Fremont Unified School District parcel tax, Measure K (November 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
School bonds
& taxes
Portal:School Bond and Tax Elections
Bond elections
All years and states
Property tax elections
All years and states
How voting works
State comparisons
County evaluations
Approval rates
A Fremont Unified School District parcel tax, Measure K ballot proposition was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in the Fremont Unified School District in Alameda County, where it was approved.[1]

The tax was a $53 per parcel, per year, for five years. There were 53,871 parcels in the school district at the time of the vote. School officials believed that the tax would generate close to $13 million over the five years it was set to be in effect.[2]

The school board paid a political consulting firm, Godbe Research, over $105,000 to perform polls and feasibility studies to learn whether voters in the district are likely to approve the tax. Based on the results of the latest polls, Bryan Godbe said, "We think there is potential support for November, and we recommend moving forward."[1]

The board also voted, unanimously, to spend about $320,000 on the administrative costs of holding the parcel tax election.[1]

A 2/3rds supermajority vote was required for Measure K to pass.[3]

Election results

Measure K
Approveda Yes 33,699 70.09%
These final, certified results are from the Alameda County elections office.


The editorial board of the Oakland Tribune was in favor of a "yes" vote.[4]

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

To provide Fremont schools stable funding for quality local education and programs that cannot be taken away by the state, including:

Maintaining math, science, reading and writing programs;
Keeping school libraries open;
Supporting classroom/learning technology;
Maintaining college and workforce preparation programs; and
Retaining qualified teachers
Shall the Fremont Unified School District levy $53 per parcel annually for 5 years, exempting seniors, with citizen oversight, no money for administrator salaries and all money benefiting local schools?[5]

See also

External links

Suggest a link