Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears parcel‑tax polling; leans toward sunset, seeks chamber input on caps before next polling decision
Summary
Consultants presented polling and revenue scenarios for a proposed parcel tax; trustees instructed staff to continue outreach, consult the Chamber on whether a cap would be demanded, and to prepare ballot language with an eight‑year sunset unless further data suggest otherwise.
The Redwood City School Board received a detailed briefing on Nov. 19 about planning for a potential supplemental parcel tax and the polling that will inform whether to place a measure on the ballot.
Jeremy Hower, presenting for the district, said polling earlier in the year showed support for a 17.5‑cent‑per‑square‑foot parcel tax that would generate roughly $14.3 million annually. "When we first asked voters if they'd be willing to support that, we got a 63 and a half% yes vote," Hower said; after explaining likely uses of funds support rose to 73% and, after presenting possible negative arguments, fell back to about 66.4% — just under the two‑thirds (66.67%) threshold required to pass under California law.
Hower walked trustees through outreach materials (fact sheets, FAQs and multilingual mailers), possible ballot language and revenue scenarios showing the effect of caps on individual parcels: a $5,000 cap would reduce projected revenue to about $11.4 million, a $2,500 cap to about $10.4 million, and a $1,000 cap to roughly $9 million. He noted relatively few parcels would hit those caps.
Board members debated whether to run an updated tracking poll before finalizing ballot language. Pollster Brian Godby said changing the ballot question (for example, by adding a cap or a sunset) can materially affect voter responses and recommended testing any structural change. Brian Godby estimated the sequential, shorter tracking research described in the meeting (about a 22‑minute version with 400 interviews and Spanish translation) would cost roughly $38,000.
Trustees voiced different risk tolerances: some said the baseline poll remains acceptable and preferred to keep the measure simple (no cap), while others wanted more data if the ballot language changes. Several trustees and consultants recommended including a limited sunset to address the top negative argument that the tax "will go on forever"; consultants said typical sunsets that test well are in the seven‑to‑nine‑year range and mooted eight years as a feasible default. The board directed staff to consult the Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders to assess whether a cap would be required by potential opponents or partners.
No final decision to place a measure on the June ballot was made. Staff and consultants were asked to continue outreach, prepare materials and return with updated recommendations and, if needed, a polling plan. If the board decides to proceed for the June election, a resolution must be adopted well before the early‑March qualification deadline; trustees discussed using the February meeting cycle for a first reading and a formal vote by Feb. 11, 2026, if the board opts to qualify for the June ballot.
Next procedural steps: staff will gather chamber feedback on caps, refine measure language (including the recommended sunset), and return with either poll results or a recommended measure draft in February.
