|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, January 17, 2013, 8:29 AM
School parcel tax vote likely in Portola Valley
Public hearing set for Feb. 6
|
|
by Renee Batti
Almanac Staff
Voters are likely to be asked this spring to renew and boost the Portola Valley School District's parcel tax, which last year raised close to $1 million for the two-school district.
The tax, approved by voters with the passage of Measure C in 2004 and Measure D in 2010, will expire in spring 2014. The district hopes to place both measures on the ballot in May for an eight-year renewal, and raise the combined amount district residents are assessed to a maximum of $656 -- a 43 percent increase.
Currently, the combined tax from both measures is $458 per parcel. Measure C assesses $290 per parcel annually; the assessment for Measure D is $168 per parcel each year. That has added up to a robust supplement to the school district's budget over the years, last year bringing in $987,296, according to Sandra Lepley, the district's interim chief business official.
The school board will consider adopting a resolution placing the parcel tax measures on the ballot on Wednesday, Feb. 6. A public hearing on the matter will precede the vote. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. in the district board room.
The school community was rocked last year by revelations that then-superintendent and chief finance officer Tim Hanretty had embezzled more than $100,000 from the district, and significantly misrepresented the amount of money the district had at its disposal. After extensive audits were performed and austerity measures put in place, the district closed the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, with a $31,000 deficit and no money in its reserve fund.
But the district's plan to ask voters to renew and possibly increase the parcel tax "has nothing to do with Tim Hanretty's actions," school board President Jocelyn Swisher said in an email to the Almanac. "Through restitution (court-ordered at $181,750 to include attorney and auditor fees and other costs) and improvements in process and oversight, we feel that those issues have been addressed."
Instead, the parcel tax issue "relates to the long-term stability of our school district," she wrote. "We have two options: we can renew and enhance stable local funding that we control; or we can let these funds expire and hope for the best. "This community has a long history of investing in quality local schools."
Ms. Swisher said renewing the tax is a top priority for the district -- a means to ensure "that we never find ourselves overly dependent on Sacramento for protecting the quality of our local schools."
School districts across the state have had to severely cut or eliminate educational programs and increase class size through the years because of significant reductions in state funding.
In announcing the public hearing, the district said the ballot measures would generate revenue earmarked for educational programs, with emphasis on math, science, reading, writing, art and music, and would also be used to maintain "qualified and experienced teachers" and minimize class size increases.
The measures would also maintain the current exemptions for certain senior citizens and disabled people, the district said.
Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Nate McKitterick, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2013 at 9:57 am If I paid $656 per year for 30 years, it would be $19,680 -- far less than the six figure positive effect of our awesome schools on everyone's property values in PV. (And both the tax, and property profit on sale, are deductible for many people, too.)
|
|
Posted by Cathy, a resident of the Portola Valley: Brookside Park neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm We can see the negative of not funding locally on property values simply by looking at some of our neighboring cities. The price variance is significant, BUT more importantly, the tools provided the kids over the past 8 years has set my children up for success in many ways. $656 is a BARGAIN. I know familes that pay 3 times that just for tutoring services in cities that are coping with unreliable funding. Sacramento is greedy and to count on adequate state funding for local schooling needs is just living with your head in the ground. CA ranks 47th in the country when adjusted for regional differences.......
Web Link
|
|
Posted by Diminishing Returns, a member of the Corte Madera School community, on Jan 18, 2013 at 4:58 pm PVSD has plenty of money to run an excellent school. State finances and more importantly property values are at a turning point, but this is actually not even a serious factor in that per pupil spending in PV is at levels well above the CA and nationwide averages.
The real problem in PV is the disconnected and amateur micro-management of the bloated admin and activist board. They like to "play school" at the expense of student learning. More money will only make this worse! The teachers will take their slice and the admin will spend the rest on consultants, "specialists," and more parent employees seemingly hired for the sake of the parents seeking employment rather than for student benefit.
Have the board and admin make an objective plan for measuring effectiveness of even one of their many endeavors- and show the results of that data to prove the achievement of the clearly defined objective - before giving them another dime.
|
|
Posted by Over-Reach, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Jan 21, 2013 at 10:04 am Google Measure C and D (existing taxes) and you'll see that C was a substantial increase from the original tax and D was supposed to be a bridge for 4 years until the economey was better. Now we need a 43% increase from combined temporary measures? There is a case for parcel taxes to keep the schools excellent, but as a basic aid district with good property values that seem to be going up (slowly), strong parent contributions and reasonable support for a parcel tax, a 43% jump is over-reach. My kids are in the district and better management will trump more money. Vote NO if this makes it to the ballot!!!!
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
