With the state not making good on its promises of $2 billion to California schools—a $9 million loss for the district plus an additional $4 million the state has not reimbursed—and with continued declining enrollment, the district is once again looking at closing schools with or without the passage of a parcel tax, said San Jose Unified School District Associate Superintendent Jerry Matranga.

"Regardless of the parcel tax, we'll have to close four to five schools," Matranga said, for the 2005-06 school year. These closures would include a high school and several elementary schools, he said.

Although trustees are split on the timing of when to place a parcel tax on the ballot, the financial issue is nevertheless dire. The district, however, is concerned that there will not be enough time to gather sufficient support to pass a parcel tax on the November ballot. The tax requires 66 percent voter approval for passage. It would cost the district $200,000 to put the measure on this year's ballot and the district has until Aug. 6 to file.

The trustees also discussed the possibility of having a special election in June 2005, but it would cost the district $1 million. Another option would be placing the parcel tax on the March 2006 ballot, which would cost $400,000 to $500,000.

Although the amount of the proposed tax is still unclear, the district said it could range from $65 per parcel to $195 over an eight-year period.

All of these considerations would apply beginning with the school year 2005­06. The upcoming year's 2004­05 budget has already been approved, with cuts being made in administrative positions, benefits and maintenance. The district has also tapped into its reserves.

With the countywide parcel tax effort dead, the time was right to look at a district parcel tax, said San Jose Unified School District Board President Gary Rummelhoff.

"In the past, we've been successful in keeping cuts out of the classroom," he said, but added that after 2005­06 that would no longer be possible.

And the district indicated that cuts would eventually reach the classroom, most likely during the 2006­07 school year, with increased class sizes—going from 20 students per class in kindergarten through second grade to 30—and the loss of sixth period at middle schools. There would also be further cuts in custodial services and maintenance, Matranga said.

After listening to the litany of problems, Willow Glen resident and head of the district's PTA council Joan Cooper said, "They've convinced me."

She added that when the school board decides on Aug. 2 whether it will put the parcel tax on the November ballot, the district's PTA presidents will vote on whether to support it.

However, several parents criticized the proposed ballot language, calling it "bland."

Willow Glen Elementary School PTA President Andrea Wheeler said, "My suggestion is honesty, telling voters that classes will go from 20 to 30 students and that sixth period will be lost. We have to put it out on the line."

Wheeler also said that the school district should ask for the amount it needs to close the deficit so parents don't become frustrated at paying the tax and still seeing cuts, causing more families to leave the district.

"People need to let the board know what they think, but the board has a tough decision," she said.

In a letter read at the district meeting, Willow Glen Middle School PTA President Melinda Gedryn expressed "frustration and exasperation on the part of parents and taxpayers seeing less and less for the money they spend. When the district is serious about real changes, I believe you will have parents ready to roll up their sleeves and help you. Asking for more money without those changes will not get our support."

While parents at the meeting supported the need for school funding, there were some who continued to express distrust in the way the district is handling its problems.

"I would vote for it, but I have a huge distrust of the district because of fiduciary issues," said Ellen Santomauro, a parent at Willow Glen Elementary and Willow Glen Middle schools. "I need to know what's going on."

Willow Glen resident Allen Rice, a member of the Citizens Bond Oversight Committee, also told the school board that it needed to address the trust issue, particularly since the pollsters hired by the district to research the proposed parcel tax also learned that the undecided voters had a credibility issue with the district's oversight committees.

San Jose Unified School District Superintendent-elect Don Iglesias said the district needs to build trust and acknowledged the issues at hand. But he reiterated that in "tight economies, the public is distrustful of all public entities."

San Jose Unified School District trustee Carol Myers, who represents Willow Glen schools, said that going to the voters for a parcel tax "is certainly a worthy battle, but it seems like a real push to do it in November."

Board member Jorge Gonzalez said that with 60 percent voter support and only 6 percent more needed for passage, he thought the district should go for it.

"My gut level tells me I would like to take the chance," he said.

Richard Garcia, who represents Rose Garden schools, agreed that waiting would only delay the solution and that voters needed to know that the situation is urgent.

Yet board member Veronica Grijalva Lewis said the parcel tax that failed in March 2003 was very disappointing and she didn't know if parent support and community trust was better this time around.

Rummelhoff also said the survey had been a reality check and showed the school district that "the level of credibility is difficult." "I don't think [the community] is engaged at this point," he said.

Although voters passed two bond measures in 1997 and 2002 for school modernization, these funds can only be used in capital projects. These monies are being used to renovate school athletic fields, but they cannot be used toward retaining librarians or maintenance employees or in place of the district's reserve funds, Rummelhoff said.

The school district will make its decision about putting the parcel tax on the November ballot at the next board meeting, Aug. 2 at 6:30 p.m. at 855 Lenzen Ave.