News

Voters approve Measure B

School district avoids budget cuts with passage of $191 parcel tax

With a comfortable margin, voters in the Mountain View Whisman School District approved the Measure B parcel tax measure on Tuesday, preventing budget cuts and preserving school programs that relied on support from local tax money.

As of Wednesday morning, 6,529 people (71.2 percent) voted in favor of the Measure B, compared to 2,635 (28.8 percent) who voted against the measure, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters website. The measure requires a two-thirds vote to pass, and the vote count reflects 79 percent of the ballots that the Registrar of Voters received from district voters.

"We are excited about the initial results and are humbled by the overwhelming support of the community," Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph in a statement Wednesday. "On behalf of the district, I want to express my gratitude to the many volunteers, the parcel tax campaign committee and the board of trustees."

Cleave Frink, who co-chaired the Measure B campaign, said he and the campaign organizers are "elated" that the community chose to continue supporting public schools, and that parents, teachers and administrators fought tirelessly to get the word out and pass the parcel tax. He said local businesses and organizations also pitched in generous donations to help fuel the campaign.

Measure B imposes a $191 per-parcel tax on property owners in the district and effectively replaces the 2008 Measure C parcel tax, which expires at the end of June. The new measure will generate about $2.8 million each year, and takes effect on July 1, 2017.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The measure received strong support from several southern Mountain View communities, including the Gemello and Cuesta Park neighborhoods, which gave close to a three-to-one vote in favor of the measure, according to precinct data from the county. Voters in the Old Mountain View neighborhood also showed overwhelming support for the measure, with 77 percent of the residents voting "Yes" on the measure.

More tepid support for Measure B came from the Rex Manor, Willowgate and Sylvan Park neighborhoods, which teetered right on the two-thirds margin.

Another update to the vote tally is set to be posted at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Voters approve Measure B

School district avoids budget cuts with passage of $191 parcel tax

by / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Wed, May 3, 2017, 1:51 pm

With a comfortable margin, voters in the Mountain View Whisman School District approved the Measure B parcel tax measure on Tuesday, preventing budget cuts and preserving school programs that relied on support from local tax money.

As of Wednesday morning, 6,529 people (71.2 percent) voted in favor of the Measure B, compared to 2,635 (28.8 percent) who voted against the measure, according to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters website. The measure requires a two-thirds vote to pass, and the vote count reflects 79 percent of the ballots that the Registrar of Voters received from district voters.

"We are excited about the initial results and are humbled by the overwhelming support of the community," Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph in a statement Wednesday. "On behalf of the district, I want to express my gratitude to the many volunteers, the parcel tax campaign committee and the board of trustees."

Cleave Frink, who co-chaired the Measure B campaign, said he and the campaign organizers are "elated" that the community chose to continue supporting public schools, and that parents, teachers and administrators fought tirelessly to get the word out and pass the parcel tax. He said local businesses and organizations also pitched in generous donations to help fuel the campaign.

Measure B imposes a $191 per-parcel tax on property owners in the district and effectively replaces the 2008 Measure C parcel tax, which expires at the end of June. The new measure will generate about $2.8 million each year, and takes effect on July 1, 2017.

The measure received strong support from several southern Mountain View communities, including the Gemello and Cuesta Park neighborhoods, which gave close to a three-to-one vote in favor of the measure, according to precinct data from the county. Voters in the Old Mountain View neighborhood also showed overwhelming support for the measure, with 77 percent of the residents voting "Yes" on the measure.

More tepid support for Measure B came from the Rex Manor, Willowgate and Sylvan Park neighborhoods, which teetered right on the two-thirds margin.

Another update to the vote tally is set to be posted at 5 p.m. Wednesday.

Comments

Parent
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 2:32 pm
Parent, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 2:32 pm
168 people like this

Why anyone would ever, ever vote for higher taxes is absolutely beyond me. There is obscene waste in government spending yet they can just keep coming back for more.

I'm sure I'll get "oh, the children!" replies.


@Parent
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 2:34 pm
@Parent, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 2:34 pm
30 people like this

So you would want to live somewhere with no taxes, then?

Great. Move to Somalia. No taxes -- and NO government -- there...


Parent
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 2:36 pm
Parent, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 2:36 pm
97 people like this

Clearly not what I said and I think you've used exactly that argument on me before and it wasn't any more convincing then.

I pay plenty in property (and other) taxes.


@Parent
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 2:39 pm
@Parent, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 2:39 pm
15 people like this

No, "Parent" -- you're just one of those types who wants everything without paying for it. In other words, you're a typical moocher.

But you're in good company with a lot of your fellow posters here...


Sneaky
Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 2:40 pm
Sneaky, Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 2:40 pm
131 people like this

Agree with Parent to the extent that this administration has not shown any level of fiscal responsibility. Had this been on a standard ballot during normal election cycles it would not have passed.

Shameful.


Alex M
Registered user
Willowgate
on May 3, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Alex M, Willowgate
Registered user
on May 3, 2017 at 2:41 pm
29 people like this

What a shame. Another gift to corporations who own a lot of property and have to pay only a paltry additional $100 or so in tax, leaving an unfair burden on residents, some of whom are aging and living on fixed incomes. This was a poorly-thought-out proposal from start to finish. It should have been based on land area or assessed property value, not parcels.


Cfrink
Registered user
Willowgate
on May 3, 2017 at 3:17 pm
Cfrink, Willowgate
Registered user
on May 3, 2017 at 3:17 pm
39 people like this

Again, for those of you not fully informed, this isn't a new tax. This tax is already in place. The money is already in our school's budgets and it pays for things like real teachers and classroom resources. There has been no "mismanagement" of district funds. I challenge anyone to provide an example. Further, if you're afraid of how the district manages funds get involved. Get on a task force. I sit on 3. You can sit on the Parcel Tax task force which enjoys fantastic leadership and always has a seat available and the public is always welcome. Then you can speak from an educated position on how the district spends funds rather making wild assumptions about things fon which you have very shallow depth of knowledge. I welcome your participation.


@ Alex M
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 3:57 pm
@ Alex M, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 3:57 pm
25 people like this

Law requires that parcel taxes must be applied uniformly' – uniformly applied to all taxpayers, regardless of the type of property they owned. The school district would have been sued if they went with a tiered system that you suggest.


@ Cfrink
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 3:58 pm
@ Cfrink, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 3:58 pm
21 people like this

>There has been no "mismanagement" of district funds. I challenge anyone to provide an example.

The board approved a $149,000 settlement to be paid to New Classrooms/Teach to One. Web Link

There has been no public justification of this payment. See Web Link for a discussion of the TTO fiasco.

No contract was ever signed/ratified by the board, although Rudolph negotiated a $478.250 contract. Prior to settling, Rudolph remarked there was no obligation for the district to pay anything.


Sick and tired
Slater
on May 3, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Sick and tired, Slater
on May 3, 2017 at 4:09 pm
71 people like this

Yet another property tax linked tax voted for by a city full of renters who won't be the ones making the payment. For the naysayers out there, the 'per parcel' nature of this tax ensures there will be no impact to renters - a $191 tax spread across 50, 100, 300 or more apartments doesn't cost the complex owners much per unit. And for those saying the school board is the epitome of fiscal responsibility, let's not forget the half million plus dollars wasted last year on the personalized math program fiasco.


Eric
another community
on May 3, 2017 at 4:22 pm
Eric, another community
on May 3, 2017 at 4:22 pm
29 people like this

For all the people posting here who clearly didnt read the measure nor know anything about the districts budget:

-@alex M. There is a senior exemption. Has been in all three successful parcel taxes
-yes, the superintendent appears to have severely bobbled $150k on a misguided program, and the Trustees should address this. Maybe he should be dismissed over it. The school district budget is I believe $45MM annually. To punish a generation of students over a relatively small item is foolish
-the previous parcel tax had a citizens panel reviewing their spending to assure it lived up to the requirements of the Measures. Their reports have been overwhelmingly positive. The funds are being used well
-You could actually make a case that MVWSD budgets too conservatively. They have historically maintained larger than required surpluses, which has saved their bacon in lean years when the state monkeyed around with paying them owed revenue. Anyone who has worked in the real world would commend them for fiscal care.




Kathleen
Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 4:27 pm
Kathleen, Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 4:27 pm
5 people like this

I have heard that some are exempted from this tax. Who is exempted and how do you apply for an exemption ?


Parent
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Parent, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 4:36 pm
157 people like this

@Eric - I do know that we have the second-highest-paid teachers in the state (and the highest in the Bay Area). I have a soft spot for teachers, but do ours need to be paid the second-most in the state? Why is this the case? Yes, it's expensive for them to live here and I don't want them to have to live in RVs, but it's expensive in other ("better") school districts nearby, too.

This is a very public and easily-understood example of why some may question the district's budget. Surely there are other reasons as others have noted.

In any event, I will never vote for higher taxes. Cuts should be made prior to going back to the well. This is not personal to MVWSD.


Diablo
Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 4:53 pm
Diablo, Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 4:53 pm
51 people like this

Doesn't the senior "exemption" just delay the tax until you're dead and buried, or else, you sell the property?

I agree with Sneaky - shameful! They got this through in an off-year election, when the participation is very very low. Anyone else notice how is was construction companies funding the campaign?

And I agree with Sick and Tired. It's the home owners that are paying more than their fair share, not renters. I doubt whatever landlords have to pay gets passed straight through to renters.

And in case anyone thinks I'm unwilling to supports schools, I've been paying prop taxes here for 20 years without a child in the system. I have long believed that school funding should come from a different more general source (e.g. state income tax, sales or consumption tax, business taxes, etc) so the burden is distributed to everyone: renters, owners, companies.


Sneaky
Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Sneaky, Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 5:05 pm
202 people like this

Cfrink, I'd be more than happy to get involved; if my children went to public schools. However, they do not. I have many issues with the public schools, key being that they are not able to discipline and maintain the type of morals and values that I want my children raised with. So my kids are in a parochial school, a fantastic school. And I volunteer many many hours there and am glad to do so.

And as Parent said, now the "oh but if you put your kids in public schools then the schools will improve and be so much better". Sorry, my kids aren't guinnea pigs.


Anke
North Whisman
on May 3, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Anke, North Whisman
on May 3, 2017 at 5:25 pm
8 people like this

@Parent, I am all for fiscal responsibility and avoiding spending waste. Where do you see opportunities for cuts?


@ Parent
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 5:44 pm
@ Parent, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 5:44 pm
28 people like this

I think you are looking at the high school district salaries, not those of Mountain View Whisman. Different districts.


Interesing
Rex Manor
on May 3, 2017 at 5:58 pm
Interesing, Rex Manor
on May 3, 2017 at 5:58 pm
306 people like this

It is pretty interesting (or pathetic) that this initiative "won" with only 6,500 votes. That's probably about how many families are in the MVWSD. Mountain View as a whole probably has around 75,000 residents. So it takes less than 9% of the population of a city to force taxes on almost half the city? I guess this is the problem with having half the city population as renters, happy to vote for taxes they will never have to pay. And yet we continue to approve more rental housing.

It does start to feel abusive. Maybe since homeowners are the ones having to pay it, they should be the only one who get to vote.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 3, 2017 at 6:08 pm
15 people like this

@ CFrink. You are misinformed, it is a New Tax, that raises about the same as the Old Tax, but a lower percentage of the current total district revenue. Or rather - Clive - what ARE you talking about? (Measure B is not Measure C 2008)

This tax is not "already in place." That one is called Measure C, and large Google, Prometheus and Microsoft properties were charged $1016 per property, for each of their properties of 1.02 AC (44,000 Sq Ft) or more. That was The Old Tax.

Berkeley USD raises about 25% of their Budget - with a per-square-foot tax, whose spending is very tightly controlled - and needs a Board vote to suspend or even slightly modify the tight limits on the administration's ability to 'move things around.' Many of the other districts, that raise almost such high percentages - from their local taxpayers - also have per-sq-ft fair taxes.

Clive - you have just helped the large property owners - escape their responsibility to support schools - BASED ON THE EXTENT OF THEIR WEALTH IN REAL PROPERTY in this community. This will very likely continue for 8 years.

Commenters
There have only been two previous successful Parcel Taxes. These cannot be based on assessed property value AV, "ad valorem" tax. MVWSD does not have the second highest teacher pay in the state! That is the MVLA High School District, they have no Parcel Tax - but higher AV from Los Altos and Los Altos Hills properties.
"A generation of students", sure! Menlo Park turned around in much less than a year and submitted a better Parcel Tax to their voters - it passed. "A generation of students" will not go through in one year :)

This vote seems to LOCK UP the Parcel Tax issue for 8 more years. 5% and declining local tax revenue! Chris Chiang - isn't it just a shame that there wasn't a tax spending and oversight plan, and a more fair tax distribution plan? Berkeley, Alameda, Emery and West Contra Costa - show that a Larger Tax, if very well done, is EVEN MORE SUPPORTED by voters.


Eric
another community
on May 3, 2017 at 6:33 pm
Eric, another community
on May 3, 2017 at 6:33 pm
21 people like this

@parent you are ill informed. MVWSD teachers are far from the highest paid in the region. MVLA is a different district.

I defy you to find the cuts to make without badly hurting crucial educational services. The budgets are publicly available. Go ahead. Despite the horrible leadership from the previous board of trustees we still somehow have excellent schools in mtn view. Tell me who benefits from letting them degrade.


@ Eric
Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 7:43 pm
@ Eric, Monta Loma
on May 3, 2017 at 7:43 pm
13 people like this

Excellent schools? You must be at Bubb or Huff because there are no other excellent schools in MVWSD, save it possibly lottery schools. I know of no other neighborhood schools, elementary or middle, that I'd EVER risk sending my kids to again.

We now rank them differently but 5s typically aren't "excellent schools".


@Interesing
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 7:49 pm
@Interesing, Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 3, 2017 at 7:49 pm
11 people like this

"It is pretty interesting (or pathetic) that this initiative "won" with only 6,500 votes."

Gee, what's the matter, don't like how democracy works?

"Mountain View as a whole probably has around 75,000 residents."

How many are on the voting rolls? Remember, those under 18 can't vote. And felons certainly can't vote.

"Maybe since homeowners are the ones having to pay it, they should be the only one who get to vote."

What keeps you from saying "property-owning white men"? Because, remember, that is how it *used* to be...


@Interesing
Bailey Park
on May 3, 2017 at 8:52 pm
@Interesing, Bailey Park
on May 3, 2017 at 8:52 pm
5 people like this

I agree with your proposal to open up voting to all residents of Mountain View. Let's get 75K turnout in the next election!


@Diablo
Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2017 at 8:56 pm
@Diablo, Cuernavaca
on May 3, 2017 at 8:56 pm
16 people like this

If you've been paying property taxes for 20 years, you certainly aren't paying your fair share. Thanks to Prop 13, you're paying far less than any new neighbors, and your effective tax rate is probably downright shameful. If you disagree, would you like to post the numbers for assessed value and market value of your property? I'll wager there's a wiiiiide gap between the two.


Cleave Frink
Registered user
Willowgate
on May 3, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Cleave Frink, Willowgate
Registered user
on May 3, 2017 at 9:00 pm
25 people like this

The TTO program was a real program that the district chose to use and it was used to excellent results at one of the two schools in which it was employed. A program that is a success is not represent mismanaged funds. The contract wasn't signed because the district didn't feel it appropriate to continue using the software after one of the schools encountered numerous problems with the program, some of which were the responsibility of the school and not the software. Considering this, the Board decided the renegotiate the price they would pay. I kind of think that this is being responsible with district resources, rather than paying full price for a program that was problematic in many ways despite it's promising experience at one of our schools.

As for you, Mr. Nelson, I'm a little annoyed at you for a couple of reasons. First we were all set to do this during the Presidential election year and you decided you would stand in the way of us pushing this policy to the ballot at the time. Then you have the nerve to say that we're rushing the measure when you forced this timeline with your endeavor to encourage the District to challenge the court ruling on the progressive version of the parcel tax in court. Such a case is already happening and is at least two years away from resolution and would require our district to either come up with $2.8 million in cuts or find the money elsewhere. I think that's poor planning. We had to clean up a mess you're partly responsible for in getting this thing passed in this current setting. I completely understand your position and your desire to get more money out of commercial entities that can afford to provide more support to the district. Your method was not the best solution for the district.

There is a Parcel Tax in place already. It will expire next month. The one we just pass raises the same amount of money. Sure I'd love to be able to get more money from commercial parcels. It's not legal at this time. When we find language that says it's legal (which, again, we will likely get in the next couple of years) then we can revisit the issue and you're going to be my first call when I start the campaign.

Our schools are fabulous. We have excellent teachers, we have excellent facilities, we have excellent administrators. The only thing that's lacking is parent involvement at some of our schools. Money only goes so far. What makes our schools excel is parent involvement. When we as a community pitch in and get together at our schools and get involved, they will all be the best schools they can be.


Bull
North Bayshore
on May 3, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Bull, North Bayshore
on May 3, 2017 at 11:18 pm
5 people like this

How bout a 50 percent income tax on residents then this would fund them until your great grandchildren were of voting age then they would vote to extend it until there great grandchildren were born but raise it to 70 percent when will it end.


Paul Morris
Whisman Station
on May 3, 2017 at 11:37 pm
Paul Morris, Whisman Station
on May 3, 2017 at 11:37 pm
4 people like this

I would have voted for an Ad Valorem (AV) tax; I voted against the parcel tax, which is inherently unfair and shameful. If we had passed an AV tax and were sued for it, the lawsuit would have no merit and I would be willing to vote for an additional AV tax if needed to fight the lawsuit.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 5:50 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 5:50 am
8 people like this

sorry Cleave, I voted to go along with a delay in the Parcel Tax that was proposed in late 2015 and discussed very early in 2016. I did not make or second that Motion to delay. I tried to get this item on the Agenda, so it could go on the Fall 2016 ballot - but was blocked by Wheeler and Rudolph, who took it off the agenda in Aug. 2016 contrary to a Board Bylaw.

Minutes of 15 June 2016 - which are misfiled in the MVWSD poorly managed public document system. (try to find them Mr. Frink!]

Web Link

BTW, if the chair, Mr. Sherman, knew how to run the Parcel Tax committee according to the Brown Act, the "Appropriate with Concern" votes, like all votes, would have been recorded with names of the committee members. Mr. Sherman pontificates well, sometimes he does not quite as well know the Open Government laws that apply to his committee work.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 6:10 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 6:10 am
8 people like this

Mr. Frink -? "It's not legal at this time"? That is, it is not legal unless you live in Berkeley, Emeryville or West Contra Costa County (or Alameda - which is an odd/lingering case). If a district applies a "qualified special tax" in a uniform way to "real property" then it is a legal tax according to the decisions of the courts.

Alameda has a lingering old tax = and their new tax, from Nov 2016 (which will start after June 2018 (TWO YEARS). is going to be in legal trouble, because it capped their uniform per-square-foot of building levy at $7999. It pretty obviously is not uniformly applied - with that CAP. Berkeley, Emery, and West Contra Costa Co. districts did not make that mistake (and last I checked - none were legally challenged in the 90 day post-certification period)


This argument Mr. Frink, is moot. The MVWSD electorate has spoken through the ballot. They are willing to impose this version of the "qualified special tax" on real property. It is legal to impose a flat-structure tax.


This New Tax does not try to exempt Contiguous Commercial Property (link below) or allow any other illegal exemption to the tax to be granted or grandfathered.

Web Link


Cleave Frink
Registered user
Willowgate
on May 4, 2017 at 8:36 am
Cleave Frink, Willowgate
Registered user
on May 4, 2017 at 8:36 am
16 people like this

Steve Nelson,

You were publicly against the flat tax measure. Remember, you hired an attorney to tell us all how wrong we were not to gamble with this money. The Board Chair removed the item from the agenda because it didn't have the votes to pass. You and Greg at the time were adamant that you wanted a more progressive structure. So, you forced the delay. While I recognize your goal is to get as much funding for schools as possible, you chose a path that gambled with our school budget that most didn't feel comfortable with. Greg saw the difference at some point and he worked to help us get this thing passed.

Now that it's over, if you want to craft a ballot measure with which you agree, I'm all for running another campaign to get it passed. Put your money and your actions where your mouth is. Let's go. Otherwise, you're right. Let's move on. We've got other business to attend to here at our schools.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 8:58 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 8:58 am
3 people like this

Mr. Frink. I already put my money out. I consider the MVWSD school Tax issue settled. I am going to work on state-wide issues, rather than local ones. You, Mr. Frink, are free to spend your own money, as you please!

Like the issue on TTO, (curriculum adoption process and Contract) that Wheeler and Rudolph kept from the Board Agenda - they also kept a Parcel Tax discussion item, that I had proposed, from discussion on the Aug 18, 2016 Regular Board Meeting. Read the public record in the Minutes- it was "stated" by Wheeler. (this is too detail oriented to discuss in a public forum, and it is water too far down river!

I do not really know if Trustee Coladonato disliked the flat-structure tax, or the off-election (not Primary or Nov. General) more.


Old Steve
Rex Manor
on May 4, 2017 at 9:38 am
Old Steve, Rex Manor
on May 4, 2017 at 9:38 am
18 people like this

Mr. Frink, As always KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

Mr. Nelson, Since you are committed to Statewide issues, maybe you can save some local bandwidth for the rest of us? As a MVWSD Trustee, would it not have been your responsibility to call for the resignation of any district committee chair whose performance you found in violation of legal requirements or otherwise lacking? Given your performance as a Trustee, I for one would have found such a call highly ironic.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 11:28 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 11:28 am
4 people like this

Old Steve. No, just do your job better. You do not need to resign. Just read the CSBA Brown Act booklet - or this link Chapter 4, page 36, top. The Parcel Tax committee, as a committee formed and appointed by the Board, is under the same obligations. (see page 12, bottom "Appointed bodies)

Web Link


Hope
Monta Loma
on May 4, 2017 at 11:50 am
Hope, Monta Loma
on May 4, 2017 at 11:50 am
11 people like this

I am so tried of the cry babies "We pay to much in taxes..."
So I challenge everyone to look at what we get in services;

And Since we owe 19 trillion in the national debt- obvious we are a country of net recipients! Under Eisenhower and for the next 30 years the US enjoyed a very high prosperity rate and a high rate of taxes maximum 90%.

So instead of always looking at one side of the equation, let's look at the other side. What services do we as citizens get from our taxes-
Here is a start
1. Military
2. Veterans
3. Schools
4. Police
5. Boarders
6. Prisons

I can just see all the FACTLESS anti-government types saying "this is ridiculous" AND Absolutely refusing to even think about this-

Think of this: The US has naval ships providing security for oil tankers and other ships delivering products to and from the US. Guess what- the cost of that security is NOT built into a gallon of gas- Sure the FACTLESS will ignore, or turn away.

So what services do we get for our tax dollars?

Remember this is a challenge!







Gary
Sylvan Park
on May 4, 2017 at 2:21 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on May 4, 2017 at 2:21 pm
9 people like this

So, fewer than 12,000 voted. About a third of registered voters and many eligible adult citizens do not even register to vote. But congrats to the persons who worked for (or against) the measure. More folks need to get involved in politics at every level. Even public schools are governed by laws and persons selected through the political process. If you do not participate, realize that others such as Vladimir Putin and Exxon Corporation will pick up the slack.


Spam
Whisman Station
on May 4, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Spam, Whisman Station
on May 4, 2017 at 5:30 pm
13 people like this

Glad to see the cowards who left anonymous trash in my neighborhood lose!

Next time, actually talk to people in person instead of scurrying away like cockroaches, and maybe you'll win over some voters.


20 years resident, renter to owner
Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 9:59 pm
20 years resident, renter to owner, Cuesta Park
on May 4, 2017 at 9:59 pm
13 people like this

When the property value has appreciated hundreds of thousands dollars over the last few years, people are arguing about $191/year education tax?


Gary
Sylvan Park
on May 5, 2017 at 8:58 am
Gary, Sylvan Park
on May 5, 2017 at 8:58 am
3 people like this

The last poster probably has the best explanation for the low voter turnout and passage of Measure B. Homeowners have gained more than $191 in property value every day in recent years. Measure B presented a per oarcel tax of $191/year. One plus in this process is that more residents now know this school district has big problems and inadequate leadership. There is no shortage of intelligence on the school board but leadership sometimes requires that one takes THE BULL BY THE HORNS. The City Council is continuing to bring new business space and employees to Mountain View and any additional housing will also bring new school children. Where will they go to school? At home? To a private school somewhere? Start planning for contingencies.


Cfrink
Registered user
Willowgate
on May 6, 2017 at 9:25 am
Cfrink, Willowgate
Registered user
on May 6, 2017 at 9:25 am
6 people like this

I'm not sure why there was a low voter turnout. I do know that the folks who did vote are actually paying attention to schools. It should be noted that we originally wanted to run this measure during the presidential election, but that effort was blocked by a member of the Board. Our school district has fantastic leadership from the district office to the Board and all our school's administrators. If you have kids in our schools, you know and experience this leadership daily. That doesn't mean you always agree with every decision. It does mean someone is in charge and running a playbook that makes sense and is moving the district forward to notable progress. If you're unaware of this fact, perhaps you should spend more time with us on committees or at Board meetings and less time here. Just a suggestion.


Steven Nelson
Cuesta Park
on May 6, 2017 at 10:06 am
Steven Nelson, Cuesta Park
on May 6, 2017 at 10:06 am
3 people like this

The voting turnout was 'not really low' (IMO). Within a couple of hundred of the total voting in the June 2008 Primary Election (demos Obama-Clinton). [see the post of numbers in the related article comment section]
Web Link

There have been parcel tax consultant comments, recorded in PAUSD Minutes, where they noted that Special/General/Primary election results for school parcel taxes, show about the same percentage of PASS/FAIL. There does not really seem to be (counterintuitive), a great benefit to PASS under a Special Election.

congratulations Cleave


Christopher Chiang
North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 11:03 am
Christopher Chiang, North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 11:03 am
4 people like this

Earlier, a parent politely posted "I do know that we have the second-highest-paid teachers in the state (and the highest in the Bay Area)." and the post gets +154 likes (mistaking MVWSD for MVLA).

If that was a MVWSD parent, then even with the parcel tax election over, MVWSD needs to do a lot more to inform its own stakeholders on the financial reality of the school district.
MVLA starts at $74k
MVWSD starts at $56k ($18k difference) Web Link
MVLA ends at $141k Web Link
MVWSD ends $104k ($37k difference)

The reality is MVWSD is not anywhere close to being financially flushed, despite the local home prices and stock values. The community should have high expectations for district leadership, but it also needs to be aware the district is underfunded (and staff/teachers sacrifice more than they should to mask this underfunding from children/families).

The current reserves was built off years of underfunding educator compensation. That said, MVWSD has made significant progress compensating teachers in the last few years. It was the the right thing to do. Right though doesn't mean easy, with pending pension increases that will double the the district's pension obligations, the district is in danger of long term deficits. District Budget on Pg 262 Web Link (22% reserves fully depleted in four years)

Thankfully, passing the parcel tax has averted an immediate fiscal crisis, but the district has only bought itself time.
Avoiding these pending deficits will require both financial discipline and continued community funding. Without both, I fear in the not-so-far-future, reactionary layoffs and program reductions. We can avoid both by planning carefully now in a way that keeps cuts as far away from the classroom experience as possible.

This parcel tax did not buy any additional education enrichments for students, it bought the district time to right the ship. Once the ship is right, I hope the community will then fund the district even more to give the students additional opportunities worthy of a world-class city.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on May 6, 2017 at 12:37 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on May 6, 2017 at 12:37 pm
3 people like this

@Mr.Frink. So what is the District's plan for thousands more school age children with new housing in Mountain View over the next five years? It is too late to take back the Slater or Whisman school sites. They have been leased out for decades to come. The new building at Slater will accommodate how many kids?


Christopher Chiang
North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Christopher Chiang, North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm
3 people like this

Update: MVLA approves their new teacher contract Monday, so after Monday: Web Link
MVLA starts at $79k
MVWSD starts at $56k ($23k difference)
MVLA ends at $149k
MVWSD ends $104k ($45k difference)

A first year teacher in MVLA will be paid more than a 10 year veteran in MVWSD (assuming same level of edu).
Teachers in both districts are equally skilled and hard working, so this disparity deserves awareness.


Gary
Sylvan Park
on May 6, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Gary , Sylvan Park
on May 6, 2017 at 2:30 pm
3 people like this

@Mr. Chiang. Maybe you can answer the questions I just put to Mr. Frink (above). Are the MVLA District teachers the highest paid in California? Where can readers find that information?


@gary
North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 2:37 pm
@gary, North Bayshore
on May 6, 2017 at 2:37 pm
3 people like this

Old MV Voice report on MVLA: Web Link


Gary
Sylvan Park
on May 7, 2017 at 1:48 pm
Gary, Sylvan Park
on May 7, 2017 at 1:48 pm
3 people like this

The Voice article states that MvLA teachers are the "highest paid in the State." MV-Whisman teachers might want to seek jobs in the high school district.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.