Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
Four East Bay school districts seek voter permission in the March 5 election for what they say are extensions of existing parcel taxes.
Two districts honestly and transparently present their measures to voters. Two are hiding tax increases.
Here are our recommendations for the four measures:
Alameda Measure E – Yes
Property owners in the city of Alameda currently pay two parcel taxes for school operations and two others to help retire bonds for school construction.
The two parcel taxes, approved by voters in 2016 and 2020, are due to expire in 2025 and 2027, respectively. Measure E would combine them and extend them to 2034.
While we supported the first tax and opposed the second, the issue now is whether to extend them at the same rates. Given that the money has been baked into the district’s finances, with voters’ approval, we don’t see a reason to upend the funding. Voters should approve Measure E.
Indeed, we commend the district for combining the two measures. It’s much more transparent than the tactic taken by some districts to spread out multiple tax measures between elections and hide the full impact from voters. (For an example of obfuscation, see our comments on Berkeley Measure H below.)
The two Alameda school parcel taxes, when combined under Measure E, would total 58.5 cents per square foot of building area. For an average-sized single-family home in Alameda, that works out to $1,067 annually.
The tax contains a cap of $15,998 per parcel, which has drawn opposition because it advantages the owners of properties larger than 27,347 square feet. That’s a building roughly half the size of a football field.
The 2016 and 2020 measures contained similar caps, which prompted a court challenge of the latter measure because of the inequity. But the challenge failed. While there is a legitimate public policy debate over the wisdom of such a cap, the issue in Alameda has now been settled by voters and judges.
In addition to the two parcel taxes, property owners also pay an annual tax, about $111 per $100,000 of assessed value, to cover bond payments on money the district borrowed for school construction. For the owner of an average residential property in the district, assessed at $680,960, that’s about $756.
Total Alameda supplement taxes for schools are hefty. But Measure E doesn’t increase them.
Albany Measure G – No
Albany already has some of the highest supplemental school taxes in the East Bay. Now district leaders are seeking more while deceiving voters about it.
Like past Albany measures, Measure G doesn’t pass the transparency test. Voters should reject it.
The ballot wording claims the measure is “renewing parcel tax authority.” No, it’s not. It’s completely changing how the tax is calculated, from a flat amount per parcel to a tax based on building square footage.
The owner of an average single-family home would face about a 42% increase. The revenue raised from the tax would be doubled. And the sunset provision in the current tax would be eliminated, meaning voters would be stuck with it forever, complete with its 3% annual increase.
It’s not just Albany school officials who are misleading voters. They are being enabled by County Counsel Donna Ziegler, who prepared the deceptive “impartial analysis” that fails to explain the core changes and tax increases, and City Council members and the League of Women Voters’ local president, who signed illusory ballot arguments that claim citizens somehow could repeal the measure at any time. They should know better.
Albany property owners currently pay two annual parcel taxes that subsidize school district operations. The first, approved by voters in 2009, is currently $591 annually and has no expiration date. The second, currently $490 and expected to hit about $515 next year after an inflation adjustment, was last renewed and increased by voters in 2020 and is due to expire in 2027.
It’s that second tax that Measure G would make permanent, and radically change. Measure G would raise $4.8 million, double the amount currently brought in by the 2020 measure it would replace. Rather than a flat amount per parcel, the tax would be levied based on square footage of buildings.
The idea of making owners of larger buildings pay more is reasonable. But Measure G is more than simply a redistribution of tax burden: It would also increase the amount for people of modest means. The owners of a single-family home with an Albany average size of 1,326 square feet would face a tax increase next year from $515 to $729.
That’s in addition to the tax of $591 per parcel from the 2009 measure. And it’s piled on top of taxes for the district’s construction bond debt, which next year will cost property owners $178 for every $100,000 of assessed value, or $1,134 for a home with an average assessed value of $637,000.
In other words, typical Albany homeowners are going to pay roughly $2,500 annually for supplemental school taxes. For those whopping amounts, they deserve honesty and transparency from school officials. With Measure G, they didn’t get it.
Berkeley Measure H – No
Berkeley has a maze of very costly supplemental taxes that are practically indecipherable to voters.
For starters, they have three different parcel taxes for various parts of school operations — all with annual inflation increases and each with a different expiration date so that voters don’t see the full picture when it comes time for renewal.
Measure H purports to be a renewal of one of those parcel taxes. By our calculations, it’s actually a tax increase. The old tax, approved in 2016, after the included adjustments for inflation, would be about 49 cents per square foot of building space in 2025. Measure H would start in 2025 at 54 cents per square foot.
The increase alone amounts to about $100 a year for a single-family home with 1,971 square feet, which the school district says is the average. If Measure H passes, the total of the three parcel taxes would be about $1,571 for that average-size home.
In addition, Berkeley property owners are paying off bonds from prior voter-approved school construction measures, and the district has yet to issue more than $300 million in bonds that voters approved in 2020, which will likely drive up property taxes in the future. Berkeley failed to provide us an accounting of the projected tax rates that accounted for the future bond issues, so we are using their projections from 2020.
The district’s projections at the time showed the tax rate for bonds could reach about $126 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, or $933 for an average home in the city. If Measure H is approved, the three parcel taxes and the bonds could bring the total school supplemental tax bill for an average homeowner to roughly $2,500 annually.
Voters should reject Measure H because of the district’s total supplemental tax burden, which contributes to the high cost of owning a home in Berkeley, and the district’s lack of transparency.
Martinez Measure C – Yes
Measure C is an eight-year renewal of an existing $75-per-year parcel tax that voters approved in 2018. The tax provides $850,000 annually, equal to about 1.5% of the district’s yearly budget.
While the use of the money is technically restricted, the categories are broad and effectively cover most academic programs as well as technology equipment and infrastructure. In practical terms, this is a supplement to the district’s ongoing operation costs.
The tax is in addition to separate voter-approved bond measures that next fiscal year will cost property owners $105 per $100,000 of assessed value or about $468 a year for the owner of an average home in the district. Thus, the total supplemental taxes for an average homeowner in the district would be about $543 next fiscal year.
Compared to most Bay Area school districts, the supplemental tax bill for Martinez schools is modest. Voters should approve Measure C.
