Pleasanton Unified Schools parcel tax, Measure E (May 2011)
If Measure E had been approved, it would have levied a $98 annual parcel tax for four years.
A 2/3rds supermajority vote was required for approval.
- Election results from Alameda County elections office as of 4:21 a.m. on May 4, 2011.
The official voter guide arguments in favor of Measure E were signed by:
- Valerie Arkin
- Jana Halle
- Jan Batcheller
- John R. Dove
- Donna Garrison
They argued that the district needs "stable funding that cannot be taken away by Sacramento."
The official voter guide arguments against Measure E were signed by:
- David Miller
- Deborah Beardsley
- Cynthia Gehl
- Douglas W. Miller
The arguments they made were:
- During the term of the Measure E parcel tax, the district will give salary increases of $15 million.
- The income of the school district has increased by $18 million over the previous three years.
- 15 administrators in the PUSD district have recently retired with pensions of between $100,872-$178,120 per year.
- The text of Measure E is not specific and therefore does not commit the district to spend Measure E funds in any particular way.
- It is costing the district $250,000 to administer the election for Measure E, and that money could have been better spent.
Text of measure
The question on the ballot:
This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
| Measure E: To protect local schools from State budget cuts, provide local funding that cannot be taken away by the State, and preserve quality education by:
shall Pleasanton Unified School District levy $98 per parcel annually for four years, with a senior exemption, independent oversight and no money for administrators’ salaries?”
- Text of Measure E
- Argument in favor of Measure E
- Argument against Measure E
- Support Pleasanton Schools