The second school parcel tax, GG, that is on this ballot is a) a little confusing and b) a tough decision in the current economic climate. Having said that, some clarification is in order. On another post, a commenter asked, "I just read in John Horgan’s column that the school tax GG “can be increased or decreased, depending on fiscal circumstances.” Can this be true!?
I made an inquiry to one of the measure's supporters who provided the exact language in question:
The Board will determine, on an annual basis, the amount of the levy for the following fiscal year, up to the maximum allowable rate shown above. If, in any given year, the Board elects to levy an amount less than the maximum allowable rate, it may, in subsequent years, levy the maximum allowable rate.
I take that to mean if the Board decided on a lower levy in one year, the levy the following year could go back up, but still not exceed the maximum allowable rate. The essential part of that rate is:
The tax, at the uniform rate of $0.14 per square foot of building improvements per year, capped at $2,500 per parcel per year for 8 years.
The other confusing wrinkle is this 8-year tax overlaps the last parcel tax (Measure L that you see on the property tax bill you just got in the mail) for the next three years--i.e. two taxes for three years, then just the GG version for five more. The reason for that is the district has to budget out three years and the state funding is erratic and mostly erratic not in our favor.
Voting for Measure GG may be a tough call for some property owners who are struggling with insurance increases, energy cost increases, building material cost increases, labor cost increases, the SALT tax cap, the three state bond measures also on the ballot and who knows what else. As usual, I consider that all of the GG revenue stays in town and has to go straight into classroom resources. That's your decision framework.
Recent Comments