Fremont Union High School District Parcel Tax Measure
09/13/2009 1:22:00 PM
The Fremont Union High School District Board of Trustees have called for a parcel tax measure to replace the expiring $51 parcel tax measure but adding a significant revision which is to adjust the tax annually for inflation.
This tax is to cover a shortfall in covering operational expenses partly caused by falling property values but also by a marked increase in enrollment relative to the home market. The FUHSD spends 9K per student per year compared to almost 13K in Palo Alto or even Mountain View. In addition, the student to household ratio is 1 student per 2 homes in Cupertino compared to much smaller ratios in comparable (rankingwise) districts. FUHSD’s funding per student is BELOW state average ! How much of the trend is caused by the changing housing mix and demographics in the district ? Recent high density housing can’t be helping with the congestion problem.
On July 30th our Board of Trustees adopted Resolution #910-03 to renew our current parcel tax of $98. This measure will appear on the November 3rd ballot.
“To provide stable, local funds needed to protect teaching positions, and assure that Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, and Monta Vista High School students are prepared to successfully compete for college admission, shall the Fremont Union High School District replace its existing, expiring parcel tax with a tax at the same annual rate of $98 per parcel to be adjusted annually for inflation, with all funds benefitting local high schools, and offering an exemption to seniors and the disabled?”
Please vote no on Santa Clara County’s Fremont High School District: $98 parcel tax (Measure G).
I recently drove by Homestead High School. Guess what they have recently built? Carports over a substantial portion of the parking spots.
Now if I were a teacher I would find this incredibly appealing.
But, as a taxpayer, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a shameful waste of taxpayer funds. And perhaps other than a full fledged parking deck, I cannot imagine a more thoughtless way to drive home the point that these people are irresponsible with taxpayer (yours and my) money.
Rather than buying books for students, my money went towards a carport to keep someone’s car dry. PATHETIC!
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article/comments/view?f=/c/a/2009/10/26/MN5H1A9HD8.DTL&o=1#ixzz0V43EvuEQ
JoeBob - October 26, 2009 10:37 am
Hi,
That is a common misunderstanding.
The fact is Measure B funds cannot be used to pay for day to day operations.
http://cupertinohousingblog.com/?p=3580
admin - October 30, 2009 5:45 pm
Common misunderstanding? Like the health care bill abortion provisions (not paid for with federal money)? When you give someone money, and they use that money to pay for something, and then use other money, previously earmarked for that (now funded) expense, to pay for something else, like carports, abortion services, or administrator salaries, guess what? That new money paid for those new things, not the old ones, period! A disingenuous claim that “those specific dollars” weren’t used is nothing but the pure nonsense it appears to be.
BillyBob - April 28, 2010 12:33 am