of the parcel, the new tax will be a flat amount for all parcels in the district.

The parcel tax renewal measure was supposed to go on the May mail-in ballot election last year, but two of the five board members at the time– Greg Coladonato and Steve Nelson — opposed the flat parcel tax structure, insisting instead that a per-square-foot parcel tax measure would be a more equitable option. The district’s legal counsel warned against it, pointing to recent court decisions against districts with levies that varied by parcel size.

Board member Ellen Wheeler, who was board president at the time, left any discussion on the parcel tax measure off the agenda until shortly after Nelson’s tenure on the board ended in December.

By going for a ballot measure last year, the school district essentially had a backup plan. If the measure failed, the district had another chance to put the parcel tax back on the ballot for a more modest amount before Measure C expires. But with the expiration only months away, the board really only has one shot to pass it without a lapse in funding.

“If you are unsuccessful with your renewal attempt, the district will face a reality where you’re going to have at least a year without parcel tax revenue,” said Charles Heath, the district’s parcel tax consultant.

If the school district wanted to shoot for a parcel tax that maintains the existing $2.8 million funding, it would need to levy a $191 tax on properties within the district. Because of the loss of a tiered parcel tax structure, that means the average homeowner would have to pay $64 more in order to make up the balance. Polling data presented at the Jan. 19 board meeting shows that 71 percent of district voters would vote in favor of a $191 measure after hearing arguments for and against the tax, but only 65 percent would support a $225 tax. The district needs a two-thirds majority to pass a parcel tax.

Heath said that level of support is not set in stone. A strong “get out and vote” campaign could go a long way towards meeting the two-thirds margin, and the polling for the Measure C parcel tax was well below the whopping 80 percent of the “yes” vote the measure actually received. At the same time, he said, the results of the presidential election and the inauguration of President Donald Trump — which happened after the polling took place — could galvanize voters into supporting local public schools.

“Given the events of the election over the last year, people are seeing real value in locally controlled dollars,” Heath said. “We don’t have to rely on Sacramento, we don’t have to rely on Washington. To some degree, we can control our own fate.”

Wheeler remained uneasy about going for the big ask, and said the margin was too close for comfort with no window of opportunity to try again. Any amount of “local roiling” about district-wide problems could tip the balance and lose the district millions in education funding for an entire year.

“I’m in favor of taking a more conservative approach,” she said.

The two newest board members, Tamara Wilson and Laura Blakely, both agreed that now isn’t the time for risky tax measures. Blakely called the $225 parcel tax “too much of a gamble,” and said the district shouldn’t bank on a huge volunteer presence like the one Measure C received back in 2008. The Measure G bond measure four years later didn’t have nearly as many volunteers, she said, and it’s hard to predict how much support will materialize for the campaign over the next few months.

Board President Jose Gutierrez broke away from the majority view, calling the future uncertainty a key opportunity to raise public support for local schools. The proposed state budget earlier this month shows that California’s economy is not growing as fast as projected and could be slipping into a recession in future years, and the new administration in Washington only adds to that uncertainty, Gutierrez said.

“If you have a strong campaign, you can rally the troops because of that uncertainty,” Gutierrez said.

Coladonato attended the meeting remotely from Washington, D.C. where he was to attend the presidential inauguration, and left the meeting before the parcel tax agenda item was discussed. He later declined to state his stance on the parcel tax.

The board is expected to vote on a resolution to put the parcel tax on the ballot at a special Jan. 28 board meeting, a few days ahead of the Feb. 3 filing deadline.