Frequently Asked Questions

Board Approves Ballot Tax Measure

Alameda Sun, Februaru 24, 2005, Suzanne La Barre

The Alameda Board of Education approved a parcel tax ballot measure Tuesday that will earmark an additional $1.2 million for the financially strapped Alameda Unified School District (AUSD), if passed by voters in a special June election.

The proposal calls on voters to renew Measure A, a $109 parcel tax scheduled to expire in 2006. If approved, the tax will persist for an additional seven years at $189 per property. Seniors will be exempt. The decision follows the district’s ongoing struggle to secure alternative forms of revenue in light of statewide funding shortages.

“We’re staring down the barrel of a major deficit and the state is not going to save us,” said board member David Forbes.

Measure A was enacted in 2001 to channel local money into Alameda schools to support student service providers such as librarians; prevent the elimination of teaching positions and specialists; maintain classes and programs in music, arts and physical education; preserve smaller class sizes; and uphold existing educational programs at their current qualitative levels. Measure A stipulates that none of the funding goes to administrators.

If approved in the June election, which will cost the district an additional $95,000 to $100,000, the new tax rate will be enacted in time to allay the district’s fiscal problems for 2005-2006.

Earlier in the year, AUSD staff projected that the district would be forced to chop $ 2.4 million to balance its budget. In response to public outcry, however, cuts were scaled back to $1.6 million, leaving an $800,000 discrepancy. The renewed parcel tax, if approved, will recoup this money.

“This is the way schools right now are funding operational deficits,” said David Basmajian, project director for Tramatola, a private consulting firm hired by AUSD to help promote the parcel tax. The tax is levied per property, regardless of size or number of units.

Not everyone is pleased. Some speakers at Tuesday’s meeting said fixed taxes disproportionately burden low-income individuals.

“I think these parcel taxes are totally undemocratic and unfair and regressive,” said resident Jay Levine. “I am not opposed to taxes as far as schools (are concerned) but am very opposed to taxes that are regressive.”

Other school districts, such as Berkeley, have introduced non-regressive parcel taxes, gauged according a property’s square footage. Not only are these levies fairer, said one speaker, they also earn more money.

“We have to be careful who we compare ourselves to,” AUSD Chief Financial Officer Lorenzo Legaspi warned. Superintendent Alan Nishino concurred, adding that Berkeley is renowned for imposing taxes liberally. What passes in a Berkeley election may not fly in Alameda, he said.

Time restraints were also a factor in selecting the flat-rate parcel tax. The district must submit the proposal by March 11 to be eligible for a special election in June. A per-square footage tax would require more research and time that the district does not have, said Legaspi.

Board member Tracy Jensen was unconvinced and abstained from the vote, citing “not enough information.” Board member Janet Gibson voted yes, along with the other three members, but “with reservation,” she said.

Measure A was adopted in 2001 with 71 percent approval. The measure needs a two-thirds majority to pass. If approved, the tax will take effect July 1.

Tramatola for State Senator or Assemblymember?

Alameda Daily News Website, February 25, 2004

We in Alameda are lucky to be represented at the state level by 2 of the most powerful state officials, Senator Don Perata, and Assemblymember Wilma Chan. If there were only one thing I would like to see them accomplish in their tenure, it would be to equalize the funding for school students in Alameda with that paid by the State for other children within both our county and the rest of the State.

Payments to school districts are determined in large part by a formula set in 1972. In 1972, Alameda received substantial payments from the federal government due to the number of Navy personnel and employees. So Alameda students get much less ($6129) under the formula than a student in Pleasanton ($6913) [These are 2002 figures - multiply that by about 10,000 students for an extra few mil$].

How long have we known the Naval Air Station would close? Fifteen years! How long have Wilma and Don been representing us in Sacramento? They are both termed out in their present positions. What can we do to compensate for our loss of federal funds after 15 years?

AUSD is going to place yet another parcel tax on the ballot at a June 2005, Special Election. This new tax to be $189.00 to compensate AUSD for the ineffective representation we have been receiving in Sacramento. The old tax was only supposed to last for 5 years, as long as it should have taken to equalize funding, if that was our elected officials intent.

Guess who is going to get paid tens of thousands of dollars to run and win this $100,000 special election? Tramatola and his associates. Guess who is running the "Let's Get Wilma Another Job, Until She Can Run For Don's Job Campaign"? Tramatola and his associates.

We need Tramatola and his associates representing us in Sacramento. Not Wilma or Don!

Barbara Thomas

District pushes for early tax vote

Alameda Journal, Peter Hegarty, Feb. 25, 2005

Asking voters to consider renewing a parcel tax for Alameda schools as early as June is necessary so that parents and others can rally behind the election campaign before summer vacation, according to district officials.

Putting the annual tax before voters during a special election -- rather than waiting until next March or November -- is expected to cost the cash-strapped school district up to $100,000.

But if voters end up backing the tax, about $1.2 million will be pumped into the city's public schools -- money that district leaders said they need to prevent cuts in music, art and other classroom programs.

Money from the annual tax, which would be set at $189, cannot go toward administrators and would stay within the district. Seniors can apply for an exemption.

The school board voted Tuesday night to put the tax before Alameda voters.

Trustee Tracy Jensen abstained, however, saying she wanted more information after speakers questioned the fairness of a flat tax on every property parcel, and whether the district should explore a tax based on square footage, instead.

But Lorenzo Legaspi, the district's chief financial officer, said checking into a different type of tax would take time and that the district was facing a March 11 deadline for a June election.

Along with helping rally parents and others behind the tax before school lets out for the summer, a June election gives district leaders more time to know what steps are needed for a balanced budget, according to Trustee Mike McMahon.

The tax is currently set at $109 and voters first approved it as five-year tax in November 2001.

The proposal that will now go before voters will extend the tax for seven years and raise it to $189 annually.

As with other the Bay Area districts, Alameda schools have money woes: Trustees recently approved a plan to trim $1.6 million from the district's budget as part of making up a $2.4 million deficit.

And because the district has been dipping into its budget reserve to balance the books -- money that state law requires be put back --shortfalls will likely be part of future budget cycles.

Bay Area schools ask for parcel taxes

Districts need funding for core programs

Carrie Sturrock, San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 2005

For many Bay Area school districts, persuading voters to pass parcel taxes in Tuesday's election isn't about selling new and innovative programs in these lean economic times -- it's about pleading to keep what they have.

From Walnut Creek to Milpitas, superintendents and school boards in 17 districts are trying to maintain everything from music programs to school nurses to lower class sizes as they calculate budgets for next fall. Declining enrollment and unrealized monetary pledges from Sacramento have squeezed many districts in recent years.

"We've been a high-performing district ... we have high expectations for our students," said Superintendent Jim Negri of the Acalanes Union School District in Contra Costa County, which is asking voters to approve Measure A. "We see this as a local-control issue. We can't write students off while Sacramento is figuring out how to fund public schools."

Bay Area communities tend to pass parcel taxes as a result of the region's relative wealth and a strong sense of community within many districts. In the November election, Bay Area voters approved nine of the 16 school parcel taxes.

In the Walnut Creek School District, Measure B would double the existing annual parcel tax to $82, generating roughly $1.2 million annually for six years for the district's five elementary schools and one middle school. It would help make up for a loss of about that amount over the last two years as a result of state budget cuts. Like most parcel tax measures, seniors who own homes may apply for an exemption.

The district has a student-teacher ratio of 20-to-1 in kindergarten through third grade and a ratio of roughly 28-to-1 in fourth through eighth grades. If the parcel tax fails, class sizes in the upper grades may increase, which could cause problems for teachers in a district where 20 percent of the students speak a language other than English, said Superintendent Mike De Sa. Thirty-one languages other than English are represented among the district's students. One teacher may have seven special education students, seven students in the gifted and talented program and seven kids who speak little English in the class, he said.

"Class size is really important to us," said Emily Schardt, who is co- chairing Walnut Creek's campaign as well as the campaign for the Acalanes Union School District, which operates four high schools, because 40 percent of the Acalanes district's voters live in Walnut Creek. "The parcel taxes will help us retain the best teachers possible."

Measure A would increase the existing $85 parcel tax to $189 until the tax sunsets in six years. The money would help pay for more seventh-period classes at the Acalanes high schools, which tend to be advanced placement and honors classes. Only about one-third of current students who request a seventh period actually get it, said Negri. If the parcel tax fails, the district may have to offer fewer seventh-period classes.

"We're not being able to offer the programs that our students need to get into competitive universities," Negri said.

No group filed formal opposition against either measure. All parcel taxes require a two-thirds majority for approval, something that State Superintendent Jack O'Connell has repeatedly called for lowering to 55 percent -- most recently last month.

In Marin County, Novato Unified School District Superintendent Jan Latorre-Derby knows what it's like to narrowly miss the two-thirds threshold. In November, the district tried for a $188-a-year, eight-year parcel tax, which fell less than 1 percentage point shy of passage.

The district has scaled back its Measure A proposal on Tuesday's ballot to $155 for six years, which would bring the district $3.1 million annually. If the measure fails, the district's libraries will close, and visual and performing arts as well as technology programs will take a hit.

Like many Bay Area districts, Novato has declining enrollment, which drains it of per-pupil state funding and has forced the district to consider closing two elementary schools and one middle school to consolidate its resources whether or not the parcel tax passes.

In a filed argument against the measure, opponents criticized the district for holding an off-year election when voters already decided the issue last fall, adding that "a small activist minority will once again be in a position to impose its will on the rest of us."

Also in Marin County, the Larkspur School District and the Ross Valley School Districts are going out for parcel taxes - Measures B and E respectively -- while the Ross School District is trying for a bond with Measure C.

Milpitas Unified School District officials hope to pass a new $140 parcel tax, which would raise $2.2 million annually for five years. If it fails, the Santa Clara County district will face a $1.9 million deficit next year, which could cause an increase in class sizes and elimination of staff positions. The district also wants to be able to keep replacing computers so they don't become outdated.

In San Mateo County, the Brisbane School District is asking voters to increase the existing $72 parcel tax to $96 with Measure U, which would allow the district keep art and music teachers and its reading program and prevent larger class sizes.

Of the 40 school districts in Sonoma County, 10 are trying for parcel taxes that range from $26 to $97 a year.

"It is not surprising to me that we have 10 ballot measures on parcel taxes," said Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools Carl Wong. "Local districts have precious little way to generate funds."

Of the state's 1,000 school districts, fewer than 80 have won voter approval for such taxes, according to a review of records covering more than two decades of school elections.

Still, those hoping for election success Tuesday appear to be in the right place. Of the 80 districts statewide with parcel taxes, more than three-fourths are located in the Bay Area. At least two dozen have succeeded in Sonoma and Marin counties.

The communities that pass such taxes typically combine above-average levels of household income, parent education and student achievement. However, such qualities alone aren't a guarantee of success, as demonstrated by repeated failures to pass such tax measures in such affluent areas as Beverly Hills and Saratoga.

The number of parcel tax measures has jumped considerably in recent years - a time when many educators have complained of tight budgets and the forced cutback of programs.

Forty-three districts put forth tax measures last year, with 23 winning. Another 34 were sought in 2003, with 17 succeeding.

In comparison, the numbers averaged 13 measures a year from 1998 to 2002.

"I think this trend is likely to continue and to grow exponentially if there is not a systemic solution to state funding of public schools," said Sonoma County schools chief Carl Wong.

Wong voiced support for the county's 10 school tax measures. But he also expressed concern that many school districts in less affluent areas are unable to pass such taxes and California will end up with "inherently a system of inequity in public education."

ELECTION 2005 - BAY AREA

11 of the region's 17 school tax measures going down to defeat

Results buck trend of elections held just 4 months ago

By Carrie Sturrock, San Francisco Chronicle, March 9, 2005

Bay Area voters were rejecting parcel taxes throughout the region Tuesday that school districts hoped would help preserve music and other programs and maintain small class sizes in the face of declining enrollment and state budget cuts.

Eleven of the 17 parcel taxes on ballots in five counties failed or were failing in late returns. The results bucked the region's trend of passing school parcel taxes, just four months after Bay Area voters approved nine of 16 such taxes. The measures needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

"Probably these elections more than anything reflect the struggle of public education these days," said Ken Hall of School Services of California, a private firm that oversees the finances of the state's public school districts. "You often see a high success rate in those communities that have a higher educational commitment."

In Santa Clara County, Milpitas Unified School District voters rejected a new $140 parcel tax, which would have raised $2.2 million annually for five years. The district faces a $1.9 million deficit next year and needs the tax to avoid eliminating jobs and increasing class sizes.

Voters in San Mateo County's Brisbane School District approved Measure U, which will increase an existing $72 parcel tax to $96 to keep art and music teachers, small classes and the district's reading program.

In Sonoma County, voters in 10 of the county's 40 school districts were deciding the fate of parcel taxes ranging from $26 to $97 a year. All of the measures failed or were failing in late returns, though all garnered more than 50 percent of the vote.

In Contra Costa County, voters in the Walnut Creek School District approved Measure B, which will double the existing annual parcel tax to $82 and generate about $1.2 million annually for six years for the district's five elementary schools and one middle school.

The parcel tax would help maintain a student-teacher ratio of roughly 28 to 1 in fourth through eighth grades. Lower class sizes are considered crucial in retaining teachers in the district, where 20 percent of the students speak 31 languages other than English, Superintendent Mike De Sa said.

Voters in the Acalanes Union School District, which operates four high schools, approved Measure A, which will increase the existing $85 parcel tax to $189 until the tax sunsets in six years.

The money will help pay for more seventh-period classes at the high schools, which tend to be advanced-placement and honors classes important for college admissions. Now only about one-third of students who request the extra period get in.

"The community truly understands what a quality education is about," said Jim Negri, superintendent of the Acalanes district. "We saw this as a local control issue. We don't believe Sacramento or Washington will solve the funding problem for education in the short term."

In Marin County, voters in the Novato Unified School District approved a parcel tax aimed at keeping libraries open and preserving performing arts and technology programs. Measure A will cost voters $155 per parcel for six years, generating $3.1 million annually.

Novato voters in November rejected a $188-a-year parcel tax by less than a single percentage point. Opponents who filed an argument against the measure criticized the district for holding an off-year election after voters decided the issue last fall.

Also in Marin County, voters approved Measure B in the Larkspur School District, and Measure E passed in the Ross Valley School District.

Parcel taxes prop up schools

Bay Area districts turn to voters for extra funding more than any other region in the state

By Shirley Dang and Katherine Tam, Contra Costa Times, June 24, 2007

Despite the crippling cost of living, Terry London loves Piedmont for its quaint streets and the high-achieving schools his two children attend. And he pays the price. He and other residents here pay an average of $1,800 a year in school parcel taxes.

Forking over nearly two grand every year on top of other taxes isn't easy, but London said yes when the Piedmont school district came to voters two years ago begging for more money.

"It's a stretch for many families," London said, "but the town really valued education, and we're proud of our schools."

Local voters apparently share London's sentiments. The Bay Area boasts the highest concentration of school parcel taxes in the state.

From El Cerrito to Orinda, Livermore to Los Altos, schools here turn to the ballot box more than any other region in California to boost their bottom lines.

Piedmont homeowners bear the highest school parcel tax burden in the state. In the South Bay, Palo Alto residents pay $493 a year per lot. Moraga property owners pay two taxes, $325 annually to benefit local elementary and middle schools and $189 a year to the Acalanes high school district, a total of $514 a year.

Contra Costa County voters can expect to see more school tax measures crowding the ballot soon.

The Lafayette school board voted this week to place a $313 parcel tax -- more than double what residents pay now -- on the November ballot. West Contra Costa school district voters will face a similar measure in August. The Mt. Diablo school district may seek a parcel tax this year even though a consultant advised against it.

"It's become the parcel tax capital of the state," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California's largest anti-tax lobbying group.

"In some cases two or three of these are being layered on. This starts to become a significant burden."

'An anomaly'

Unlike a school construction bond issue that can be used only to build or spruce up facilities, a parcel tax can pay for anything from books to teacher salaries. Some districts exact the same fee from all property owners. Others, like the Berkeley and West Contra Costa school districts, base the tax on square footage.

About 20 percent of California's 1,000 school districts have tried to pass a parcel tax, according to EdSource, a nonprofit educational research group based in Mountain View.

The Bay Area by far eats the biggest slice of the pie.

About 40 percent of school districts in Alameda and Contra Costa counties have placed a parcel tax before voters. Nearly 60 percent of school districts in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties have tried their luck at the polls. In comparison, 12 percent of Los Angeles County's 84 school districts have attempted to hold such an election.

"It is an anomaly," Vosburgh said. "Many parts of the state have no parcel taxes."

Parcel taxes emerged as a way to fund schools after the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The law severely limited the way local agencies could raise money through taxation and capped real estate taxes at 1 percent of a property's assessed value.

However, the proposition also created a way for schools and other designated special districts to raise revenue through parcel taxes, which require a two-thirds majority to win.

Since then, more than 200 school districts have tried their luck at the polls. Bay Area voters have approved some of the most expensive and long-lasting parcel taxes in the state.

In November, Los Altos voters renewed a $597 annual parcel tax, the fifth one passed in the elementary district since 1989. Livermore voters approved a $120 parcel tax in 2004, the same year San Ramon Valley voters authorized a $90 one. Larkspur voters in 2005 passed a six-year $289 tax.

Mary Perry, EdSource deputy director, offered two theories to explain why the Bay Area is more prone to parcel taxes.

"The Bay Area tends to be more politically liberal," Perry said. "Traditionally, that means more willingness to tax yourself."

The high cost of living in the Bay Area means that districts must pay more for everything, Perry said, including teacher salaries and supplies.

"An education dollar doesn't go as far in the Bay Area as say, Merced," Perry said.

Try, try again

In fact, some school board members argue that their districts cannot function without parcel taxes.

In 2004, the West Contra Costa school district proposed eliminating all sports and music to save money. The threat prompted hunger strikes and a march on Sacramento that came to symbolize the fight over inadequate education funding in California.

Sensing an opportunity, West Contra Costa's school board launched a campaign for a parcel tax. In March of that year, the measure failed. The school board brought the tax back to voters three months later, this time successfully.

"We wouldn't have an athletics program if it didn't pass," said board member Charles Ramsey. Last year, the district paid for sports, librarians and counselors with part of the $10 million collected. The district is looking to raise the rate from about 7 cents per square foot to 11 cents a square foot in the August election.

Parcel taxes obviously offer benefits to struggling districts by bringing in money, but relying on them too much could prove a pitfall, said Rick Pratt, assistant executive director of the California School Boards Association.

"Generally a parcel tax is for a finite period of time," Pratt said. "It's not revenue that can be counted on permanently."

If voters rebel in follow-up elections, schools would need to cut jobs and programs funded with the tax.

Orinda voters solved that problem by passing a $385 annual tax with no end date. That generates a steady stream of cash to maintain smaller class sizes, employee salaries and librarians, said Jerry Bucci, Orinda school district business director.

"Whenever there's a sunset date, it creates a problem with ongoing programs," Bucci said. "If the tax is not renewed, the district would have to decide how to fund it or eliminate it."

However, Orinda's parcel tax doesn't account for rising costs, which means the district could eventually seek another measure on top of the permanent tax.

Several school districts already rely on two parcel taxes. The Burlingame school district takes money from two parcel taxes that total $180 a year. One passed in 2003, another in 2004.

In 2005, the Piedmont school district placed two parcel taxes on the ballot at once -- which would be considered election suicide in any other part of the state.

The district asked homeowners to pay $1,141 to $1,937 a year per lot to keep class sizes down, improve technology and pay for academic programs. Through the second measure, the district wanted $418 a year for foreign language, fine arts and Advanced Placement courses, and counselors and librarians. Both measures won with a vote of 80 percent or more.

"People are being, I hate to say it, nickel and dimed to death," said Kris Hunt, executive director of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.

"Bond after bond, parcel tax after parcel tax -- people don't realize how this is going to add up."

On the horizon

Not all districts drink from the parcel tax well. The Martinez, Dublin and East Contra Costa school districts manage to keep their doors open without extra help from voters.

In 2004, the Dublin school district proposed a $180 seven-year parcel tax that would have paid for college prep classes and after-school programs. Voters defeated the measure, but school district officials still hold out hope.

"I've brought it up and think about it every year," said Beverly Heironimus, Dublin school district's chief business officer.

Brentwood, Byron and Liberty Union schools have never approached voters about a parcel tax. Instead, leaders in these growing districts focused on passing school-bond measures to pay for building repairs or new campuses.

However, with so many other neighboring districts successfully seeking parcel taxes, that could change, said Byron school board member Jill Sprenkel.

"We talk about it all the time," Sprenkel said. "The parcel tax, it would be the next thing on our horizon."

Grand jury won't address allegations against district

SAN RAMON VALLEY: No report will be issued over concerns that schools' intentionally underestimated income

By Eric Louie, Contra Costa Times, July 14, 2007

The 2006-07 Contra Costa County civil grand jury has concluded its term without a report into allegations that the San Ramon Valley school district intentionally underestimated its income to increase voter support for a 2004 parcel tax.

School officials say the lack of a report shows that the allegations, which heated up during the fall school board election, were wrong.

"I feel that is a confirmation that the way the district does its budget," said Superintendent Rob Kessler. The grand jury's look at the issue involved one, three-hour meeting and that the jurors left satisfied, he said.

Jerry Holcombe, pro tem of the 2006-07 grand jury, said he could not discuss what, if anything, the grand jury did. The group's one-year term ended June 29.

"The grand jury speaks through its reports," he said. The grand jury looks at many items during its term but does not make a report on all its activities, he said.

Ernie Scherer, a former school board member and district critic, brought the allegations to the media and the grand jury last year. Using district financial documents, he said the district underestimated its 2004-05 enrollment, thereby lowering its expected income from the state, although it had factored in teachers' salaries.

Scherer said at the time that he believed the district was trying to create the appearance of a deficit to boost voter support for parcel tax Measure A during a special April 2004 election. A similar measure had failed previously and the district said programs would be cut if the new one was not passed. The measure passed the second time around, authorizing a $90-per-parcel property tax expected to generate an annual $4 million during its five-year duration. Scherer had pointed to a $3 million district surplus at the end of 2004-05 to show the tax was not needed and that the district was able to afford a scheduled teachers raise in 2005-06 that cost an additional $3.85 million.

The district has called Scherer's allegations false, saying the surplus was created by more state money than expected and an unexpected number of older, higher-paid teachers leaving. The raise, according to the district, was needed to keep up with other districts.

Scherer said this week that he isn't surprised the grand jury did not pursue the issue, saying jurors he talked to seemed more interested in whether the district could afford its expenses after the tax ended. He said he still believes the district misled the public, but also said the issue was relatively minor in light of others the grand jury investigated, such as county employee health costs.

"It's just small potatoes," he said.

Now a Pleasanton resident, Scherer said he will continue to watch the district, especially if it tries for another parcel tax when the current one runs out.

Scherer made his allegations and the grand jury involvement took them up just before the school board election race got under way last November.

Incumbents Bill Clarkson and Joan Buchanan, who said Scherer has been bitter since he was recalled from the board in 1990, questioned the timing of the allegations as politically motivated. Scherer denied that, saying it took him time to gather and analyze the documents.

Clarkson, Buchanan and Rachel Hurd, who was backed by the incumbents, were elected to the three open spots while a fourth candidate, to whom Scherer gave unsolicited support, lost.