Alameda Blog Coverage of the Parcel Tax

Here is a recap of entries from Alameda blogs

Alameda Journal Blog

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ALAMEDA - PROS AND CONS

JUNE 3, 2008 BALLOT MEASURE H TITLE: Alameda Unified School District Special Parcel Tax Measure

How Our Schools Are Funded Now The school budget is approximately $78 million per year. It includes the cost of salaries and benefits for teachers, support personnel, and administrators. It also includes the costs of maintenance and upkeep of school structures and support facilities, classroom and administrative supplies, technical support, and instructional materials.

When we pay our property taxes, the money collected goes to the State and then is apportioned back to local districts. The money the Alameda Schools receives from the State covers about 80% of the School District's budget. The other 20% is raised by local funding. The amount received from the State depends on several formulas set by State laws and court opinions. The Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) is identified by the State as a "low wealth" district due to the amount it receives in accordance with these formulas. This means that the AUSD receives less per pupil than many other districts in the State.

Currently, Alameda property owners are now paying a local parcel tax for schools of $189 per parcel plus 0.0469% (about one-half of 1 percent) of each dwelling's assessed value.

Recent announcements from the Governor's Budget Office have proposed that the State funding for Alameda schools be reduced by $4.5 million in the coming fiscal year, 2008-09.

The District has cut $7.7 million from its budget over the last 7 years including a $1.4 million cut in the 2007-2008 budget year.

What This Measure Will Do This measure will levy a special parcel tax on property in the City of Alameda to generate additional revenues to support its schools. The proposed rate is $120 per parcel per year on residential properties. Small commercial properties less than 2,000 square feet are proposed to pay $120 per year. Commercial properties larger than 2,000 square feet are proposed to be assessed at $0.15 per square foot, up to a maximum of $9,500 per year. The tax is proposed to begin on July 1, 2008, and end in four years, on June 30, 2012.

Provisions for exemptions for persons over 65, or who qualify for Supplemental Security Income for a disability are included. The measure also includes provisions for a citizen's oversight committee to review the expenditures related to this parcel tax. It restricts the use of income from the tax to educational purposes only.

Fiscal Impact The income generated from this measure is estimated to be $4.2 million per year for four years. $120 per parcel from residential properties will generate approximately $1.2 million. An additional $3 million will come from commercial assessments.

Alameda parcel tax defeated at polls

Measure H would have benefited schools affected by budget deficit

By Peter Hegarty, Alameda Journal, June 4, 2008

ALAMEDA — Voters narrowly turned down a parcel tax Tuesday that supporters say would have pumped $4 million into area schools and helped prevent cuts to music, high school sports and other programs.

Measure H would have required homeowners to pay $120 annually and needed a two-thirds majority to pass. It lost by just 115 votes.

"It's awfully hard to get a two-thirds majority on anything," said Bill Schaff, a trustee on the Board of Education. "But the fact that we got the result we did makes me feel very comfortable in saying that the community still supports our schools."

Some 9,010 voters backed the measure, which would have required commercial and industrial property owners to pay from $120 to $9,500 each year.

The measure received 4,676 no votes.

Opponents included some residents who said that school officials should look for other ways to generate cash, such as cutting back on administrators and freezing the salaries and benefits of teachers.

"That 'super' majority is really hard to get," said Donna Fletcher, a spokeswoman for the Alameda Unified School District. "It's a hard line in the sand. We had plenty of support, but it just wasn't enough."

The school board decided to put the measure on the ballot in March when it learned that the district was facing a projected $4.5 million shortfall due to the state budget deficit.

The board also cut money from music and high school sports, a move that prompted teachers and parents to rally behind the ballot measure with demonstrations, fundraisers and door-to-door campaigning.

Homeowner Tom Pavletic, an outspoken critic of the tax, said the defeat Tuesday was significant in the face of such a high-profile campaign.

"This was in response to possibly the slickest sales job the district has ever done," Pavletic said. "This tells me that the people who voted no probably did it for financial reasons."

Some tax opponents also may have been influenced by changes that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made last month in his budget plan, including his decision to back away from suspending Proposition 98, which guarantees money to public schools.

Despite the changes in the governor's budget proposal, Luz Cazares, the Alameda school district's chief financial officer, said the district is still facing at least a $4 million shortfall.

District officials must approve a budget by July 1.

With the defeat of the parcel tax, the cuts that the board approved in March will stand, Schaff said. The cuts include slashing $265,000 from high school sports and the district's swim centers.

On Wednesday, some Measure H supporters said they were not ready to concede defeat: Absentee and provisional ballots still could provide them a victory, they said.

"We are waiting patiently to hear the final count on the provisional ballots that were walked in to the polls," Superintendent Ardella Dailey said. "We are within inches of the 66.66 percent needed and we're hopeful that these additional votes will make the difference needed to pass Measure H."

Schaff said he considered it a long shot, however, noting that the yes votes still would need to total more than three-quarters for a victory in such a scenario.

Measure H Tiny

By David DeBolt, Alameda Sun, June 6, 2008

Supporters of Measure H were clutching onto a "glimmer of hope" yesterday morning as the parcel tax, aimed to fend off cuts to programs and staff within the Alameda Unified School District, fell short of the two-thirds vote needed by a little more than 100 votes.

Board members and leaders from Keep Alameda Schools Excellent (KASE) were waiting to hear from the Alameda County Registrar of Voters about provisional ballots yet to be counted, that could, although unlikely, lift the percentage of yes votes above the 66.667 percent needed to pass.

At press time, the number of provisional ballots was not known and Mike McMahon, vice president of the AUSD school board, estimated that there would need to be between 1,700 and 1,800 ballots counted based on Wednesday's precinct voting trend of 70.8 percent (David contacted me at 10am June 4th and I subsequently corrected my math error 2750 on my website by 11am).

Still, district officials are bracing for cuts and preparing to balance the budget, which is estimated to have a $4 million shortfall from cuts at the state level. Officials said if Measure H does not pass they will wait for the state budget to be finalized, which is not likely to happen until late summer.

"We shall wait and see how bad it is, and it will be bad," AUSD board President Bill Schaff said Wednesday morning. "Cuts are coming. The only question is one of magnitude."

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, 65.83 percent of voters approved the parcel tax, 115 votes off the two-thirds requirement.

Schaff said there has been enough fundraising to support the majority of sports at Alameda and Encinal high schools and keep music in elementary schools for one year, but cuts to faculty and staff will be enforced.

Andy Currid, the volunteer coordinator for KASE, spent Tuesday with his organizers who scoured the Island reminding confirmed Measure H supporters of the location of their polling place.

"Obviously we are disappointed with the result," Currid said of the parcel tax, the third to appear on an Alameda ballot since 2001. "Right now I'm not hopeful that we will be able to pass the barrier."

KASE treasurer Ron Mooney, who has worked on all of the Island's recent parcel tax measures, said Tuesday evening that he expected the result to be similar to the 51 vote difference in the 2005 tax for Alameda schools.

Poll volunteer Mark Cronenwett said voters who did not support Measure H were not as vocal as those who did.

"A lot of people are quiet about voting no," the 66-year-old lifelong Alamedan said at Encinal High School's polling station on Tuesday afternoon.

Resident Rita Nesel passed out a flyer against Measure H on Monday and Tuesday and said she was surprised at the positive response she received. She said the district was not forthcoming with information and instead of passing the measure, it was time to "nail the district to the wall to force the truth out."

Measure H stunning turnaround

By Peter Hagarty, Alameda Journal, June 12, 2008

Measure H, which appeared headed for defeat on election day, now looks like it has pulled out a victory with a razor-thin two-thirds approval.

Absentee and provisional ballots were credited for making the difference in the tally.

According to the results released Wednesday, the ballot measure secured 11,397 yes votes, or 66.87 percent. No votes totaled 5,646, or 33.13 percent.

The measure needed 66.667 percent to pass.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters is expected to ratify the results by June 27.

The results delighted Measure H supporters, who say money generated from the tax will help save music, sports and other school programs.

"We have climbed from behind the whole way up," said Bill Schaff, a member of the Board of Education. "It's been quite exhausting for all those who have fought so hard for this campaign."

The win was "extremely gratifying," said Ron Mooney, treasurer of Keep Alameda Schools Excellent, which campaigned for the measure.

"While this was a very close vote and a few ballots remain to be counted, the vast majority of Alameda voters have demonstrated their commitment to support our students and keep our distinguished schools," Mooney said. "We are particularly grateful to the hundreds of volunteers who worked so hard to explain the issues to voters and continue to fight to keep our schools excellent."

Superintendent Ardella Dailey said officials with the Alameda Unified School District now will have time to plan for long-term financial stability.

Homeowners will pay $120 annually under the tax. The measure also calls for business and industrial property owners to pay from $120 to $9,500 annually. The tax would be on top of the $189 property owners now pay.

Both taxes will end in 2012.

Measure H opponents said district officials should find other ways to raise money, such as cutting salaries and benefits for teachers.

"We expect the school board to request another 'temporary emergency parcel tax' in three years," said Tom Pavletic, who campaigned against the measure. "By that time the school district will have been in 'emergency parcel tax mode' for over a decade and taxes paid by property owners will have increased even further. School district employees' salaries, benefits and pensions, already luxurious compared to private sector standards, will have continued to climb at a rate surpassing those for most non-government workers."

The board placed the tax on the June 3 ballot to help offset a projected $4.5 million shortfall within the Alameda Unified School District due to the state budget deficit.

While the latest numbers apparently pushed Measure H over the top, Schaff was still cautious about declaring victory, noting that he believed some votes still must be counted. Opponents may call for a recount with such a narrow margin, he said.

Money from the tax will help fund music and high school sports, plus help maintain lower class sizes for high school freshmen — programs that all took a hit when district officials were confronted with the deficit, district Spokeswoman Donna Fletcher said.

"It's great for education and it's great for our kids," said Trish Spencer, president of the district PTA council, about the latest numbers. "We're very appreciative of all those who supported it." But Spencer also said that such a tight race means district officials must show opponents that they will be fiscally responsible with money generated from the tax.

Measure H passes, now the real work begins

Editoral, Alameda Journal, June 12, 2008

Measure H passes. More than a week after the election, it was still a nail-biter, until late Wednesday when the number of votes needed to reach that magical two-thirds percentage mark was surpassed by less than 50 votes.

It's been an incredible roller coaster ride for everyone in Alameda. Last week many considered passage of Measure H almost a lost cause — it would take a miracle to see it pass.

While the results are still unofficial, and won't be formally certified until later this month, it looks like that miracle has happened. There is a collective sigh of relief among supporters and those involved in the schools.

It's a really positive victory for our young people, many of whom turned out to support the parcel tax as they voted for the first time.

It was a tough, and often bitter, battle. But the community showed its support.

Despite what critics have implied, the emergency four-year funding measure will go directly to the classrooms to keep the threatened programs on track now in Alameda schools. Everything that was proposed to be cut earlier this year in Alameda schools will be restored, including sports and music programs. They will be able to avoid increases in class sizes and reduction of Advanced Placement courses.

The district now has some breathing room to continue operation even while Sacramento's feuding over budget cuts goes on. At least the parcel tax will help keep our schools functioning at the level residents want for their children.

It's good news that Measure H passed, even if by the slimmest of margins. So many worked so hard to make it a reality. But now the real work must begin.

Even as Measure H celebrate the victory, they would do well to consider what message the voters are sending. They can be happy that enough people managed to vote to push it through. But the "rest of the story" is the large number of people who either voted against it — or more critically, did not vote at all. In this case, a non-vote could be taken as a tacit rejection of the argument for having the added parcel tax.

The Measure H campaign took big steps in educating the public about the difficulties facing local schools. All too often the public blames the messenger — the local district leadership — for problems that are generated at the state level.

School leaders say they are working hard to change the way California distributes education funding and counter the unbelievable budget cuts proposed by the governor and lawmakers that keep Alameda in a constant state of uncertainty.

Voters are saying they need more than tough words and pledges to fight for change. Something must be done now. They are tired of being hit every few years with yet another school budget crisis and they want a shakeup in the way schools are operated.

For that to happen, the community needs to get behind our school leaders to push changes at the state level. We need all the help we can get. The emergency parcel tax sunsets in four years. Changes need to be made now. Let's put old disagreements from the election behind us and pull together to fight for education reform in Sacramento.

Letters to the Editor, Alameda Journal and Alameda Sun, Post Election

"Moving on" may mean closing schools

Your June 6 editorial, "It's time to move past Measure H" doesn't. But you say that those of us who voted against it should come up with alternative savings.

Perhaps now Superintendent Ardella Dailey will have the boldness to take the obvious steps of closing schools, since enrollment in Alameda schools has fallen drastically since base closure. We need only one high school, and perhaps it should be Encinal, where the city owns adjacent land for future expansion. Do we really need all those middle schools, or any at all? Consolidate them into one, at the old Alameda High, or expand the grammar schools to encompass K through 8 or 9, depending on the capacity of the one remaining high school.

At least two grammar schools also could be closed without serious crowding. The notion that class size reduction results in better educational outcomes is a myth, so give that up. Lay off a few administrators making six figures and cancel programs redundant to state programs. Voila! Problem solved. Wasn't that easy? And it might have saved all the money spent on that expensive Measure H campaign.

Perhaps the school board and teachers should consider supporting these measures instead of attempting to legislate a "simple" majority for their next attempt to impose new taxes.

Dennis Green

Unfair wording prompted no on Measure H

I have to admit that I haven't read every argument for or against the recent Measure H, so maybe I'm covering old ground here, but to me it wasn't an issue of a "greedy teachers union" or "stingy selfish homeowners" — I was genuinely disturbed by the seemingly overlooked fact that the measure itself was so unfairly written.

With an exemption based on income, the disadvantaged elderly would already be covered — so why add on a general exemption for the over-65 set? Simply put, because a lot of them own homes in Alameda, and much larger percentages of them vote compared to their younger neighbors. I call that rigging the vote, plain and simple.

Though some will say the measure "passed with nearly two-thirds of the vote," I have to wonder how many of those capable over-65s would've been willing to pay the tax themselves. Or whether the percentage of "No's" would've been even higher.

By making the proposed parcel tax completely painless to this demographic, proponents made it completely clear to me that they weren't interested in fair play, or passing the measure on its merits. If there's one thing we can teach our children for free it should be that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or age, should do their part to help the community when possible.

Dean Blackburn

Parcel tax supporters missed the message

To supporters of Prop. H: You weren't listening.

In each previous school parcel tax campaign, many of us asked for better wording of the tax proposal. We wanted tax language which spread the cost as fairly as possible across the entire community and provided better protection of funds collected.

It's like this: You let your teens borrow the car as long as they put in some gas. The last three times they used the car, they didn't do that, even though you reminded them each time. Now, you take away the keys because either they think you don't really mean it or they don't respect you enough to do this small favor in return for your generosity. We only asked for words. We're serious. We just took away the keys.

Rita Nesel

Other savings could help schools besides a tax

Encinal High School Principal Mike Cooper retorts to the defeat of Measure H by calling opponents "incredibly selfish." Well, yeah, I guess if the people didn't want to fund my golden parachute I might get angry too. I only wish that I could have retired with the monthly pension Mr. Cooper will receive. In the original wording of Measure H published on AUSD's Web site it was clearly stated, "No money to go to administration salaries," but on the voter pamphlet I received two weeks prior to June 3, this verbiage was conveniently left out.

In November 2001, Alameda residents passed measure A, agreeing to a parcel tax of $109 to fund AUSD projected budget deficit. In 2004 we approved Measure C, a bond measure providing $63 million plus an additional $17 from Proposition 55 state funds. In 2005 Alameda residents passed an $189 school parcel tax to replace 2001's Measure A. Between 1998 and 2003 superintendent salaries rose 27 percent across California and Alameda County superintendent's averaged 35 percent raises plus "perks." Teachers' salaries only increased by half that. How much salaries have increased since, I can only guess.

Here's a cost savings that shouldn't be difficult to achieve: Each of AUSD's high schools has a "health" clinic to "advise" students on health issues such as "safe sex" practices, hand out condoms and, of course, provide abortion advice. Eliminate them. How about the "day care centers" for children of students and faculty? Why should Alameda residents have to fund these costs?

Yeah, I'm selfish, alright!

Bruce Elerick

Measure H failed to get community support

I read with interest the June 6 editorial in the Alameda Journal, stating that the Measure H was "slightly more than 100 votes short of passing. Put another way, one-third of those who took the time to vote determined the future of Alameda schools over the wishes of nearly two-thirds of the voters. Just a few votes short, and the decision went to the will of the minority."

There are a couple of problems with that statement. The turnout was low for this election. Of the 40,238 registered voters in the city of Alameda only 9,010 voted for Measure H. That's a minority. The majority of registered voters either voted "no" or did not vote "yes." For all of the money spent to promote Yes on Measure H, a showing of 9,010 votes out of a possible 40,238 is a clear failure.

Parcel taxes are not fair. It's nonsense to tell residents of Alameda that they should embrace high property taxes because that's what makes their homes valuable. Let's hear more about the money for sports in the high schools and for keeping music in the elementary schools, now available due to fundraising. That sounds like a success story, and it didn't involve increased property taxes.

Promote an educational fund and let concerned residents, including renters, contribute to it to show their support of Alameda's schools. It might be a nice surprise. And the contribution would be tax-deductible.

Some of us did not want to vote "no" because it would take two "yes" votes to counteract a "no" vote, so we simply did not vote at all on Measure H. That left it up to the people who wanted it to pass to make it happen.

Pat Jameson

Anti-Measure H voters overlook what teachers do

In the aftermath of the disastrous Measure H failure, in the June 6 paper you give voice to the lone spokesperson for the anti-H forces not once, but twice. This self-styled protector of the beleaguered taxpayer, Tom Pavletic, gets quoted in every article on the topic, it seems. Why? Does the Journal have trouble finding anyone else foolhardy enough to speak out against H? It would appear so.

Then there's his smug letter to the editor, in which he generously pledges to personally donate equivalent cash to the schools, but only after our millionaire teachers promise in writing to give back their scheduled raises and benefit enhancements. Pathetic, Mr. Pavletic.

Apparently he has no kids in the Alameda system, or they've already safely passed through it. Apparently, he's not aware of the stranglehold our governor has put on district funding. Apparently he's unaware of how dedicated teachers pay for unfunded classroom materials out of their own pockets. Apparently he doesn't care whether the current kids have any cultural or athletic activities — but maybe he will when one comes through his window some night because, after all, if there's no practice or rehearsal that night, what else is there to do?

And apparently the same goes for the other 4,675 people who selfishly refused to chip in 33 cents a day. How many of them were swayed by the crackpot rhetoric of the anti-H spokesperson? Alameda used to be a family place. Is it still?

W. J. "Buster" Doggboye

Beware of efforts to change requirement

Surprise, surprise, Measure H passes after all. When considering the "ballot box-stuffing" tactics, i.e. phone bank targeting of renters, youth and telling some seniors that they don't have to pay, how is an unorganized opposition of homeowners to compete against such a "gang attack" from all fronts? I do hope all "spoiled" ballots are carefully isolated so both sides can do an examination in the event of a recount.

As for those who ask who was the mysterious "sponsor" of the estimated quarter million dollar slick campaign for "H," I suggest you look beyond the local conduit directly to Sacramento and the CTA, whose current "mantra," and, of course, that of local union affiliations, is that the two-thirds voter protection of propositions is a form of tax tyranny and unfair. (A lot of good that has helped us homeowners in Alameda with the last four parcel taxes!)

Let us look at the issue of tax tyranny. Since the majority of H yes voters (and probably the vast majority) won't pay a dime of this or other parcel taxes, who is the victim of tyranny?! Currently in Sacramento you have SCA 17 and SB 1430 / SCA 18, both promoted by the CTA and both eliminating the two-thirds voter protection for school parcel taxes, the former to 55 percent and the latter to a simple majority. God help us.

For many years we have had government administrators who were incompetent in accounting matters and certainly in actuarial science acquiescing to the demands of the public employee unions. And now with the emergence of the baby boom generation to the golden age and retirement, the roosters are coming home. Meanwhile, locally, it will again be "business as usual," with the AUSD and its unions, i.e., granting percent salary increases (on top of automated annual teacher salary advances), regardless of whether they are funded or not. (We always have "emergency" parcel taxes.)

A belated thanks to the Alameda Journal for publishing my prior letter intact — your esteemed competitor chose to change several items, notably eliminating the $480 total tax liability as "misleading," even though I said they could add "over four years." Obviously, I won't be sending them a copy of this text. A final thought — maybe in lieu of another parcel tax, parents can be sold on the two to three Starbucks a month contribution?

Ronald R. Wimer

What comes after Measure H?

As a property owner who voted "no" on Measure H, I congratulate the pro-Measure H voters. So what happens now other than the high-fives and back slapping that's going on?

In 2012 will there be more or [fewer] school administrators earning more then $100,000 a year? In 2012 will the school district still be running and managing its antiquated processes they are running today? In 2012 will the unions still insist on annual increases and refuse to do their part to bridge the budget gap?

In 2012 will the school district continue to hire expensive consultants that do nothing to improve the education of our children? In 2012 will students who live in Oakland, Berkeley, etc., continue to be subsidized by the taxpayers so they can attend Alameda schools?

One only needs to see the armada of cars coming over the Park Street Bridge and through the Posey Tube to deliver out-of-town kids to our schools. In the afternoon, will there still be hordes of students boarding AC Transit buses that are leaving Alameda?

In 2012 will AUSD continue to practice the "spend it or lose it" mentality dramatically increasing their expenses during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year in fear it if it is not spent it will be lost in next year's budget?

In 2012 will AUSD administrators continue their lack of intestinal fortitude by ducking and dodging the tough questions property owners and others have raised about its business practices and management decisions?

In 2012 when you put Measure "FU" (sic) on the ballot to extend this "temporary" tax, will you again come out and say the only way we can fix our budget crisis is to kill programs that hurt the kids?

In 2012 will the Alameda Sun reprint this letter so we can all say, "It's déjà vu all over again?"

Kevin Mathy

Unhappy with news

Your coverage of Measure H in Alameda has been irresponsible. Don't worry: you're not alone. Our other local paper has been equally ridiculous. Maybe you shouldn't call an election until all votes are counted. Has it passed or not? On things true, you can't trust the media to learn the truth. Is there something un-sexy about reporting that the ballots haven't been counted yet; standby?

Deborah Sullivan

Editor's Note: The Alameda Sun did not call the election as won or lost until this week. As of press times in both last issues, there was no decision called by the Alameda Registrar of Voters, thus, no official statement in the Sun.

The Aftermath of H

Guest editorial, Lauren Do, June 27, 2008

The results are due to be certified any day now in the aftermath of Measure H, the emergency school parcel tax. For supporters and opponents, the ride to the finish was bumpy and fraught with enough drama to fill the ubiquitous "Lifetime" made-for-TV movie.

The results are due to be certified any day now in the aftermath of Measure H, the emergency school parcel tax. For supporters and opponents, the ride to the finish was bumpy and fraught with enough drama to fill the ubiquitous "Lifetime" made-for-TV movie. But in the end, despite the uphill battle the organizers of the Measure H campaigned faced toward winning 66.6667 percent of the vote, a super majority of those that made their way to the polls said resoundingly that the education of children in Alameda was something that was worth paying $120 per year.

To put the 66.6667 percent into perspective, the measure is currently at a respectable 66.9 percent passing; two years ago when Beverly Johnson was re-elected as mayor, she received 60.4 percent of the vote.

What is important though, after the celebration or the lamentation — depending on where you stood on Measure H — is that the passion and the energy that was expended to both get Measure H passed, or defeated, are channeled into something more positive.

What was exciting about the debate that led up to Election Day was how much Alamedans had to say about the school district, both positive and negative. It is incumbent on both the supporters and detractors to use this opportunity to help work to make the school district better.

It is not the time to discuss possible lawsuits against the school district or talk about "what if" or lay the blame for the passage of Measure H on folks not organizing against it. It's not the time for folks to fume and fuss about educating kids from Oakland or repeating the tired mantra of the bloated administration at AUSD. It's not the time to characterize this parcel tax as something to be destroyed after 66.9 percent of Alamedans voted "yes."

It is the time for Alameda to come together, whether you have kids in the schools or not, and try to do what is best for Alameda schools and Alameda children. If you picked up a pen or sat at your computer to write any opinion about the school district in the lead-up to the vote on Measure H, it's time for us all to step up work toward a goal of making sure that a Measure H never needs to be passed again in Alameda. We need to find a way to make sure that Alameda schools are not as vulnerable to the capricious nature of the state budget, which is where the vast majority of funding for AUSD comes from.

To those who ask, "What happens now?" I would say, "That's up to you." We can choose to complain privately each time we receive our property tax bill and reluctantly write out a check with the $120 as part and parcel of a much more significant amount of money. Or, we can become active participants in trying to affect some level of change in a system that was repeatedly labeled "broken" by opponents.

Attorney: AUSD Tax Bit Off Too Much

Written by Marc Albert, Alameda Sun, August 22, 2008

Measure H, the school district's emergency parcel tax, runs afoul of state law by dipping its hand too deeply in some pockets, said an attorney who may file a lawsuit as soon as next Monday seeking to have the tax thrown out.

Measure H, the school district's emergency parcel tax, runs afoul of state law by dipping its hand too deeply in some pockets, said an attorney who may file a lawsuit as soon as next Monday seeking to have the tax thrown out.

Attorney David Brillant, hired by local small businesspeople who are contending that the tax falls too heavily upon them, appeared confident that the case would be decided in his favor.

"Do I think I can win this case? Yes, I do. Because Measure H violates section 50079 of the California government code, in that the tax is not applied uniformly to all property owners," he said.

According to Brillant, the state legislature has the sole authority to levy taxes in the state, or to enable other authorities, such as cities, school boards or special districts to do so. Brillant said the problem for the district arises from so-called enabling legislation, which set the parameters under which taxes may be assessed.

According to the code, school districts may impose "qualified special taxes," but that the taxes must "apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district." Brillant maintains that the code lets districts levy taxes as either a per parcel fee, or a per square foot charge, but not both.

Brillant said that there is no clear legal precedent because no lawsuits against similar taxes have yet to be filed. "There is no direct case on point. There are a few cases that touch on the issue but this case is the first of its kind," he said.

Measure H, which barely hit the two-thirds majority needed for passage, does both. It establishes a $120 fee on all residential properties, and a .15-cent per-square foot fee on commercial properties. The commercial rate is capped, however, meaning many of the city's largest commercial property owners are paying the same amount as much smaller landholders. Some vocal small business people have charged that the cap was added to blunt opposition to the measure from the city's biggest landlords. As a result of the tax's wording, many small businesspeople feel they are being asked to foot much more than their share.

But opposing the school district's tax is viewed by some as heresy. Various threats have emerged from members of the community [see Letters to the Editor, p.12] arguing that business owners should essentially suck up the added expense or face boycotts. Teacher and Measure H supporter Rob Siltanen, writing on his Web site, predicted that businesses supporting the lawsuit will pay an even dearer price. "I think they'll find that businesses that turn their backs on the clear will of the community by participating in an effort to overturn the popular results of an election will also have the community turn their backs on them," he wrote.

Siltanen, when contacted, declined to speak on the record.

However, Siltanen's Web site notes that the city doles out money to small businesses by issuing grants to local business associations. However, representatives of the associations note that the amount of the tax far outweighs their new tax liabilities.

The perceived threats are having an impact. Business owners continue to decline making statements on the record. Meanwhile, even Brillant admitted that some lawsuit backers might be getting cold feet. "If I'm going to [file a suit], it's going to be Monday, but things are getting rather squirrelly," he said.

"There are people who want to contribute but there are people who are being cautious. Alameda is a really small town. They don't want their businesses targeted... people are afraid of retribution," Brillant said. "The school district will probably spin this as anti-school but the school district must operate inside the law and people have the right to force the school district to stay within the law."

Measure H seeks to replace money lost to proposed cuts in the state budget for K-12 education. The exact amount of Sacramento's cuts to local schools remains unclear, as legislators continue to stall approving a budget, which was due June 30.

Blog Coverage of the Lawsuit