Voters Approve One of the Six Local Tax Measures on March 2 Ballots

Preliminary election results indicate that only one of the local taxes on March 2 ballots was approved by voters, while three were rejected and the fate of two remains uncertain based on early results.

All of the measures would earmark revenue for specific purposes, making them special taxes that require at least two-thirds of the vote to pass.

The measure that clearly passed will impose a parcel tax in a Marin County district that includes just 22 improved parcels, and was placed on the ballot at the urging of property owners who argued that the tax will pay for badly needed road repairs. Preliminary vote totals show the measure was supported by 25 of the 31 voters whose ballots have been tallied so far.

A parcel tax placed on the ballot by the San Marino Unified School District in Los Angeles County had 62.8 percent of the vote in the preliminary count, leaving it almost 4 percentage points shy of passage.

Prior to the vote, district Superintendent Jeff Wilson wrote a “Dear Friends” letter in which he described the tax increase as a plan to “merely extend this local source of funding,” and said the lack of a sunset date is a good thing for taxpayers.

“The total amount the District receives from the tax will not substantially change and your tax rate will also not be affected,” Wilson wrote. “The main difference is that this measure will be in place until voters decide not to renew it. This will save the district over $200,000 for every election and will provide stable secure funding for our schools.”

While Wilson’s letter clearly advocates for the tax by describing it in glowing terms, downplaying the cost to property owners, warning of teacher layoffs if the measure fails, and describing the never-ending annual inflation increases as a good thing for taxpayers – “This new measure limits future annual increases to no more than 3 percent” – the superintendent included a disclaimer: “The purpose of this letter is not to endorse Measure E, which the District is precluded by law from doing. Instead, the District wishes to provide you some background information about the Measure and to encourage you to research the issue and take the time to vote.”

In Sonoma County, the West Sonoma County Union High School District used a biased ballot question for Measure A, asking voters: “To renew and provide stable funding at Analy, El Molino and Laguna High Schools that the State cannot take away; protect music, art, dance, shop, culinary and other career technical programs; retain teachers/staff; keep class sizes low; shall the West Sonoma County Union High School District measure to levy $48.00 per parcel annually for three years be adopted, raising $1,150,000 annually, have no funds for administrators’ salaries, provide a senior citizens’ exemption and have all funds stay local?”

The district also sent a skewed letter to parents designed to build support for Measure A, and a list of “frequently asked questions” that includes this campaign-style message as an answer to the question, “What is a parcel tax?”: “Parcel taxes fund needs at the District that usually come out of the general fund. Current parcel taxes are used to upgrade technology in classrooms, maintain small class sizes, provide counseling and library services, and maintain music, art, and drama programs.”

Measure A failed, however, receiving just 55 percent of the vote in the preliminary tally.

Measure A was opposed by the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association. Executive Director Dan Drummond wrote in a ballot argument: “Sadly, we’re watching a slow-moving train wreck. Years of declining enrollment have left the West Sonoma County High School District with expensive facilities it no longer needs. …. The choice is a harsh one, but not particularly complicated. Either we raise taxes to maintain facilities no longer needed and further increase the cost of housing as we do so, or we tell the District trustees to do the job for which they were elected. It’s time to trim surplus facilities from the balance sheet and cut expenses.”