|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Redwood City School District is again eyeing a parcel-tax ballot initiative amid ongoing budget constraints, particularly due to expiring one-time COVID-19 relief funding.
That financial lifeline “really showed us what could be done for student services when you’re more fully funded,” district board President Mike Wells said during a regular meeting with his colleagues Wednesday, March 12. Now that those funds are ending, “we do have to find other ways to be able to bring that revenue back.”
In that regard, the district board agreed to have staff look into the possibility of surveying the community once more to gauge the level of support for an initiative, perhaps for next year. The staff could report back after spring break, and the board would then consider whether or not to proceed with the polling.
If the polling shows enough community backing this time around, the district could put a proposal on the June 2, 2026, ballot.
“I would really want to get the poll,” district Superintendent John Baker said during the meeting, “and if it’s favorable, I would want to go June 2nd.”
The result of a district survey last year, however, was not favorable enough of a parcel-tax proposal targeted for the November 2024 ballot. It showed a 60.5% community support for a parcel tax – short of the supermajority threshold for passage. Following that outcome, the district held off going to voters.
Meanwhile, a grassroots parents group is exploring a community-initiated parcel tax as a new avenue to help the district bridge funding gaps.
Budget challenges “have left the district in need of alternative funding sources,” the Strong Schools for Redwood City group said on its website. “A citizen’s initiative to introduce a parcel tax was proposed as a viable solution, requiring only a simple majority to pass unlike a district-led initiative that needs a two-thirds majority.”
While the citizen-initiative route looks easier to pass a parcel tax, district consultant Jeremy Hauser pointed out its legal limitations.
The district “cannot use public resources to fund polling,” Hauser said, addressing the board Wednesday. “You cannot use public resources to retain legal counsel and actually write the initiative itself. You cannot be involved in the planning, and you cannot communicate about the funding need that a parcel tax through this initiative process would aim to address.”
But through the more-traditional way, he said, “you as a district can and should be involved in all of those steps in the process.”
Hauser also noted that the taxing agency differs between the two methods.
“So if citizens were to qualify for a measure for the ballot, they would have to do it through the city of Redwood City and not through your district,” he said. “Now that presents an interesting challenge because as I’m sure you’re all aware your boundaries do not align with your city’s boundaries.”
The district-sponsored process presents a more straightforward taxing path, he said. The district would be “the agency placing the measure on the ballot. You are the taxing agency. You would collect the tax, and it would be applied uniformly to all of your taxpayers within your district boundaries.”
The district could go for a parcel tax based on a flat rate or a charge per square footage of a property and use the revenue generated for staff salaries, academic programs or any other purpose benefiting classroom instruction, Hauser said.
Jessica Shade, a member of the parents group, acknowledged that the district route would present a more straightforward path. “But if the district does a poll and it still doesn’t show a decent margin over that two-thirds support that it needs, then we’re still going to proceed with the citizen’s initiative,” she said.
“We just really are hoping to get some additional funding for our public schools,” said Adina Olsen, who is also involved with the parents group. “Whether it’s a parcel tax that comes from the citizen’s initiative, I am here to help make that happen as best as I can, (or) if there is a path through the district, that would be great.”
According to a report by the superintendent in December, the district needs to make $6.6 million in cost-savings measures with the expiration next year of state and federal grants that have supported public schools because of the effects of the pandemic.
Those measures include a reduction of administrators for a savings of $1.5 million; decreasing hours and eliminating contracted services in special education for another $1.5 million; and cutting back on mental-health counseling, reading-intervention teaching and other positions at the schools for $1.3 million, according to Baker’s report.
The district Budget Renewal Initiative Committee helped develop the measures aimed for the 2025-26 school year. The committee was launched in October and comprises district leaders and community members.
The possibility of merging or closing schools also surfaced during the committee’s discussions as a strategy to address underutilized campuses and improve the efficiency of resources, Baker said in his December report.
That approach does “warrant further exploration,” he said, but staff “explained to committee members the complexities of such decisions, emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive community-engagement plan and a much longer timeline before moving forward with any proposals.”
The district last placed a proposal on the ballot in 2022 with the bond Measure S. Voters approved the bond to raise $298 million for repairs and upgrades to classrooms, labs, infrastructure and improvements to school safety.
