Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

School Bond Vote on the Horizon

Since I had heard the phone survey was making the rounds in town a few months ago, this piece in the Daily Journal about BSD thinking about going out for a vote in the spring election was expected. 

Beyond determining whether to call the election, officials must also decide the breadth of the measure as trustees are faced with three cost options — $120 million, $100 million or $97 million, according to a district report.

Earlier survey results showed 66% of voters would support a bond taxing property owners $25 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while 61% of voters would support a bond taxing $30 per $100,000 of assessed value. Both surveys greater than the 55% threshold required for the tax to pass.

We talked about the impact of development in town three years ago when the last bond was approved and noted the difference between B'game and my hometown in Massachusetts where the school budget is part of the city budget so there is more Couincil consideration given to school capacity among other things school-related.  The realization that we may have an issue here is slowly coming into focus:

Citing anticipated housing development throughout the city brought by loosened development regulations, board President Mark Intrieri has said revenue generated by the potential bond could finance acquisition of land to build a new campus.

Compounding capacity concerns held by officials is district enrollment continuing to tick up organically as officials have noted a trend apart from many other school districts which have seen student population dip over recent years.  A district report illustrated Burlingame schools have taken on almost 200 additional students over the past few years, pushing overall enrollment to 3,511 students.

If floated and approved, the bond would be the district’s second in recent years, as voters in 2016 approved Measure M, a $56 million bond largely designed to update and renovate aging campuses.

I'm guessing the bulk of that $56 million went to Hoover and the Washington addition as I think the McKinley addition was earlier.  The DJ notes that the high school district (SMUSHD) is having the same discussion and considering the same spring election for its bond.  I'm not sure I agree with the thinking expressed by BSD folks that two school bond measures on the same ballot is not a cause for concern (if you want them to pass).

Posted in ,

21 responses to “School Bond Vote on the Horizon”

  1. Barking Dog

    Will senior citizen property owners be exempt from either of these taxes?

  2. Old Guy

    That’s a really good question.

  3. Bruce Dickinson

    It gets tricky when you consider that real estate in good school districts is worth 40%-50% more than in bad school districts. Is it the school quality that drives up real estate value or is it the high real estate value that causes the schools to be better (because can raise parcel taxes)?
    Bruce Dickinson would argue that if people can afford it (of course there should be exemptions based on income, relief for fixed income individuals), as a community, you are much better off voting for the parcel taxes and insuring that you will maximize the value of the real estate. It’s a “cheap option” as it were to maintain those high values during a recession and in the event you pass, give your heirs the maximum obtainable value.
    Also, most senior citizens who are long time homeowners are governed by Prop 13 capped values, so the incremental cost is tiny compared to a newer home worth $4 million dollars which faces a $40k annual property tax bill.
    Bruce Dickinson is pro-school related Parcel Taxes…it’s much better bang for the buck compared to that idiotic sales tax increase, which when you think about it, is a lot more regressive especially on lower income and rental population and for homeowners really offers nothing to enhance your property value.

  4. Joe

    I think you are “on the money” regarding the efficacy of local taxes and especially school taxes to help local homeowners maintain their value. I would have to note that Weiner’s SB50 targets good school systems for more inflicted pain, but that is a risk I think we have to take especially since Bgame will be targeted for multiple reasons within SB50 (Chronicle noted today that our least favorite fascist is bringing it back again this year).
    Having said that, I still wonder how the voters will respond to a $100 million+ price tag? And I am quite sure competing school taxes won’t look good. That aspect was not in the phone survey…….

  5. resident

    $100 million. You said $100 million, right?

  6. Cassandra

    Look at the bond measures you are currently paying for now.
    About $1300 to $2000 a year already!

  7. Lorne

    Just for broader context, for what it’s worth, here is a 3 page excerpt from a recent Burlingame School District bond prospectus. It summarizes BSD’s current debt structure and details prior voter-approved bond issues. The last page of the document also shows their current annual debt service.
    https://www.scribd.com/document/438115377/Burlingame-School-District-debt-structure

  8. Barking Dog

    Yep, exactly Cassandra!!

  9. Cassandra

    Also, this tax is based on “assessed value” of a home and 50% of Burlingame residents are renters… so half the voters get to make the other half pay their school taxes.
    PS- a “bond” is a tax.

  10. billygbob

    You left out the part that most (all?) of the renters will likely pay for their landlord’s increased parcel tax through increased rents.

  11. Old Guy

    It appears that they are looking to almost double the debt accumulated since 1993 all at once. $136M accumulated over the years and hoping to raise $97 to $125M. What is going on?

  12. Concerned

    The new State Rent Control law specifically allows additional rent increases to cover property tax cost increases?
    No, it does not.
    https://www.avail.co/education/articles/new-california-rent-control-laws

  13. Barking Dog

    What formula is the SMUHSD want to use to determine there bond measure?
    If SMUHSD uses the same formula as BSD is considering: 1.5M assessed @ 30/100k = approx $900 per yer.
    But these guys have a ‘fantastic opportunity’ for the city….but want to pay ZERO taxes and the COB has NO seat(s) on the board.
    https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/unique-affordable-housing-deal-perplexes-burlingame/article_fef6c274-1653-11ea-9cd4-77ba2bd6446a

  14. Barking Dog

    Cost above is approx for both bond measures yearly(to start)@1.5m assessed.

  15. Christopher Cooke

    Why are we being asked to pay more parcel taxes? Is the rise in student population due to more students who live in Burlingame or is part of the increase due to students who live outside of Burlingame being permitted to go to school here? I know of several students who don’t live here but who have been permitted to go to our schools. I don’t think we should be paying more in taxes so they can attend school in Burlingame.

  16. resident

    Amen. Come on, BSD, get with it.

  17. Cassandra

    A parcel tax needs 2/3 approval. This bond would need only 55 percent approval to pass…
    Seniors can opt out of the parcel taxes, not the bonds.

  18. Barking Dog

    RWC residents just voted NO on a school bond.
    IMO, property owners are fed up with a new bond every 3-5yrs. It’s never ending in my view.

  19. Joe

    Local watchdog Andrew Peceimer is stepping into the bond measure issue:
    Burlingame resident Peceimer, in a San Mateo County Superior Court filing, asked county Chief Elections Officer Mark Church be prohibited from printing the ballot as now prepared for the March 3 election.
    The language provided Church does not give a date when the tax for the bond ends — and language referring to “legal interest rates” of the bond is too vague to meet state law, according to Peceimer.
    The attorney for the school district advised that the language meets state law, MacIsaac said in her letter this month to Peceimer.
    “Specific market conditions as well as the timing of any bond sales under a successful election can only be estimated at this time,” MacIsaac stated of financial details.
    Working within the 75-word limit for the ballot language of the bond, Burlingame school district officials “have sought to be as transparent as possible,” she said.
    https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/stop-printing-march-ballots-man-asks/article_5b94c0e2-2605-11ea-b0af-171d51fd8e00

  20. Joe

    The ruling is in…and in favor of BSD’s verbiage:
    San Mateo County Superior Court Judge George Miram said the ballot question for the Burlingame Elementary School District bond is not perfect but substantially complies with state election law.
    Miram denied the writ sought by Burlingame resident Andrew Peceimer, who contended the 75-word ballot statement omitted key details — including the interest rate — for the bond.
    “In many ways this is a close case,” Miram said.
    https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/school-bond-ballot-language-lawful-judge-decides/article_93460778-2dd8-11ea-b219-9b1bd724cbf3#utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1578063604&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read%20more
    There was no further details on what made it a “close case” in the judge’s mind.

  21. Cassandra

    All the details except the one stating how much this will cost?

Leave a Reply

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

ABOUT THE VOICE

The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community.  Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California.  Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board.  Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026

Discover more from The Burlingame Voice

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading