.
Feedback

State Appeals Court Will Reconsider School Parcel Tax Decision

The court's earlier decision, in December 2012, overturned part of the Alameda Unified School District's Measure H and had broad implications for other California public school districts.

California's Court of Appeal will revisit its Dec. 6, 2012, decision that overturned portions of Measure H, an Alameda school parcel tax passed in 2008, according to an article published Monday by the San Jose Mercury News.

That decision, in the case of Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, held that school district parcel taxes must be uniform for all parcels within the district other than two narrow exemptions in the state statute, based on the Legislature's authorizing language for school districts to levy special qualified taxes such as parcel taxes.

The decision had implications for public school districts throughout California, many of which have levied varying tax amounts based on size or usage of parcels. It prompted the Piedmont Unified School District to amend a parcel tax measure that will come before voters on March 5, 2013, substituting a flat tax for a graduated tax based on parcel size. 

The decision also mentioned "further remedies" in the case, which could include the possibility of refunds to some tax money collected between 2008 and 2012.

The AUSD on Monday announced the court's decision to reconsider its own ruling. The Alameda district had petitioned the Court of Appeal for a rehearing, according to the Mercury News.

You may read the complete Mercury News article here.

For more information about the Dec. 6 ruling and its potential effects on school districts, see "Appeals court imposes restrictions on parcel taxes" at EDSource.org.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Alameda Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Harve Coats June 14, 2013 at 09:17 pm
Woke me from a dead sleep. Sounded like 6 or 9 gun shots north of Melrose on Maitland DR.
David Howard June 15, 2013 at 02:08 pm
APD said they found no evidence of gun shots and suspect fireworks.Read More http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2013/06/09/fourth-of-july-public-service-announcement/
JSanders June 17, 2013 at 11:55 am
When they build that high density development on the Harbor Bay Club site with 25% low incomeRead More housing requirement, Bay Farm will be hearing a lot more gun shots at night.
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 11:42 am
So sad to see. Did you report this to East Bay Regional Park District? I provided the number in yourRead More last posting.
Lorraine Sarullo June 12, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Yes, I reported it to the EBRP staff who happened to be nearby at the beach. I also reported it toRead More the warden of Fish and Wildlife in Sacramento and the warden of the local territory. The local warden told me yesterday that he will be patrolling the area, but I did not get to speak to him today (only left both wardens a voicemail message).
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 12, 2013 at 04:11 pm
Nice, thanks for the update, and sharing these posts with us, Lorraine. If it is a person behind allRead More of this, hopefully he/she will get caught soon.
Carol Parker June 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm
Anonymous tip to the fire department?
quietneeded June 12, 2013 at 04:17 pm
Leaving a note to them is a bad idea if it really is a illegal operation. So many ways that can goRead More wrong. Just call the police dept. Leave a tip. Simple and safe.
Analisa Harangozo (Editor) June 13, 2013 at 09:03 am
Agree with Carol. Perhaps an anonymous tip to Alameda Fire or Alameda Police.
Alex Gronke (Editor) June 11, 2013 at 07:35 am
My condolences to Mort's family. This was a man who had a rich, full life. Thank you for sharing.
Nay June 11, 2013 at 09:24 am
Given the targeted harvesting of parts, this is not a "times are hard and food is scarce"Read More issue. It's greedy, ignorant, and yes it's disgusting and disrespectful to nature. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/01/17/manta-rays-endangered-by-sudden-demand-from-chinese-medicine/
Lorraine Sarullo June 11, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Thank you both (Nay and Analisa) for the information. Maybe I got the name of the park serviceRead More mixed up. It was the beach area around Grand St.
Lorraine Sarullo June 11, 2013 at 11:18 pm
I contacted Crown Beach (part of the EBRP). They checked into the matter with Fish and WildlifeRead More (previously Fish and Game), to see if there was any wrongdoing. On the surface of things, it seems the wings (fins) are the edible part of the ray. And apparently, the way regulations are written it may not be even be considered littering! So, however inhumane, disrespectful, selfish, gruesome it may seem, there may not have been any fishing laws broken. Although, when I spoke with the warden of Fish and Wildlife he said he will be looking into the matter. To voice your opinion and propose changes to regulation, you can write a letter to and attend a Fish and Game Commission town hall meeting here is the link: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/contact/ and http://www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings/2013/index.aspx I plan on writing to suggest regulation against polluting public beaches with unused portions of the catch from fishing and also ask for recommendations on limiting the catch on fish that only have small percentage of edible parts (such as the rays). I would welcome any help in a letter writing campaign, the contact information is listed on the link provided above. Many Thanks.