School Board Takes Safe Bet on Parcel Tax Extension

By Teresa Rochester

Not willing to risk everything and possibly endanger the fiscal health of the district, the school board Thursday afternoon opted for a more conservative dollar figure for a parcel tax extension.

The board briefly reaffirmed its belief that conservatively raising the amount of the parcel tax was a safer bet with voters in November and voted unanimously 6 to 0 to increase to $98 the annual parcel tax. (Board member Margaret Quinones was absent.)

The tax's 10-year extension requires a two-thirds majority vote in the November election and is a risky all or nothing venture in a city where a majority of residents do not have children in public schools. Last week the board tabled their decision when they were unable to agree on raising the current parcel tax from $73 dollars to either $98 or $110. The difference between the two amounts to $330,000 a year.

On Thursday, the proposal placed before the board called for raising the tax to $110, the amount recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee to Renew the Parcel Tax. Board members called on Superintendent Neil Schmidt to amend the proposal to $98.

"I'm still firm in my position that I stated last week," said the board's vice chair Tom Pratt. "I'm firm on the $98. I'm not willing to risk everything for our kids."

"Because we are getting such a late start on getting consensus, because we are getting a late start on the campaign, because of the poll dates, I definitely wouldn't go higher than the $98," said board member Dorothy Chapman. "The stakes are just too high."

Committee Chair Shari Davis told the board that the committee overwhelmingly agreed to recommend to the board the $110 amount. But Richard Maullin, of the research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, who conducted several polls for the district, suggested $98 dollars. Davis added that if the parcel tax extension passes, the board can always decide to go back to the voters to ask for an increase.

"There is a big enough difference between $98 and $110 to risk the whole thing," Davis said. "Rather than risk the whole thing for $12, there is a safety net to ask for more."

Not everyone believed a conservative number was the best route. Rand researcher Jean Gebeman, who sits on the superintendent's Financial Task Force, called for the highest amount possible, saying that residents would implicitly want a world class learning experience for every student. He suggested slowly raising the parcel tax rate over the course of its ten year span.

"I think it would be a serious mistake to go with a lower amount rather than a higher," said Gebeman. "How can the city council face the public and explain a substantial increase in funding when the district can't explain why they didn't push a very high amount?"

Board members agreed that they want outstanding education for the district's students, but they weren't willing to risk losing the existing parcel tax.

"The risk of having this go on the ballot and losing this… it just doesn't work for me," said board member Julia Brownley. "It's a more prudent decision to go with $98. I have every confidence the community will run a good campaign. There are going to be a lot of initiatives on the ballot and that scares me because there's going to be a lot of confusion."

The board will discuss the language of the parcel tax extension ballot initiative at its meeting on May 18.