Three school taxes on the March ballot

The San Mateo Union High School District asked voters to support Measure L, a bond taxing $15.55 per $100,000 of assessed value projected to raise a projected $385 million for technology and safety projects.

And the San Carlos Elementary School District sought approval for Measure N, a $334 parcel tax intended to bring in about $3 million annually for district operations and improve the quality of local education. The measure is an $88 increase in the district’s current parcel tax, which is expiring soon.

Separate campaign committees comprised of officials and community members formed to rally support for the measures, which are universally opposed by a collective of frequent tax opponents.

Measure O

The measure proposed primarily to help finance campus work necessary to accommodate ongoing enrollment growth is the most recent in a series of similar measures approved by voters.

And while the previous taxes have helped officials complete significant projects — most notably the reopening of Hoover Elementary School — officials claim additional work looms on the horizon.

The source of the challenge is the district’s catalog of aging facilities which need frequent updates and repairs to accommodate the needs of students on campuses built nearly one century ago, said school board Vice President Elizabeth Kendall.

“The schools are 100 years old and as you open them up, we find they need much more maintenance,” said Kendall.

Such an argument in unconvincing to Mark Hinkle, of the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, who authored the argument against the measure. He said the $112 million generated by the previous two bond measures should be sufficient to address the needs of students.

“Do school classrooms really need upgrading/roofs fixed every four years? Have they even spent the $56 million from the 2016 bond or before? If not, why are they asking for more of your hard-earned dollars?,” said Hinkle, in arguments filed with the county elections office.

Rather than ask for additional tax money, he suggested the district should set aside money from its budget to address infrastructure issues. Chief Business Official Gabby Hellier countered that argument with claims state financing and other fees do not generate sufficient income to address sizable facility issues.

The tax also recently overcame a legal challenge suggesting the ballot language was too vague. San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram said earlier this month the ballot question for the bond is not perfect but substantially complies with state election law.

Officials said the language was left intentionally broad, so as to grant the flexibility needed to address facility issues as they arise. But when pressed for more specifics, work at Burlingame Intermediate School, library modernization, security cameras and updated technology and additional classrooms were among some of the priority projects identified.

For her part, Superintendent Maggie MacIsaac framed the bond which needs 55% voter support to pass as an opportunity to address the needs of many existing and future students.

“We as a group can set up the district for many years to accommodate what comes their way,” she said.

Measure L

San Mateo Union High School District officials are seeking for the first time in one decade a measure intended to finance campus improvements and additional safety measures.

The bond, which also needed 55% voter support to pass, would pay toward new camera surveillance systems at each of the district’s campuses as well as removal of encapsulated asbestos. Revenue could also help pay for new turf at athletic fields, and may serve as an upfront payment toward construction of a teacher housing project.

Neal Kaufman, head of the campaign committee, said he think the additional income will help officials meet the needs of students and improve their horizons.

“We want them to have the best education possible so they can be the best members of our community they can be,” he said.

In a similar argument to the one made against the Burlingame bond, Hinkle and his associated tax critics suggested the district budget should be the primary source for officials to finance infrastructure improvements. Additionally, they claimed bonds are an inefficient vehicle for facility repairs.

“Financing school projects via bonds, routinely double the cost of the project. And purchasing technology via bond debt it just nuts,” said the argument filed with the county.

Board President Marc Friedman though said other income sources for the district do not generate enough money to pay for sizable infrastructure projects, which is why the bond measure is needed.

“We have to look after ourselves,” he said.

Measure N

Separate from the other two taxes which pay for infrastructure projects, the San Carlos Elementary School District needs a new parcel tax to fend off the threat of looming budget cuts, said tax advocates.

“We want to maintain a high-quality education, we want to keep classroom sizes low and we want to attract and retain excellent teachers for our kids,” said campaign committee co-chair Kendra Campbell.

The measure proposed to extend the existing $246 parcel tax and add another $88 in a tax expected to generate about $3 million annually over the next eight years. Such revenue would allow the district to steer clear of the $2 million deficit facing officials in the next budget cycle.

Hinkle though claimed the district is undeserving of the additional income, citing scores on the most recent round of standardized testing which he considered unremarkable.

Furthermore, he claimed the money would likely be paid to administrative salaries — a contention committee members deny, suggesting instead it would go to addressing needs in the classroom.

“We need this just to stay the same,” said Jessica Rowe, who co-chairs the campaign committee with Campbell.

Hinkle though argued voters should advocate for more responsible budgeting by opposing the tax needing supermajority support to pass.

“Tell the San Carlos School Board to be fiscally responsible by voting no on Measure N,” he said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105