.

Will Judges Cut or Keep $2.4 Million For San Leandro Schools?

An Appeals Court will decide whether it is okay for voters to approve "split roll" taxes like Measure L that assess apartments and commercial properties differently than homes.

 

In November voters in the San Leandro Unified School District barely mustered the two-thirds margin needed to enact Measure L, a parcel tax intended to raise $2.4 million a year for public education.

But that amount could be cut to about $700,000, according to one estimate, depending on how the California Court of Appeals decides a case that first arose in neighboring Alameda.

The Alameda case hunges on the concept of a "split roll" tax.

A split roll levvies different assessment on single family homes as opposed to apartment buildings and/or commercial properties. 

San Leandro school officials did the same thing with Measure L, which is why local school funding will be affected by the Alameda case.

What happened in Alameda?

In 2008 Alameda voters passed Measure H, which charged homes and small commercial properties one rate, and larger commercial properties a different rate for school support. In legalize the tax split the rolls.

Measure H was challenged. On December 6, California's First District Court of Appeals overturned that split roll assessment arguing that it violated state law requiring that parcel taxes be uniform, according to an article in EdSource.

But last week the California Court of Appeals said it would reconsider that ruling -- a relief to school officials in San Leandro and an aggravation to large property owners who will have to pay more if the split is upheld.

Measure L split the roll three ways, according to Tom Silva, a director of the Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County, which opposed the tax before its passage.

Measure L assessed homes up to four units $39 per parcel; apartments with 5 units were assessed $19 per unit; and commercial properties were required to pay an additional 2 cents per square foot of land.

Silva said his group is studying Alameda's Measure H case and mulling whether to challenge San Leandro's Measure L.

San Leandro school superintendent Cindy Cathey said school officials are also reading the Alameda decision and awaiting the appeals court's second review.

She said local officials knew that the Alameda tax had been challenged before they asked San Leandro voters to split the rolls. They opted for the split roll because their polling suggested such a tax had the best chance of clearing the difficult two-thirds hurdle neeed for passage, she said.

While the appeals court takes a second look at split roll taxes, newly-elected Assemblyman Rob Bonta -- who lives in Alameda and represents that city, San Leandro and much of Oakland -- wasted no time addressing the issue.

On Monday Bonta announced his first bill, AB 59, which would make clear that "school districts are allowed to assess parcel taxes in accordance with rational classifications among taxpayers or types of property within a district, as long as the taxes are applied uniformly within those classifications."

In other words, split roll taxes are okay, so long as the splits makes sense, and all taxpayers within each roll get the same treatment.

Measure L is supposed to be added to San Leandro property tax bills in December 2013, Cathey said. How much gets added depends on all these legal wranglings. If the split roll tax is struck down, and all parcels within the school district are required to pay just the $39 rate assessed on homeowners, the tax take would shrink from about $2.4 million to about $650,000, according to one school board member's estimate.

Get San Leandro Patch delivered by email. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sanleandropatch. Or start your own blog

 

Stephen Cassidy January 11, 2013 at 03:39 AM
Tom - if the appellate court does not reverse its position and its original ruling becomes the law, and then AB 59 is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, I believe all Measure L funds collected after AB 59 enactment - remember Measure L is for six years - could be kept by the district and used for the student needs. Remember the rule on the uniformity of school district parcel taxes comes from a state statue, not constitutional provision. Measure L is not invalidated by the rule - however the amount that can be used by the school district from commercial and industrial property owners is subject to dispute until the Alameda case is resolved.
jeffrey olsen January 11, 2013 at 08:17 AM
there are month and annual pensions of dozen of city workers,may be some of them receive salaries too.I wanted to say that I don't know what achievements under their belts which provided so high pensions.Mayor Cassidy says that the city library building is an outstanding achievement of Mr.bohne .but this building is an achievement of every SL taxpayers first of all i believe,I can't say that this is a big achievement of architect and interior designer even,regular building for library for medium size town.But every year we pay near 260 000 for two librarians only. Time had come to count money for city hall people long ago,but these mayor will continue asking new taxes before we will stop him by recall procedure
Jessica Gardner January 11, 2013 at 08:41 AM
What are you sure that's correct for librarian pay? That's higher than a teacher and police officer maybe even both combined. Who justifies this salary? And who does the hiring for this job? Even if there was a recall who would you want as mayor?
Justin Agrella January 13, 2013 at 05:53 AM
Amen! This Measure passed by spurious methods and now we find that they put it on the ballot knowing full well that it could be legally challenged. Great. Sounds like another Community Church problem. Sue them Silva!
Michael Allen January 13, 2013 at 09:28 AM
Just the concept of 'pensions' for city employees is sickening. God forbid you save for retirement on your own... No, the taxpayers should sustain you for the balance of your life... Cops, Fire, EMS, and Military, these are the only people that should get a pension from taxpayers (even then they should be reasonable, cap it at $40k, not enough for you, MOVE WHERE IT WILL GO FURTHER). Not Congress, not the President, not a mayor, not a council member... no, no, no. Office jobs should have to save up like the rest of us to retire. Or, DON'T RETIRE, it's not like it's written that retiring is some right, it's a luxury.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »