Palo Alto Unified School District Parcel Tax Increase, Measure A (May 2015)

Measure info Amount: $758/parcel Expires in: 6 Yrs
Bond elections
2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 2010 • 2009 • 2008 All years and states
Property tax elections
2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 2010 • 2009 • 2008 All years and states
See also
State comparisons How voting works Approval rates

A Palo Alto Unified School District parcel tax increase measure was on the ballot for Palo Alto Unified School District voters in Santa Clara County, California, on May 5, 2015. It was approved.

Measure A authorized the district to replace its expiring parcel tax with a new tax of $758 per parcel per year. The new tax, which amounted to a $120-per-year increase from the previous parcel tax of $638, was designed to last for six years before requiring renewal or replacement by the voters. The previous parcel tax rate generated about $12.4 million per year -- 7 percent of the school district's operating budget. District officials estimated that boosting the tax by the approval of this measure would provide about $2.3 million more per year for the district.

The measure was also designed to allow exemptions for seniors.

The Measure A election was an all-mail election, with ballots sent to the district's 43,924 registered voters starting on April 6, 2015. Ballots had to be returned by May 5, 2015, to be counted. Ballots could also be dropped off at the County Government Center, located at 70 West Hedding Street in San Jose, or at the Registrar of Voters office, located at 1555 Berger Drive in San Jose.

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote was required for the approval of this measure.

Election results

Palo Alto USD, Measure A
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		13,903	77.34%
No		4,073	22.66%

Election results from Santa Clara County Elections Office

Background

The previous tax was approved by voters under the name Measure A in May 2010 and was set to expire on July 1, 2016. That measure also boosted the parcel tax, increasing it from $493 to $589 per year. Since then, annual 2-percent increases included in the measure lifted the tax to $638.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:

“

To preserve excellence in academic programs, including science, engineering, math, reading, writing, arts, and music with local funding that cannot be taken by the state; reduce class sizes; attract and retain qualified teachers; and advance health, well-being, and equitable opportunities for every student, shall the Palo Alto Unified School District renew its expiring parcel tax for six years, increase the rate by $120, and continue exemptions for seniors, annual two percent escalation adjustments, and independent oversight?

”

Support

Support Palo Alto Schools logo

Supporters

See also: Palo Alto Unified School District Parcel Tax Increase, Measure A (May 2015), Supporters

A pro-Measure A committee called Support Palo Alto Schools 2015 - Yes on A was started to urge voters to vote "yes" on Measure A.

Below is a partial list of the individuals and organizations listed by the Yes on Measure A website as supporters of Measure A. For a full list see this page.

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
• Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
• Palo Alto Council of PTAs
• Silicon Valley Leadership Group
• Palo Alto Forward
• PAUSD Board of Education
• Santa Clara County School Boards Association
• Santa Clara County Democratic Party
• Palo Alto Educators Association
• California School Employees Association

Officials

• Jerry Hill: California State Senator
• Rich Gordon: Assemblymember, Representing the 24th California Assembly District
• Joe Simitian: Supervisor, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Former California State Senator, Former Palo Alto Mayor
• Karen Holman: Mayor, Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Greg Schmid: Vice Mayor, Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Marc Berman: Council Member, City of Palo Alto, and Director, Silicon Valley Education Foundation
• Cory Wolbach: Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Pat Burt: Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Tom DuBois: Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Eric Filseth: Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Greg Scharff: Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Liz Kniss: Council Member & Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Gary Kremen: Director and Board Chair, Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Jean McCown: Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Judy Kleinberg: Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Peter Drekmeier: Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Lanie Wheeler: Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Nancy Shepherd: Former Mayor/Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Sid Espinosa: Former Mayor/Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Vic Ojakian: Former Mayor/Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Yoriko Kishimoto: Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
• Gail Price: Former Council Member, City of Palo Alto
• Bern Beecham: Former Council Member, City of Palo Alto Education Leaders
• Max McGee: Superintendent, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD)
• Melissa Caswell: President, PAUSD Board of Education
• Camille Townsend: Member, PAUSD Board of Education
• Ken Dauber: Member, PAUSD Board of Education
• Heidi Emberling: Member, PAUSD Board of Education
• Terry Godfrey: Member, PAUSD Board of Education
• Barbara Mitchell: Former President, PAUSD Board of Education
• Grace Mah: Board Member, Santa Clara County Office of Education
• Walt Hays: Chair, PAUSD Sustainable Schools Committee

...

Arguments in favor

The Yes on Measure A website featured the following statement:

“	Outstanding education and Palo Alto are synonymous – Measure A will continue our long tradition of supporting learning. Quality local schools also help protect our property values.	”
—Yes on Measure A

Measure A supporters gave the following response to the question "Why is it so important to renew the parcel tax for Palo Alto’s public schools now?:"

“	Enrollment has grown by over 1,100 students in the last six years and is projected to grow by another 700 students over the next five years, but PAUSD receives no additional state per-pupil funding to teach additional students. Moreover, reductions in various revenue sources and new state-mandated costs combine to offset projected increases in property tax revenue. In fact, when adjusted for inflation, PAUSD funding per student has not grown since 2008-09 and is below levels spent in many high-performing school districts in our region. In other words, parcel tax funding remains an important part of PAUSD’s fiscal stability.	”
—Yes on Measure A

Board Member Ken Dauber said the parcel tax is extremely important for the operation of the school, providing a key part of the budget, not just extra spending money. He said, "This is really built into our financial structure. This is meat, not gravy."

Board President Melissa Baten Caswell said, "For me, this is about being able to invest in the programs that our community would like us to invest in."

Nana Chancellor, co-chair of the Support Palo Alto Schools 2015 parcel tax campaign, said, "We cannot innovate and grow in the areas that our community, students, parents and teachers are seeking without making an additional investment." She continued, "[The increase] will actually go to new and existing programs, rather than to help fill a financial hole in order to stay at status quo as prior campaigns (did). Basically, with an increase, we get to add a few new much-needed pieces to the puzzle while leaving all the current pieces still in place -- new pieces that I'm hearing our students, faculty and parents are united in asking for and that our superintendent and school board members are wanting to provide. This is not the time to cut resources. It's the time to unite and pitch in a little bit extra." Chancellor referred to the outcry for better student mental health programs and mentoring programs after the suicides of three students or recent graduates of Gunn High School.

Total campaign cash as of March 21, 2015
Support:	$88,826.71
Opposition:	$0

Campaign finance

As of the full campaign finance filing covering activity through April 18, 2015 the PAC registered in support of Measure A, called Support Palo Alto Schools 2015 - Yes on A, had raised $88,826.71 to support the pro-Measure A campaign. As of April 18, the group had spent $46,507.16.

The following donors each gave $2,500 -- the largest single donations made prior to April 18, 2015 -- to the "Yes on Measure A" campaign:

• Gates Land Company and Keenan Land Company
• Deems Lewis McKinley (DLS) Architecture firm, which is based out of San Francisco, California and has done design work for the district's construction projects in the past
• fs3 Hodges, a construction management firm

• Notably, Tom Hodges, a principal at fs3 Hodges, is the Palo Alto school district's director of bond program management

• William Reller, a community advocate
• Sarah Sands, a member of the Partners in Education (PiE) advisory council
• Diana Lee, a community member

The California Teachers Association donated $1,875.

The following donors, among others, each gave $1,000:

• PiE Board of Directors President Asha Guha
• Nana Chancellor, who also serves as the "Yes on A" campaign co-chair
• Kimberly Klikoff, a community member
• Jeff Magioncalda, a community member
• Robyn Reiss, a community member
• Neilson Buchanon, a community member
• Barbara Mitchell, a community member
• Robin Reynolds, a community member
• James Baer, a Palo Alto real estate investor
• Elaine Hahn, a community member
• Kevin Elfrusy of Accel Partners
• Tim Foy of Midtown Realty
• Anne Frahn, a community member
• Ann Lewnes of Marketing Adobe

Donations of $999 were made by the following Parent Teacher Associations (PTA):

• Addison PTA
• Fairmeadow PTA
• Gunn High School PTA
• Duveneck PTA
• Nixon Elementary School PTA
• Palo Alto Council of PTAs
• Barron Park Elementary School PTA
• Hoover Elementary School PTA
• JLS Middle School PTA
• Jordan Middle School PTA
• Palo Verde Elementary School PTA
• Juana Briones Elementary School PTA
• El Camelo Elementary School PTA
• Escondido Elementary School PTA
• Ohlone Elementary School PTA
• Walter Hays Elementary School PTA

For a full list of donors see the latest campaign finance filings here.

Opposition

Arguments against

Some opponents argued that voters should withhold funds until the Palo Alto School District improved services and solved some of the problems facing the district and district students. Some such critics focused on difficulties with the mental health of students in the district. In a comment on a news article about Measure A, an anonymous resident of Old Palo Alto wrote, "I'm voting No on Measure A. Because I want to send a message to the board that there are practices in the classrooms that are stressing our kids, causing anxiety, depression and is leading to hospitalization and suicide. ... No more good money to a broken system."

Other opponents focused on the financial stability of the district and argued that the district didn't need to increase the parcel tax.

On the "Town Square" forum featured by Palo Alto Online, one district resident said, "I am a parent who has long volunteered for and valued our schools. Right now, we do not need the money as much as we very, very much need to send a message to the district office that they cannot ignore."

Another forum post said, "This district has a habit of promising and not delivering when it comes to mental health, counseling, and student assistance programs. Even after several emotionally tragic years, the talk has been ongoing with little real change. I think they need to first spend a bit of capital (personal and financial) to insure they will move forward with their proposals and then ask for more support."

Campaign finance

No committee filed in opposition to Measure A.

Other opinions

Unsure about Measure A

• The editorial board of Palo Alto Online wrote an article targeting the district with advice, rather than urging voters to decide one way or another on Measure A. The editorial argued that now might not be the time for a new parcel tax measure and that, if the district pushed too hard for more revenue, it might turn voters off to supporting schools. The article called on the district to be completely transparent about the district's finances, including pension payments, and to avoid scare tactics when campaigning for Measure A. An excerpt of the editorial is below:

“	Every year the district intentionally underestimates future revenue from property taxes, creating the false impression of a financial squeeze, and as a result almost every year there is a substantial surplus at the end of the year. [...] We think Palo Alto voters will support an extension of the parcel tax, but only if presented with an unassailable, no-spin description of our finances and why, even with our good financial condition, we need money to deliver an even better educational program to our kids. But we are not confident that now is the best time to hold the election to maximize chances for success, or make the case for a significant increase in the tax.	”
—Palo Alto Online editorial board

Criticisms of pro-Measure A campaign

Some residents of the district became frustrated with many elements of the campaign surrounding Measure A. In a guest commentary piece for Palo Alto Online, Douglas Moran listed the following concerns he had with the way the Measure A campaign has proceeded. Moran was careful to indicate that none of the reasons listed below meant he was advocating for a "no" vote on Measure A.

• The campaign for Measure A focused too much on the quality of district governance -- which debate should be featured during campaigns for district board elections -- instead of the particular and specific uses of Measure A, which had not been clearly determined and presented.
• The information about Measure A made available to voters was confusing, convoluted and, at times, contradictory. For example, Moran noted that some advocates of Measure A told him funds would be focused on high schools, while others said elementary schools would be the priority.
• There were excessive emotional appeals made concerning Measure A and a lack of appeals made to the rationality of voters. Moran provided the following example: "'Think of the children' (and its many variants) has become such a common rhetorical device that it now appears explicitly in many taxonomies of logical fallacies..."
• Working with poll data, the district asked for as much money as they thought voters would approved. According to Moran, this implies the following attitude: "We will spend whatever we can get our hands on," an unhealthy approach to taxation.
• The huge lists of endorsements used in the pro-Measure A campaign were also worrisome to Moran. He said that these endorsements seemed to encourage a "band-wagon" mentality, rather than careful consideration.

Moran concluded:

“	My basic message for voters is to not conflate a vote on funding levels with being a referendum on governance, and to not conflate the conduct of the campaigns with what is to be the result of the vote. However, my sense is that the School District and the advocates for this measure have created a frustration level where in one of these elections the voters will reject this separation, and use the power of the purse as a proxy. [...] Oh. Before you attack the above as being biased by upon how I have decided to vote, know that you are provably wrong.	”
—Douglas Moran

Problems with exemptions

The situation

Early in 2015, the Santa Clara County Counsel informed the Palo Alto Unified School District Board that it had reevaluated its interpretation of the parcel tax exemption clause of the state statute that allowed parcel tax exemptions. The statute in question was designed to allow, "... exemption from those taxes for all of the following taxpayers:" (1) seniors, (2) taxpayers receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and (3) taxpayers receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits. Previously the county allowed districts to offer a single exemption or any combination of the three. In 2015, however, the county changed its interpretation of "all of the following taxpayers," saying it must be more strict and that districts must offer all or none of the exemptions, making a parcel tax measure that offers exemptions only to seniors illegal. The statute was amended in 2016 to clarify that the exemptions applied to "any or all of" the three groups.

The affected districts, however, disagreed and claimed that school districts all over the state had been allowed to pick and choose from the three allowed exemptions. In fact, Palo Alto District's 2010 tax, which 2015's Measure A was designed to replace, offered an exemption only to seniors.

Speaking of the statute, Harold Friedman, an attorney for the Palo Alto School District, said, "We have understood that from the beginning to mean 'any or all.' So you could have one; you could have two; you could have three. That is how it's been applied around the state."

The county counsel admitted that the measures were not certainly illegal but insisted that there is a "legal question" and planned to include this warning in the impartial analyses of the two measures if the district had not taken certain steps.

The Campbell Union School District, which also had a parcel tax measure with a sole senior exemption on the May 5 ballot, was also affected by this situation.

Legislative background

Before 2012, the state statute governing parcel taxes stated that exemptions could be offered "for any or all" of the three groups discussed above. In 2012, Senate Bill 874 was approved removing the words "any or" from the law. This led to the controversy over whether or not districts could offer some but not all of the allowed exemptions.

The solution

Friedman told the Palo Alto board that they had three options - presumably the same three options that the Campbell USD Board had:

• The district could do nothing, allowing the impartial analysis to include a "legal question" warning.
• The district could file a lawsuit against the office of the county counsel, hoping to force it to rescind its stricter interpretation.
• The district could follow the county's interpretation and pass a resolution to include the other two exemptions - SSI and SSDI beneficiaries - and claim that such a change would not constitute a significant change to the measure.

Ultimately, without altering its position on the interpretation of the law, the Palo Alto board passed a resolution asserting the superintendent's authority to offer all three exemptions in the future upon the approval Measure B, as written. This gave time for the district to further discuss the issue with the office of the county counsel and gave the district wiggle room to apply all three exemptions later on if the county insisted.

2016 amendment

In 2016, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 371 to clarify that the exceptions apply to "any or all of" the three different groups. This legislation could have been the result of the interpretation debates in the Palo Alto school district, the Campbell school district and others.

Polls

In December 2014, a poll of 402 likely voters showed that this measure could pass. In the survey, a little more than the two-thirds supermajority needed to approve this measure said they would vote "yes," even though, in answer to a preliminary poll question, only 57 percent agreed the district needed more money.

Path to the ballot

The tax was put on the 2015 ballot through a unanimous vote of the school board members, even though the old parcel tax was not scheduled to expire until July 1, 2016. Charles Young, associate superintendent of educational services, said it is standard for districts to request a parcel tax renewal or replacement a year before the old tax expires in order to give time to try again or ask for a smaller tax if voters do not comply the first time around. Referring to the layoffs and program cuts the district might have to impose if the voters choose not to renew a parcel tax before the expiration of Measure A on July 1, 2016, Young said, "Waiting until the last possible moment and risking those kind of draconian cuts has been something the district has wanted to avoid."

Related measures

a Palo Alto Unified School District parcel tax, Measure A (May 2010)

See also

• Parcel tax
• California parcel tax on the ballot
• Parcel tax elections in California
• Local school tax on the ballot
• May 5, 2015 ballot measures in California
• Santa Clara County, California ballot measures

External links

Suggest a link

• Santa Clara County Elections Office website
• Support Palo Alto Schools website

Additional reading

• Palo Alto Online, "Palo Alto schools parcel tax poised to pass," May 5, 2015
• San Jose Mercury News, "Palo Alto: Parcel tax receives passing grade," May 6, 2015
• San Jose Mercury News, "Palo Alto: Parcel tax election looms," April 30, 2015
• Palo Alto Online, "Guest Opinion: Tax renewal would protect Palo Alto school programs," April 10, 2015
• Palo Alto Online, "'Yes on A' campaign raises more than $46,000," April 15, 2015
• San Jose Mercury News, "Palo Alto School Board Voiced Support for Parcel Tax," January 14, 2015
• Palo Alto Online, "Why Are You Supporting Measure A," April 5, 2015