Published Tuesday, May 31, 2005
ELECTION 2005
Parcel taxes on ballot in 3 cities next week
Palo Alto, Alameda, Piedmont will vote on school funding
Leaders in Palo Alto and Piedmont hope voters will agree next
Tuesday that it's worth paying a sometimes hefty parcel tax to have one of
California's elite school districts.
Piedmont and Palo Alto rank third and fourth, respectively,
among unified districts in the state's Academic Performance Index, but they're
faced with cutting programs if the measures fail.
Palo Alto leaders hope that last fall's Measure I stood only
for incomplete -- and that next week's Measure A will get a passing grade.
Measure I fell just 200 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed in
November's election, so now they're counting on help from a couple of tweaks and
a lot of tradition.
"Voters in this district have traditionally been very
supportive of school ballot measures," said Jon Foster, a co-chairman of the
committee in support of Measure A, which would impose a $493 parcel tax for the
next six years. He and many other supporters believe the November measure missed
because of the long presidential election ballot, but also because they took the
community support for granted.
There is no complacency this time. Supporters have gathered
more than 2, 300 public endorsements, and many are going door to door to push
for the measure. And the six-year, $493 tax is a reduction from Measure I's
annual $521 tax for eight years. As has become common with parcel taxes, people
65 and older can obtain an exemption for their principal home.
But there is still organized opposition.
While no one even wrote ballot arguments against Tuesday's
school finance measure in Piedmont -- or a similar, smaller one in Alameda --
two groups filed theirs in Palo Alto: The one from leaders of the local
Libertarian and Republican parties and the Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Association
made it on the ballot, edging out one drafted by those who had opposed Measure I
last fall.
Both sides agree that Palo Alto has, and wants to continue to
have, one of the best school districts in the state. But while proponents warn
that as many as 107 of the district's nearly 650 teachers could be laid off if
Measure A fails, opponents say the district has created many of its own problems
by overpaying teachers and administrators, including 40 administrators who make
more than $100,000 a year. They say that any new parcel tax should, at most, be
more in line with the current one of $293, which expires next summer.
The district already has cut spending by $6.5 million, mainly
because of a loss of funds from the state, said Cathy Kroymann, a trustee in the
district. She said the expiration of the current parcel tax, which brings in
$5.5 million a year for the district, would mean more severe cuts if something
such as Measure A doesn't come along to replace it.
"We've cut 13 percent of our administrators and 7 percent of
our classified staff," Kroymann said, adding that further reductions would have
to take place in classrooms. The district now has a budget of about $110 million
and 10,500 students.
She said the funds from Measure A are for specific purposes,
such as avoiding teacher layoffs, maintaining classes with fewer than 20
students in kindergarten through fifth grade and fewer than 24 students in many
math and English classes at higher grade levels, and restoring classes and
counseling that have had to be reduced. The money can't go for pay raises or new
programs, she said.
Kroymann said good schools raise property values, and many
people pay top dollar to live in Palo Alto because of the quality of the
schools. Measure A supporters say that Palo Alto was the fourth best-performing
unified district in the state for 2003-2004, according to the California
Academic Performance Index.
But Dennis Umphress, president of the Silicon Valley
Taxpayers' Association, says the argument about raising taxes to bolster
property values is weak. "I think property values are being raised on their own
in Palo Alto, without the schools."
Umphress also said parcel taxes just feed on themselves,
coming up for renewal time after time.
"If this should pass, it's a virtual certainty that they will
come back to the voters again and again," he said. "I would rather they get used
to living with the current money."
Wayne Martin of Palo Altans Against Measure A said that in a
time when Silicon Valley has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, some people are
irritated that teachers and administrators won't look at cutting their own
salaries instead of hitting the voters with such an increase.
The Bay Area's other school parcel taxes are in Alameda
County, and all require the same two-thirds majority that Palo Alto's does.
Measure A would let the Alameda Unified School District replace its existing
$109 parcel tax with one that would be $189 a year for seven years.
Measures B and C are both in the Piedmont Unified School
District, and the taxes vary depending on the size and use of the property.
Measure B would charge $1,141 on the smallest residential parcels, ones of less
than 5,000 square feet. For four years starting July 1, 2006, it would continue
two special parcel tax measures that voters had approved in 2001, with the money
going for such purposes as special programs, smaller classes, technology and
maintenance.
Measure C would charge $418 on the smallest residential parcel
and cover the same time span, with its revenue going for such things as keeping
current programs, teacher recruitment and retention, curriculum development and
counseling.
E-mail Dave Murphy at
dmurphy@sfchronicle.com.
