|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Mountain View-Los Altos High School District is poised to break away from decades of bite-sized bond measures and frugal spending on its facilities, as the school board weighs whether to ask voters for more than $200 million in construction money next year.
A recent Facilities Master Plan shows that the high school district could use as much as $290 million to fix aging facilities and accommodate a surge of enrollment growth, spurred almost entirely by new and proposed housing growth in Mountain View.
Although school board members haven’t decided how much money to ask voters for — and are already prepared to defer $26.3 million in projects to stay below $260 million — it’s likely to be the biggest ask in recent memory. A report at the Nov. 20 board meeting revealed that the high school district is arguably one of the most conservative spenders in all of Santa Clara County.
The district currently taxes property owners a combined rate of $10.70 per $100,000 of assessed value, which pays off debt incurred by the $41.3 million Measure A bond, which passed overwhelmingly in 2010. Prior to that, the district passed Measure D in 1995, which was also fairly small and won similar support from district residents.
According to the firm Isom Advisors, that puts the high school district dead last among all 32 school districts in the county. The next lowest tax rate is in the Loma Prieta Joint Union School District and is more than twice as high at $23.30 per $100,000 of assessed value. Neighboring and overlapping school districts, including Mountain View Whisman ($73.80), Los Altos ($46.30) and Palo Alto Unified ($79.30), all have a significantly higher tax rate than Mountain View-Los Altos.
The tax rate is a clear sign that the district has been able to maintain its facilities for a long time at a fairly low cost to taxpayers, said Superintendent Jeff Harding. But with so much housing growth occurring in Mountain View — updated projections say the high school district should prepare for 700 additional students over the next five years — now is the time to ask for a large facilities bond, he said.
“We have a history of being good stewards of public funds and want to maintain that reputation, and we want outstanding facilities for our students,” Harding said. “So we’re trying to find that balance.”
The growth projections do not include major plans for dense new housing in neighborhoods in North Bayshore, East Whisman and even federal land occupied by NASA Ames, which could bring a combined 17,000 more housing units to the city and sending district enrollment skyward in the coming decades.
The school district’s frugal approach to bond measures has left the district with a huge bonding capacity, allowing the district to incur a debt of nearly $550 million if the school board chooses (and voters agree). Polling data collected by the district earlier this year asked voters whether they would support a $198 million or a $268 million bond measure, and both received more than enough support among those surveyed.
Despite the slim bond tax rate, Mountain View-Los Altos doesn’t have a parcel tax, meaning property owners only have to pay parcel taxes for the elementary school districts that feed into the high school district. The district’s finances remain prosperous despite the lack of supplemental funding, in part because of the robust annual funding provided by the Mountain View-Los Altos High School Foundation. The nonprofit raised just shy of $2 million last year, most of it from district families.
The report by Isom Advisors also shows that the property values in Mountain View, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills is growing at a staggering rate, showing huge increases over the last decade. The assessed value of properties in the district went from $21.4 billion in 2005-06 to $44.2 billion in 2016-17, averaging a growth rate of about 7 percent each year. That kind of growth is unheard of in other areas of the state, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone watching the housing prices and building patterns in the region, Harding said.
“The one constant here is growth, and that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone,” he said.
According to the latest Mountain View city newsletter, as of June 2017, there are 5437 units of housing in the pipeline, to be completed in the next three years. Among them only 696 units are for sale. Rest, or 87%, are rental units.
55% of Mountain View residents rent rather than own. This tax will disproportionately add burden to property owners, especially in the light of the infamous rent control ordinance.
Furthermore the pending tax cut in Congress will do away with local tax deductions, including property tax deductions.
The district should explore other venues of taxation that is fair with both renters and owners.
When comparing school districts keep in mind that Palo Alto Unified is a unified district so it serves K-12. Its not surprising that it has higher rates than smaller K-8 or 9-12 districts.
This is insane. With all the development going on can we please have a school impact fee rather than affordable housing requirements that exacerbate the issue? I’m sure there are requirements for art or some beautification in design as well.
That said, if the high school needs it then okay, I’ll help out. Not like I have rent controlled units as my source of income.
The homeowners exemption which currently is worth $70.00 to residential homeowners should be raised to a meaningful amount, say $7,000.00 before any more bonds are added to our tax bills. It has not been raised in 40 years.
Robyn, you already pay far less than your fair share thanks to Prop 13. Now you want even more exemptions? Why not just eliminate property taxes entirely, at this rate?
Obviously you were not around when prop 13 came to be, otherwise you wouldn’t be making such comments.
Home owners pay there fair share, period. It’s not the fault of homeowners that prices for homes have gone through the roof.
Thank God for prop 13 otherwise we would be in the same predicament as the liberals of Detroit, who just left their properties without even selling their homes since property taxes were so high, no one could afford them, let alone the houses price.
The problem is gloated government and miss use of tax money. Number one is the unions gambling away the retirement money and pension money of state employees and now the taxpayers are stuck with the bill.
LOL, look at the big picture, instead of just looking at one aspect as the culprit.
@@lol
It’s totally your fault along with Prop 13. Property taxes served as a pain point for letting property values get too high. That encouraged trying to keep property values stable, such as building more homes to spread out demand. Prop 13 completely disconnected property owners from issues with housing costs, so not only do they not feel the pinch if costs start to skyrocket, but there’s financial incentive to limiting the supply of housing in order to keep their property values increasing.
Now with increased housing costs, the barrier to home ownership has become that much harder to overcome.
Plus it completely decimated California’s educational system, caused tuition rates to rise and completely derailed plans for free higher education to any successful California student.
But hey, at least you got yours, right? What good would planting a tree do for you if you wouldn’t be around to sit in the shade of it?
Hopefully some of these hundreds of millions of dollars will go toward adding a third campus nearer to all of the new development north of El Camino Real.