San Mateo-Foster City School District bond proposition, Measure P (November 2013)

Bond elections
2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 2010 • 2009 • 2008 All years and states
Property tax elections
2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 2010 • 2009 • 2008 All years and states
See also
State comparisons How voting works Approval rates

A San Mateo-Foster City School District bond proposition, Measure P ballot question was on the November 5, 2013, election ballot for voters in the San Mateo-Foster School District in San Mateo County, which is in California. It was defeated.

The estimated highest average tax rate required to pay of this bond debt was $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.

A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for approval.

Election results

Measure P
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		9,195	53.5%
Yes		8,002	46.5%

These final, certified results are from the San Mateo County elections office.

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure P: “To improve local schools and protect high quality math, science, reading and writing instruction with funding that cannot be taken by the State, shall San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District upgrade classrooms, science labs, and libraries, relieve school overcrowding, update classroom technology for higher 21st- century academic standards, and repair, construct, or acquire equipment, classrooms, sites and facilities by issuing $130,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, with citizen oversight, no money for administrators, and all funds staying local?”

Tax Rate Statement

Dr. Cynthia Simms, the Superintendent of the San Mateo-Foster City School District, provided a tax rate statement for Measure P:

“

An election will be held in the San Mateo-Foster City School District (the "District") on November 5, 2013, to authorize the sale of up to $130,000,000 in bonds of the District to finance projects as described in the measure. If such bonds are authorized and sold, principal and interest on the bonds will be payable only from the proceeds of tax levies made upon the taxable property in the District. The following information is provided in compliance with Sections 9400-9404 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Such information is based upon the best estimates and projections presently available from official sources, upon experience within the District, and other demonstrable factors. Based upon the foregoing and projections of the District's assessed valuation, the following information is provided: 1. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the first series of bonds, based on a projection of assessed valuations, is $19.00 per $100,000 of assessed value for fiscal year 2014-15. 2. The best estimate of the tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue during the first fiscal year after the sale of the last series of bonds, based on a projection of assessed valuations, is $19.00 per $100,000 of assessed value for fiscal year 2021-22. 3. The best estimate of the highest tax rate which would be required to be levied to fund this bond issue, based on a projection of assessed valuations, is $19.00 per $100,000 of assessed value for fiscal year 2014-15 and the subsequent fiscal years thereafter. Voters should note the estimated tax rate is based on the ASSESSED v VALUE of taxable property on the County's official tax rolls, not on the property's market value. In addition, taxpayers eligible for a property tax exemption, such as the homeowner's exemption, will be taxed at a lower effective tax rate than described above. Property owners should consult their own property tax bills and tax advisors to determine their property's assessed value and any applicable tax exemptions. The attention of all voters is directed to the fact that the foregoing information is based upon projections and estimates only, which are not binding upon the District. The actual tax rates and the years in which they will apply may vary from those presently estimated, due to variations from these estimates in the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold and market interest rates at the time of each sale, and actual assessed valuations over the term of repayment of the bonds. The date of sale and the amount of bonds sold at any given time will be determined by the District based on the need for construction funds and other factors. The actual interest rates at which the bonds will be sold will depend on the bond market at the time of sale. Actual future assessed valuations will depend upon the amount and value of taxable property within the District as determined by the County Assessor in the annual assessment and the equalization process.

”

Support

The group Support Measure P led the campaign in support of Measure P.

Supporters

Officials

• State Senator Gerald Hill (D-13)
• State Senator Leland Yee (D-8)
• State Assemblyman Kevin Mullin (D-1)
• Foster City Mayor Pam Frisella
• Foster City Vice Mayor Charlie Bronitsky
• Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County
• Supervisor Dave Pine, San Mateo County

Organizations

• San Mateo County Democratic Party
• San Mateo-Foster City Parent Teacher Association Council
• San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee
• San Mateo County Central Labor Council

Individuals

• Noemi Avram, Foster City Rotary and San Mateo Downtown Business Association
• Anne Campbell, San Mateo County Superintendent of Education
• Julie Chan, Board of Trustees San Mateo-Foster City School District
• Marcia Cohn-Lyle, Former Board of Trustees San Mateo Union High School District
• Craig Courtin, Chief of Police of Foster City (Retired)
• Marc Friedman, Board of Trustees San Mateo Union High School District
• Robert Griffin, Board of Trustees San Mateo Union High School District
• Shikha Bakshi Hamilton, Attorney and Children's Advocate
• Peter Hanley, Board of Trustees San Mateo Union High School District
• Rod Hsiao, Board of Trustees San Mateo County Board of Education
• Mark Hudak, Former Board of Trustees San Mateo-Foster City School District
• Lory Lorimer Lawson, Board of Trustees San Mateo-Foster City School District
• Melodie L. Lew, Senior Advocate
• Audrey Ng, Board of Trustees San Mateo-Foster City School District
• Gary Pollard, SMFCSD Superintendent's Committee on Overcrowding Relief
• Daniela Relaford, San Mateo Chair, Yes on Measure P Committee
• Julie Scanlon, San Mateo-Foster City School District Bond Oversight Committee
• Gordon Strause, President of the San Mateo-Foster City Educational Foundation
• Brenda Sell, San Mateo Education Advocate
• James E. Sell, San Mateo Education Advocate
• Doug Stoveland, Foster City Chair Yes on Measure P Committee
• Colleen Sullivan, Board of Trustees San Mateo-Foster City School District
• Mark Watson, Attorney
• Gerry Weiss, President and Secretary of the Kiwanis Club of San Mateo
• Debra Williams, Treasurer of the Foster City Rotary
• Wing Yu, San Mateo County Measure A Oversight Committee

Arguments

Proponents of Measure P had outlined their arguments in the League of Women Voters’ Voter Guide. The arguments included the following:

• Measure P will protect academic excellence in mathematics, sciences, reading and writing in local schools.
• The area’s highly ranked schools are attracting new families to the community causing overcrowding in schools. Measure P will relieve school overcrowding, a symptom that could prove detrimental to the area’s academic standing.
• Measure P ensures fiscal accountability through citizen oversight and annual audits. Furthermore, no funds can be used for salaries, pensions or other benefits.
• Attempting a rebuttal to opponents, proponents noted that some current opponents previously supported similar measures to benefit schools in their locales.

Opposition

Vote No on Measure P was leading the campaign against Measure P.

Opponents

Individuals

• Heidi Bowman, Measure L Treasurer
• Anna Kuhre, Public Works Commissioner and President Emeritus San Mateo United Homeowners Association
• Ellen Mallory Ulrich, Board of Trustees San Mateo Foster City School District
• Jim Remington, President Emeritus San Mateo Elementary Teachers’ Association (SMETA)
• Ben Toy, President San Mateo United Home Associations (SMUHA)

Arguments

Opponents of Measure P had outlined their arguments in the League of Women Voters’ Voter Guide. These arguments included the following:

• Measure P does not divide school bonds equitably throughout the school district. Taxpayer monies should benefit the entire school district, not just select schools.
• Considering the need for new facilities and site expansions, Measure P’s focus on technology development is fiscally irresponsible.
• Attempting a rebuttal against proponents, opponents wrote, “Read Measure P. Do you know where your tax dollars are really going? Does the language tell you where the money is going to be spent? It doesn't. It gives vague and general ideas of the wonderful things a bond could provide. Measure P will not provide all the things listed in their argument.”

Media endorsements

Support

• The San Mateo Daily Journal: "Overall, Measure P will have a community benefit for both San Mateo and Foster City at a cost of $19 a year per $100,000 assessed value of a property. It deserves your support."

See also

• November 5, 2013 ballot measures in California
• San Mateo County, California ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

• San Mateo County department of elections website
• Smartvoter.org, California, San Mateo County