Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates draft parcel tax: 17.5¢/sq ft, $12M estimate, 8‑year sunset proposed
Summary
Consultants briefed the Redwood City School Board on a draft parcel tax based on building square footage that would raise roughly $12 million annually, split half for districtwide priorities and half for school sites; the proposal includes a cap on large parcels and an eight‑year sunset, and returns for final action Feb. 25.
A draft parcel tax to raise approximately $12 million a year drew detailed discussion at the Redwood City School Board meeting as consultants reviewed structure, revenue distribution and legal constraints.
Consultant Jeremy Hauser of TeamCivics told the board the measure would be assessed by building square footage and recommended a 17.5 cents per square‑foot rate, with a variable cap intended to limit the liability for the largest parcels. “We are recommending the 17 and a half cents per building square foot rate that is consistent with what we've presented to you previously, and what was tested in the polling,” Hauser said, and added the cap would be set by the 80th percentile of parcel square footage to limit outsized bills for large properties.
The consultant said the draft assumes roughly $12 million in annual revenue, split evenly so half of the proceeds fund districtwide initiatives (for example, attracting and retaining teachers) and half flow to an equity‑weighted site pool. CBO Rick Edson summarized the distribution framework that would allocate site funds by base, enrollment and a student‑need component (the latter roughly 45% of site allocations) to favor schools serving higher proportions of unduplicated pupils.
Board members and staff discussed legal and communications details. District counsel William Tunick (DWK) cautioned about the ballot summary length and legal defensibility: “By law, you're only limited to 75 words,” Tunick said, noting the full text (exhibit B) is what voters would adopt and explaining that exemptions and accountability (annual audit and oversight committee) are included in the resolution.
Trustees pressed the consultants on where the 17.5¢ figure came from and whether alternate rates were tested. Hauser said polling had tested a range and that community feedback—particularly from business stakeholders—made a capped structure preferable, trimming estimated revenue from an uncapped $15M to roughly $12M with the cap. Trustees also asked for clearer lay explanations for citizens about how the cap is calculated and requested illustrative, nonbinding examples of how site and district funds might be used.
Public speakers representing schools and parent groups urged the board to place a parcel tax on the ballot, emphasizing the need to stabilize positions such as MTSS TOSAs, reading interventionists and counselors. Carl Landers urged the board to be explicit about how the district portion of funds would be spent, and a principal said the tax would help retain counselors and guest‑teacher coverage.
Next steps and timeline are procedural: consultants said the deadline to qualify a measure for the June 2 ballot is early March, and the board plans to return Feb. 25 with a final recommendation and possible edits to the resolution.
The board did not take a final vote on placing the measure on the ballot at this meeting; staff said the board could edit resolution language before a decisive vote on Feb. 25.
