Published June 6, 2005

P.A. debates Measure A

ON EVE OF TUESDAY'S VOTE ON INCREASING PARCEL TAX FOR SCHOOLS, SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENT WEIGH IN

Still grappling over how to vote Tuesday on Measure A, the effort to increase Palo Alto's parcel tax for the city's public schools?

Let the two camps bend your ear.

The Mercury News rolled out the soapbox and invited the measure's supporters and critics to give us their top three arguments for and against Measure A, along with rebuttals.

With the current $293-a-year parcel tax set to expire next year, the district wants to replace it with a $493 annual parcel tax over the next six years. Seniors could claim exemptions.

The measure needs a two-thirds majority to pass, and Measure A supporters are doubling their efforts after a bid to raise the tax to $521 failed in November by about 220 votes -- the first time Palo Altans defeated a school-funding measure in 27 years.

Polls are open Tuesday from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Let the convincing commence.

MEASURE A: YES OR NO?

The measure's supporters and opponents make their case on whether voters should approve a $493 parcel tax for Palo Alto schools.

YES on Measure A

1) MAJOR CUTS LOOM

If voters don't back Measure A, the Palo Alto Unified School District will lose $5.5 million when the current parcel tax expires next year. Without Measure A, the district will be forced to make dramatic cuts in instruction, including laying off up to 107 teachers, increasing class sizes by as much as 40 percent, slashing middle and high school course offerings, and closing an elementary school. Increased enrollment (for which the district receives no additional revenue), increases in utility and health benefit costs, reduced state revenues, and slow property tax growth have forced the district to make $6.5 million in program reductions and dip $3.4 million into reserves.

Opposition Rebuttal: The district's claim it will lose $5.5 million misleads voters into believing this is the last time a parcel tax can appear on the ballot. This is simply not true. About 13 percent of the district's students do not live within the district, or live on property tax-exempt land. The district has failed to demand funds for such students from the state. Instead, its leaders have turned to scare tactics about laying off teachers, closing schools, and increasing enrollments as an emotional appeal to voters to ``please give us more money.'' This won't ever end.

2) CLEAR GOALS

When the school board placed Measure A on the ballot, it clearly articulated the amount each parcel would be taxed ($493), the term (six years), and how the funds will be spent: $212 to maintain current K-10 class sizes; $154 to avoid teacher layoffs; $50 to reinstate some secondary school classes; $19 to restore staff for K-12 instructional programs and school site support; $18 to restore guidance and counseling; $15 to restore K-5 math, literacy and art programs; $14 to restore K-12 instructional materials; $9 to restore librarian hours; and $2 to restore teacher training. No Measure A funds will go to central administration, salary increases or new programs. All funds will stay in the community. An independent citizens' oversight committee will ensure accountability by providing independent financial audits.

REBUTTAL: Measure A funds are a gift to the PAUSD. Stating how this gift will be spent diverts the discussion away from the issue of property tax growth. The district continues to project 1 percent property tax growth for the next five years -- even though property tax revenues are growing. County Assessor Larry Stone recently stated: ``For residential property owners, the market has clearly turned the corner. For commercial and industrial property owners, the worst appears to be over,'' (Mercury News, May 27). The district has failed to prove it needs this money.

3) PROPERTY VALUES LINKED TO QUALITY SCHOOLS

Education is the cornerstone of a quality community. Investing in public education for all children is a value we have held since Jane Stanford started the first free schools, and it makes sound economic sense. Our strong property values are directly attributable to the excellence of Palo Alto schools. Support for Measure A comes from a broad range of local organizations, including the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, the Palo Alto District of the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors, Hewlett-Packard, the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, and the PTAs at each of our schools, among many others. All of our congressional, state, county and community college elected representatives and every member of the Palo Alto City Council and PAUSD Board of Education support Measure A. In addition, more than 2,300 Palo Alto residents have publicly endorsed this measure.

REBUTTAL: Quality communities are composed of well-rounded people who are able to think and act independently. There are many reasons for strong property values -- good schools are just one such reason. Endorsements from outside groups like the Silicon Valley Association of Realtors provides clear evidence of commercial groups with significant financial self-interests seeking to influence local politics. Why should voters be concerned what outside real estate agents want?

NO on Measure A

1) THE DISTRICT HAS NOT PROVEN IT NEEDS THE MONEY

Its property tax revenue -- $73.6 million this year -- is significant already and continues increasing. Last year, as its first parcel tax campaign was gearing up, the district anticipated its property tax revenue would rise only 0.92 percent but later revised that figure to 5.1 percent after receiving new information from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. Plus, the district will see a growth in property tax revenue for developments currently being built such as the Classic Residence by Hyatt for seniors.

REBUTTAL: The district has clearly demonstrated the need for Measure A, which will only begin to make up for a $4.4 million reduction in state funding, $3 million in added expenses from increased enrollment and $5.5 million that will be lost when the current parcel tax expires next year. Property taxes cannot alone make up for impacts on the district's budget. Further, property tax growth in our area is notoriously unpredictable. In 2003, for example, property tax revenue growth was 90 percent less than what the county first projected. Our district, like others throughout California, urgently needs the stable funding that a parcel tax provides.

2) STUDENTS FROM ELSEWHERE AREN'T PAYING THEIR WAY

Palo Alto Unified spends too much on students from outside the district, whose parents may not be paying property and parcel taxes or rent that goes to help pay landlords' tax share. The district educates 104 students of district employees. Unlike other districts in the area, Palo Alto Unified officials also don't have a proactive strategy for checking students who can't prove residency. About 300 students from outside the district attend Palo Alto Unified schools because they fill out forms that say their families live with another, share a house or rent a room within the district. Or they fill out a form that says they live with someone who lives in the district without their parents.

REBUTTAL: The 300 students who the opposition claims live outside the district are actually children living inside the district with foster parents, grandparents or in other non-traditional living situations. State law prohibits the district from excluding these students from our public schools. PAUSD requires strict proof of residency, investigates any allegation of a non-district student attending district schools, and expels any student who is not entitled to attend.

3) NO LONG-TERM PLAN

The district has no strategic financial plan and has not projected long-term revenue and expenditures. When real estate values skyrocketed during the technology boom, spending in the district skyrocketed, like most other districts. The biggest growth in spending was on teacher salaries, which increased by 10.2 percent -- or about $4 million -- in the 2000 to 2001 school year, and another 8 percent the year after. Since then, other government agencies have had to scale back expenditures. The district wants the proposed parcel tax to reinstate programs that cost about $2.5 million a year that they cut last year and to help make sure layoffs won't happen. Meanwhile, the costs of these programs and teachers' salaries continue costing the district money it doesn't have. District leaders have no plan to pay for this continued cost other than a perpetual parcel tax.

REBUTTAL: Contrary to opposition's assertions, the district makes five-year projections of both revenues and expenses. With respect to teachers, research shows that the most important factor in a child's education, other than family, is a high-quality classroom teacher. PAUSD pays teachers in line with surrounding school districts with which it competes for talent. In fact, the average Palo Alto teacher makes less than the average teacher in the Mountain View-Los Altos High School District, the Portola Valley elementary district, the Las Lomitas elementary district and the San Mateo high school district. When adjusted for cost of living, PAUSD teachers earn significantly less than teachers at high-performing districts elsewhere in the nation.

ABOUT THE TWO CAMPS:

Measure A supporters: Campaign for Excellence, a group of Palo Alto parents, teachers, students and former school board members.

Measure A opponents: Palo Altans Against Measure A.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/living/education/11825857.htm

[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ] [ Next ]

Send mail to webmaster@campaignforexcellence.org with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 06/06/05