School districts examine new tax measures

While officials at either district have yet to take an official position on a tax, trustees in the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District are much closer to floating the initiative they have been crafting since last year.

San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District

Following the discussion Monday, May 7, San Mateo-Foster City school board President Audrey Ng said officials are closing in on approving the final ballot language for a parcel tax expected to go before voters in the upcoming fall election.

“We are pretty much settled on the amount, duration and the CPI terms,” said Ng, summarizing the discussion addressing a draft resolution seeking a $298 parcel tax from property owners annually over nine years, with adjustments based on inflation tracked by the consumer price index.

Officials have been refining the proposal since last spring, when a measure designed to extend a previous parcel tax fell only percentage points short of the two-thirds threshold required for approval.

In the aftermath, officials turned their attention to seeking another measure intended to replace the roughly $7 million generated annually toward the school district’s operating budget.

Ng said the parcel tax under consideration will allow officials to offer an education designed to keep district students competitive with their counterparts in Silicon Valley.

To that end, she said officials will continue conversations over the coming weeks whittling specific terms of the proposal such as addressing which programs and services will be funded by the tax.

Ng said while she expects the board ultimately will approve floating the proposal to voters in the fall election, trustees will likely keep an eye further refining the measure over a couple more meetings in advance of the summer deadline for putting initiatives to voters.

Should the tax fail, Ng suggested officials would likely face tough decisions over which programs and staff should be cut to allow the district to balance its budget.

“We would have to cut positions if we do not get the parcel tax passed. We are looking at positions already that could be eliminated,” she said.

At the moment though, officials are remaining optimistic regarding the opportunities presented by the tax potentially passing.

“We are looking at all kind of programming that will support our student learning,” she said.

San Carlos Elementary School District

Meanwhile, in San Carlos, school district officials are examining steps necessary to build support for a construction bond proposal intended to finance new school facilities.

During the discussion of the issue still in its formative stages, Chief Operating Officer Robert Porter suggested officials set their sights on elections in November 2019 or March 2020, if they are interested in pursuing a tax.

While Porter said officials could examine a bond in the range of $86.5 million and $104 million, community members said more work must be done to build the electorate’s trust before seeking another tax.

District parent Kerren Dempsey said before officials turn toward a new bond measure, they should offer school community members more information regarding the botched construction plan which consumed much of the district’s previous $72 million bond.

“It is not enough to look forward,” said Dempsey, according to video of the May 10 board meeting. “We must understand why the budget of $72 million was not enough.”

The bond to which Dempsey referred is Measure H, passed by voters in 2012 to construct new schools as well as modernize and expand existing campuses. The building schedule has been plagued in recent years with a variety of roadblocks in the proposed reconstruction of the campus housing Charter Learning Center, Tierra Linda Middle School and the new Mariposa School.

The proposed series of building projects hit snags when modular classrooms intended to be installed were not delivered on time, setting off a variety of delays and budget overruns.

As it stands, officials are running short on funds to complete the projects promised through the bond campaign, generating questions from school community members frustrated by the process.

To that end, Dempsey called on officials to be more transparent and forthcoming with their plans for rectifying the district’s financial dilemma.

“There has been little accountability from this board,” she said, regarding the struggles over campus construction.

District parent Mag Cumbow, who has been an ardent critic of officials through the construction process, echoed a similar perspective.

“If another bond measure is necessary, as a taxpayer, I don’t want any of you or the old board members have any control over future bond money,” she said, prior to calling for a majority of the board’s resignation to give recently-hired Superintendent Michelle Harmeier a blank slate from which to operate.

While trustees’ discussion of the proposed bond timeline was light, Trustee Neil Layton did speak to the community concerns that should be addressed if officials ultimately pursue another tax.

He said officials should be forthcoming in terms of their budget and plans for allocating the tax money to avoid similar issues in the future.

“The biggest question is why do we need it? And how will it be different in terms of management and goals?” he said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105