High Stakes: School Board Delays Parcel Tax Vote

By Jorge Casuso

Concerned that the dollar figure set for a parcel tax extension could amount to all or nothing, the school board on Thursday delayed a decision that likely will dictate the district's future financial health.

The board briefly debated the merits of raising the current parcel tax from $73 dollars to either $98 or $110 before delaying a vote until next week. The difference between raising the tax $25 or $37 amounts to $330,000 a year.

The parcel tax extension requires two-thirds of the vote in the November election and is a risky all or nothing proposition. If the ballot measure fails to garner the necessary support, the district would lose the existing tax, which generates $2.25 million for the cash-strapped district.

"Normally I'm a risk taker," said school board vice president Tom Pratt, "but I want to go with a sure thing. I can support $98 but not $110."

"We need to reduce our deficit," said board member Brenda Gottfried. "It will cost more because the district and students need more. $110 is the sum that we need."

The $110 amount was recommended by the Ad Hoc Committee to Renew the Parcel Tax. The amount, said committee chair Shari Davis, was arrived at after extensive debate and approved 21 to 2 by the committee members, who had been presented with a safer $98 amount by a subcommittee.

"The full committee had full discussion," Davis said. "The momentum built when people started thinking about the deficit. Many people spoke up. Everyone understood the risks, but they also knew that you (the board) could come down ( to a lower amount).

"No one in the room thought it was an easy decision," Davis said. "No one wants to end with that zero."

The committee arrived at the $110 figure after studying the results of several polls taken by Richard Maullin of the local research firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates. The polls asked respondents if they would support an increase to $85, $98, $110 or $130, Mullin said.

"Probably any number you pick could prevail," Maullin told the board. "You have to think of this in terms of the risk you would run if you lose. The highest risk is $130. At $85 the risk is very low. That number would be relatively easy to pass. It's safe at $98 and less safe at $110. $110 would be difficult."

Maullin said that a majority of the voters polled are unaware that there currently is a parcel tax.

"This will be new news," Maullin said. "Some number won't even know about it until they open the ballot."

Superintendent Neil Schmidt, who originally advocated for $130, said he could go for either $98 or $110.

"I really go both ways," Schmidt said. "If you go $98, you breathe easier. If you lose it, you lose it all."

But a short debate by the board before voting to continue the item May 11 showed there was a definite split.

"I feel very adamantly about the $98," said board member Julia Brownley. "I'm reluctant to go to $110 and take the risk of facing budget cuts. I would like to go for more, but I don't believe this (a parcel tax increase) is the mechanism to do it."

But board member Margaret Quinones said the children of the district deserved $110.

"Even with this funding level, it doesn't really give the level of education our children deserve," Quinones said. "I'm not a risk taker. I don't play quarters in a slot machine because I need my quarters."

But Quinones, who said she cannot attend the May 11 meeting, added that "there needs to be an expression of value of how much we want for our kids.

"I want there to be abundance and then some for our children," Quinones said. "This district deserves it. These families deserve it."