League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	San Mateo County, CA May 7, 2013 Election
	Measure N School Parcel Tax La Honda/Pescadero Unified School District 2/3 Approval Required Pass: 429 / 67.5% Yes votes ...... 207 / 32.5% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure N

Arguments Against Measure N

In 2005, our community generously passed a $100 per parcel tax to help support our local schools. The funding has been highly successful, and with the help of several major grants, the District added many programs, books, and classroom technology. The tax also paid for a music program in grades K-12. the results have been impressive. LHPUSD has made greater gains in test scores than any other San Mateo County school district over the past two years. And whereas in the past many of our children entered middle school with very poor knowledge of math, in 2012, 71% of our children in grades 2 to 5 scored proficient or higher in Math. But the parcel tax is expiring this year, and without renewal, progress will be cut short. The California budget crisis has unfortunately resulted in less funding than even that mandated by Prop 98. Prop 30 did not add any money; it just prevented a mid-year budget cut. Although the Governor's recent budget proposal would increase money for schools generally, our District will still see a 8.92% budget reduction next year. In addition, a number of our large grants are ending this year. Over the last few years, the LHPUSD has tightened financial controls and built a sizable ending balance to stabilize programs. But the sad fact is that the district will have less money in the next few years than we had in the last three years. Programs will be reduced as the district sees funding reduced by over $800,000. These programs focus entirely on increasing student achievement. We must continue with these programs but to do so we have to renew the parcel tax to help fund them. There is nothing more important than the education of our children. Vote YES on Measure N. /s/ Amy Wooliever, Superintendent, LHPUSD /s/ Peter Bohacek, School Board Trustee /s/ Sarah Bachman, President of Support LHPUSD /s/ Catherine W. Peery, Pension Consultant Rebuttal to Arguments For https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2013/may_LaHonda/documents/MeasureN_RebuttaltoArgumentInFavor.pdf

The proponents of Measure N think you don't pay enough in taxes. Despite these harsh economic times, they think they can squeeze even more money out of you. They think they can spend the money you earn better than you can. Is that true? This past November, Proposition 30 was approved by the voters to "fund the schools." Proposition 30 taxes have just started being collected yet school officials are already seeking more money from you. Shouldn't we see what funds are restored before seeking additional funding from property owners? In 2005, the district voters passed a "temporary" tax of $100 per parcel for 7 years. In 2005, proponents stated the reason for the 2005 tax was to: "improve student achievement and academic performance, to attract and retain highly qualified teachers, and to improve library services". So how well did they do with the money they took from us? Education Data Partnership (www.Ed-Data.K12.ca.us) reports that: "this district has not met all requirements for 2012 Adequate Yearly Progress as determined by the California Department of Education." They got our money in 2005 to "improve student achievement and academic performance" and they failed. But they imply this time it is going to be different. Do you believe that? The 2012 district wide English/Language Arts proficiency is 44.4%. The 2012 district wide Math proficiency is 54.8%. And the 2012 graduation rate is 72.7% - meaning 27.3% failed to graduate. Does that look like "improved student achievement and academic performance" to you? Don't reward failure with additional financial bonuses. Let them show the improvements first. Then they can ask for more funds. School children deserve better. And we should demand better by voting No on Measure No. For more information: http://www.SVTaxpayers.org/la-honda-pescadero /s/ Harland Harrison, Libertarian Party of San Mateo County /s/ Mark Hinkle, President, Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association Rebuttal to Arguments Against https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2013/may_LaHonda/documents/MeasureN_RebuttaltoArgumentAgainst.pdf

Full Text of Measure N

The purpose of this tax is as follows: to improve access to technology in classrooms to provide enrichment opportunities for students to provide high quality professional development for teachers to increase student achievement A "parcel" shall be defined as any parcel of land in the District that receives a tax bill from the San Mateo County Assessor's Office, except that two contiguous parcels, where at least one of the parcels are held under identical ownership, shall upon approval of an application by the owner of such parcel, be taxed as a single parcel for purposes of this special tax. A parcel owned and occupied by one or more persons 65 years of age or over shall be exempted upon approval of an application for exemption by the owner of the parcel. To ensure accountability, the proceeds of the special tax will be placed into a special account. An independent community committee shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees to review all expenditures funded by this measure to ensure that the money is spent only for purposes approved by the voters. In addition, the District shall report on an annual basis to the community on how these funds have been spent.