- Local every day in
Alameda Schools: Proposed Parcel Tax Rate Released
Tax would raise $12 million for Alameda public schools.
The Alameda Unified School District has released its proposal for a parcel tax to be put on the ballot in March.
After months of meetings, discussions, forums and research, the district has proposed a tax of 32 cents per square foot on both commercial and residential buildings in Alameda.
AUSD Superintendent Kirsten Vital said the rate and structure is a balancing act to meet some of the needs of the city's schools while accommodating small business owners and others who have opposed previous parcel taxes.
Many were against the tax because it assessed residences at flat rates and businesses on a square footage basis.
"I see this parcel tax as a whole lot of compromise," Vital told parents at an Edison Elementary PTA meeting Thursday evening.
The proposed tax, which would raise $12 million for the district, will not forestall all cuts to AUSD programs, says Vital.
However, it will negate the need for "Plan B," the backup plan that would increase class size at all levels across the district, trigger the closure of several neighborhood schools and create large schools serving as many as nine grade levels per site.
"Our focus needs to be getting this parcel tax passed," said Vital. "My hope is that we never have to" further fine-tune the details of the closure and consolidation plan.
The new tax has been designed with the input of many critics of past parcel taxes as well as parents, community members, teachers and administrators.
If approved in its current form by the school board, the tax will include a cap of $8,500 per parcel to avoid tax bills in the tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars for some large property owners like marinas and boat yards.
Major features of the proposed parcel tax:
- It would replace Measures A and H, the current school parcel taxes in Alameda, both of which will expire in 2012.
- The rate for parcels with buildings is 32 cents per building square foot, for both residential and commercial parcels.
- Parcels without buildings will be taxed at a rate of $299 per parcel.
- The maximum per parcel tax will $8,500, which means the first 26,560 square feet of a building will be taxed. [UPDATED Nov. 30: The maximum per parcel tax in final ballot language passed Nov. 30 is $7,999 per parcel.]
- Seniors and people who receive disability insurance can be exempt from the tax.
- The tax will last seven years.
- The election will be March 8, 2011.
If you know the official building square footage of a property (according to Alameda County records) you can easily calculate what your tax bill would be. If you don't know your square footage, you can look it up here.
The board will review the proposed tax at its Tuesday, Nov. 23 meeting. The board is slated to vote on the final parcel tax proposal on Nov. 30.
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Jon Spangler
9:10 am on Monday, November 22, 2010
If I am doing my math correctly, AUSD will still be facing $5 million in cuts if this parcel tax passes.
Will the cuts be accomplished through limited school closures, program cuts, or both? Will we know
what those anticipated cuts will be before we vote for this "compromise"?
Cabforles
10:18 am on Monday, November 22, 2010
If this goes threw my tax would go from $309. to $980. A $671. increase is unfair
alamedaparent
1:06 pm on Monday, November 22, 2010
Isn't point 4 "The maximum per parcel tax will $8,500, which means the first 26,560 square feet of a building will be taxed." something a lot of small biz owner did not like about last ballot?
Kate Quick
8:52 am on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
There are a certain percentage of folks who find all taxation "unfair" and perpetually seek "reasons" to be against being taxed. They don't mind benefitting from the fruits of the taxation (in this case continuation of good public education for our kids) but find it hard to participate in the social contract (we help them; they help us). For the rest of the voters I hope we will be able to sell the social good we achieve when we generously provide for our schools. I hope our forward thinking, positive community supporters will step up to the plate and help to get this thing passed. We were so close last time!
Bryan Gower
9:55 am on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Out of curiosity, would it be illegal or problematic to offset parcel taxes with mandatory tuition for the families that send their children to public schools? I realize this might not be popular as it fly's in the face of a free public education system, but I think we can see that public education is not really free. It might be a compromise with those that feel strongly on either side of the issue.
Kate Quick
10:07 am on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
We pay, through our taxation, to keep people in prision, to maintain our roads, to make sure that our community has police and fire services. Why is it a stretch to pay for public education, a common good that benefits all of us; not just people with children in school? Remember, ignorance has a cost - higher crime, fewer people prepared to be full participants in our democratic society. Education is not a luxury; it is a basic necessity that we should all be thrilled to support generously!
Eve Pearlman
10:08 am on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Hi Bryan. It is illegal to charge tuition for public schools. It is not illegal, however, for PTAs and other groups to raise money for schools. In Alameda, PTAs raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year...not to mention the thousands of hours parents and community members put in volunteering in different capacities, everything from reading one-on-one with children to helping supervise the lunch hour. So lots of private resources are already flowing into the public schools, but contributions are not, and can not legally be, mandatory.
Bryan Gower
11:02 am on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Thanks Eve, I was always curious about that. I was thinking that we pay all sorts of service based fees for state programs (DMV, state parks admission, parking, permits, sales tax etc), I don't see why state schools cannot be included in a hybrid model that are supported by both taxes and service based fees. The principle behind my suggested compromise is to place greater responsibility to those that use the service, not just to avoid taxes. Certainly our taxes pay (rightfully) for public goods as Kate suggests. Maybe there are other creative ideas that would offset the controversy over how much property owners are responsible for paying for all public goods. If the property owners could see that they were not taking on all of the financial responsibility for our state's financial problems, perhaps they would be more willing to support a tax like this.
Eve Pearlman
12:41 pm on Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Hi Bryan. There is already lots of private $$ flowing into Alameda schools -- fees for students who play high school sports as well as money raised by booster clubs, by way of example. Parents pay for field trips and assemblies and art supplies and computers at some school sites. The nonprofit Alameda Education Foundation funds middle school sports for the whole district as well as individual classroom grants which teachers use to buy a range of things, from books to paper. Because of laws governing public school finance, it is my understanding that donations like these can not be used to budget ongoing district-wide expenses.