FAIRFIELD-SUISUN, CALIFORNIA

Education

School board OKs parcel tax survey

By From page A3 | January 18, 2014

FAIRFIELD — Residents in the Fairfield-Suisun School District will be asked what they think about a parcel tax and what programs such a measure could fund.

The survey by Santa Cruz County-based Bregman & Associates, estimated to cost between $17,500 and $20,000, won approval Thursday by school district trustees and follows a previous decision to pursue a public opinion survey about a possible tax.

“This is a survey to find out what the community wants,” said David Isom, president of the board of trustees.

George Guynn Jr. of the Central Solano Citizens-Taxpayers Group said the school district didn’t have to spend the money for the survey.

“If the public wanted new taxes they would tell you,” he said to trustees. “Taxes should be hard to pass,” he said. Otherwise it’s an open pocketbook for the district to get to whatever it wants, he said. “You’ve got a Taj Mahal here,” he said.

Superintendent Kris Corey said the survey will help show if the community supports a parcel tax. Bergman & Associates guarantees more than 400 responses, according to the school district.

Trustee John Silva said residents of a school district in Southern California approved funding of computer tablets for students.

“People are willing to pay for what they think is important,” Silva said.

Reach Ryan McCarthy at 427-6935 or [email protected]

Ryan McCarthy

LEAVE A COMMENT

Discussion | 8 comments

The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Please read our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy before commenting.

  • George Guynn, JrJanuary 18, 2014 - 12:07 am

    So, the board wants to hear from the community, but may only ask to hear from 400 people? How about asking the whole community? Also, instead of asking for more taxes only, how about asking for a tax cut too? BTW, if 400 people are contacted for $20K, that is $50 an opinion. Couldn't the money be better spent in the classroom? Also, notice that the district isn't talking about their many failures to educate students! Furthermore, if the board really cares about the students, how about selling the Taj Mahal Administration Building and give the administrators a pay cut? The taxpayers are not a chicken to be plucked at will for wasteful projects and ideas!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CuriousJanuary 18, 2014 - 8:12 am

    George, do you have figures of what the district paid for the Taj Mahal versus the current value? Do they own the entire building? If so, do you know what they are receiving in rents from the other tenants? Thanks.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • PaulJanuary 18, 2014 - 11:00 am

    Remember when you need to vote...common sense folks back to serve...throwing money at Education has NOT worked.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • The MisterJanuary 18, 2014 - 7:04 am

    Spare the air, spare the water... spare change, because that's all you're gonna have left!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • George Guynn, JrJanuary 18, 2014 - 1:22 pm

    Curious, according to the October 15, 2004 issue of the Daily Republic, the building cost $14 million. I found a website that claimed the 3.2 acre lot, building and interior cost $11.25 million. My guess is that the final price was close to $14 million. According to the article in the DR, the state was to give the district $3 million for reverting David Weir to a school. Selling Crystal would earn the district $3 million and the district can commit $2.5 million in warehouse rent toward the project. That leaves $5.5 million that the district could make up through property taxes such as Community Facilities Districts, developer fees and redevelopment revenues. Of course there is no property tax charged to the district for the Taj Mahal. So, the real estate owners pay more! As far as I know, there are no tenants for the Taj Mahal. The sale price would depend on finding a buyer and the state not grabbing a lot of the money. The Mister, I love your comments. So true that spare change is all that will be left when the tax and spenders get their way!!!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CuriousJanuary 19, 2014 - 12:23 pm

    Thanks George. I believe the State Board of Equalization rents a large portion of the building and possible a title company also. It's a tough call, but I think I would rather see them own an appreciating asset and recover some of the cost back in rents, than just pay rent. I've been in the district office several times and I don't know that Taj Mahal is a fair analogy. It's average Class A office space with a large warehouse.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • CuriousJanuary 19, 2014 - 12:33 pm

    George, my bad on the tenants. It's actually the building next door that housed FTB.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Penny SaverJanuary 18, 2014 - 1:47 pm

    This is wrong on so many levels! Of course the "survey" will find that the public is ecstatic about throwing more money down the hole. The very idea of needing a "survey" is ludicrous. Who is the Santa Cruz company and what ties does the company have with anyone on the board? Does anyone believe the "survey" will disapprove new taxes? The idea that some unnamed school district somewhere down South approved funding for tables is a non-sequitar. Who cares what someone else did? Did that unnamed school district raise taxes to pay for that boondoggle? This whole process is just plain silly and must be stopped in its tracks, now!

    Reply | Report abusive comment

Special Publications »

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
Copyright (c) 2015 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life and other community-driven publications.