You can view a PDF of Godbe’s polling analysis here. I’ve inserted some personal observations and comments throughout the presentation.
Godbe’s recommendation is to put something in the $70 – $80 range — with a five year term — on the ballot in May or June. The Board will discuss this recommendation at a meeting on February 4th, and decide whether or not to put a parcel tax measure on the May ballot.
The Board could also opt to put the measure on the June ballot. The two ballots are not equivalent because voting for the May ballot is done exclusively by mail while the June ballot is a traditional go-to-the-polls (if you don’t vote absentee) ballot. The June ballot would also cost the District more to do. And, just to make things more complicated, there may be other statewide revenue enhancement initiatives put before voters in April or May which could potentially conflict with a District parcel tax measure.
I feel that going to the 100% of property owners of San Carlos once again for a tax hit without first demonstrating an ability to cut large expenses (like many are having to do themselves in this economy) is plain wrong. To me (and to many, it seems), a combination of cost-cutting first, then seeking tax relief seems to be the way to go. Many of us will be losing our jobs in 2009 and 2010 with not the luxury of having rich pensions to cover us in our retirement. Let’s be sensitive and think of this before reflexively asking for another tax hit. Those who advocate a tax first , cut costs second (if at all) are insensitive to those struggling already with their parcel taxes.
A reasonable point. The Board and District are working on cuts, some of which are likely going to be necessary regardless of whether an additional parcel tax is approved or not.
The District has run a pretty tight ship since I’ve been on the Board (2001). I’m not claiming that’s due to me, by the way, just that that’s the period I’m most familiar with.
Some people like to say “there’s nothing to cut” because of that. I don’t, because there’s always something that can be cut. But, if you’ve done a decent job of managing your resources, it’ll cost you something. In that case the question becomes which is worse, the pain of higher property taxes or the pain of a reduced educational program?
Allowing voters to weigh in on that trade-off seems like a reasonable thing to do. Particularly when it takes a supermajority to increase revenues.
But I can well appreciate the challenges more people in our community our facing as the economy gets worse. So I expect that making the case for more money for the District will be harder than it was last November.
How much has the message been delivered that this decline in the quality of our public schools will have a fairly detrimental impact on our property values? I certainly can understand that in this economy, everyone is having to tighten their belts. However, the long term impact of the funding shortfall on our schools will cause us to feel the pain on our property values for a very long time.
In addition, high quality schools are a cornerstone to the outstanding quality of life enjoyed by San Carlos residents. If you haven’t ever spent time in a public school that is underfunded and lacking in resources, just ask a teacher who has taught in one. Or, take a walk down the halls and look at the classrooms.
While I understand that some see this as “yet another tax,” I also question how many of those people complaining about it got to enjoy the benefit of quality, free public education.
Thank you for sharing this presentation. I am curious, was there an active “anti-S” campaign? I never saw any sign of it. Was some group actively promoting the idea that the school district had plenty of funds, or is this just a common misconception? I have never heard anyone say that they thought there was a large (or even a small) cash reserve, but that may be because I tend to meet other parents with school-age children, and we all know there is no extra money.
There wasn’t a coordinated “anti-S” campaign. There weren’t even any arguments filed against it. Which was rather unusual.
As to the District’s reserves, there wasn’t a group promoting that view, so far as I know. But I had credible reports of a number of District teachers who voiced that opinion, and I spoke to a retired District teacher at a phone bank who made the same argument.
Your point about perceptions being a function of who you talk to is very important. Polls often show that parents and non-parents have distinct views of the District, probably because one group has a lot more information about current doings than the other.
I think it’s a sad state for San Carlos when its residents don’t support the kids and the schools. I understand that everyone needs to tighten their belt, but anyone who is informed should know that this has already happened with the schools. It’s shocking to me that basic things that are already funded privately — PE, library, science — are on the chopping block so that private funds (SCEF) can fund even more basic programs.
The last campaign failed by a small percentage, which I’d like to think was due in large part to a poorly-run campaign, versus true selfishness on the part of San Carlos residents (most of whom presumably already got their education, or at least had access to it, but somehow don’t feel the need to provide it to the next generation.) I would like to see the next parcel tax measure be equal to or greater than Measure S. The only thing that’s changed is that the situation with the schools has become more dire than before. To put forth a lower tax somehow sends the message that what was asked for with Measure S was too high.
Finally, I agree that the case about property values needs to be made, though it’s somewhat pathetic that it has to come to this. SC residents have been enjoying large increases in property values in large part because of the schools. It will be appropriate for property values to decrease with the failure of SC residents to show support for the schools. When someone who voted against the tax loses $100,000 in property value because s/he failed to vote for a $75 tax, I, for one, will not feel sorry for him.
I can see I haven’t quite got the hang of requiring commenters to identify themselves :). It looks like more tweaking is in order.
Please identify yourself when you make comments. I find that’s an important way to minimize the outbreak of flame wars.
I don’t think Measure S failed as a result of a poorly-run campaign. Of course, I was one of the people who worked very, very hard to get it approved so I am not going to be a completely neutral observer.
The reality is that we’ll never know for sure why Measure S failed. That’s because the campaign lacked the resources to do things like multiple polls, tracking polls and exit polls, which would have provided some real data on which to build a post-mortem analysis.
That said, here’s my two cents on the matter, in abbreviated form: Measure S failed because there was a lack of awareness of how dire the problem was within the community. I won’t repeat the observations this is based on here. If you troll my earlier posts you’ll come across several that go into the failure in more depth.
That situation has changed quite a bit since the election. People are a lot more worried now than they were back in September. But I still wonder if it has changed enough, because, as an earlier commenter pointed out, the general environment has also continued to get worse for a lot of residents. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been pushing so hard since the election to get the District and Board to launch hearings on what revenue enhancements and cuts should be made. Tackling the problem, in public, is an important way of educating the community about the serious issues we’re facing.
Three quick thoughts/questions.
1. The report notes that is important to tell people that the upcoming cuts may be $1.6 million. Supervisor Mitrovich has stated this should be around $2 million. The numbers need to be consistant, and I think the everyone really needs to understand that this crisis is truly bad and will negatively affect the schools for some time to come.
2. Science is really going to be noted as most critical? Mark – Do you think this is a good idea?
3. Senior citizens – regarding the recent survey – my mother-in-law was called. She thought the surveyor was “very nice” and went through the entire survey. She was never asked, nor did she tell the gentleman that she was exempt. Any amount of money added to a property tax bill is too much for her. I realize that surveys are not perfect, but I do wonder how many senior citizens were called and if this type of call can skew the numbers.
4. I truly hope that this parcel tax is not limited to 5 years. Measure D, at 7 years, seems to have come around way too quickly. I think people will burn out on parcel taxes if they come up too often. (And those wonderful citizens that help to defray the costs will also burn out on their support.)
I think one of the reasons why Measure S failed is because of the Zero sunset date. I did hear a lot of comments with regards to this. The new measure is proposing a 5 year end date. I believe residence would support the 5 to 7 or maybe even 10 years parcel tax rather than no end date.