Alameda prevails in long battle over property tax to fund schools–but more trouble could be ahead

When the state Supreme Court let stand last week a controversial measure that allows Alameda Unified School District to fund employee salaries through a property tax, Superintendent Pasquale Scuderi said he felt extremely relieved. The years-long legal battle had consumed his time, threatened the district’s ability to retain talent, and put a full 20% of the district’s funding at stake.

“There were doomsday scenarios we didn’t want to consider,” Scuderi said. “It created a lot of anxiety.”

But although the decision to uphold Measure A was a significant victory for the district, it did little to guarantee a stable foundation for a district that has struggled to obtain sustainable, long-term sources of funding.

Measure A was passed in 2020, levying a tax of $0.265 per building square foot on all Alameda property owners, capped at $7999. That measure, along with Measure B1, which was approved in 2016, provides more than $22 million per year to AUSD’s budget. The district says the money is critical to “maintaining core programs for students and competitive salaries for staff.”

After Measure A passed in 2020, Alameda resident Leland Traiman filed a lawsuit, alleging the cap violated a state law that requires a school district’s special taxes to “apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property.”

Superior Court Judge Julia Spain initially ruled in favor of Traiman, but the First District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Spain’s decision in August of this year.

When the Supreme Court of California declined to review the decision last Friday, the long court conflict was put to bed. But it did little to ensure the long-term existence of the revenue, now so crucial to the district’s survival. That’s because, In just a few short months, the district’s parcel taxes will once again be put before voters.

Last week, a survey presented by the district at a school board meeting showed that the measures may no longer have the support required for approval. Although likely voters supported renewing the measure by a margin of 54% to 36%, that number is still far lower than the 67% percent required for them to pass.

“If I’m honest, I’m uncomfortable with how narrow the margin is,” Scuderi said.

Although Scuderi said the numbers were similar to the preliminary polling in 2020, when the measure first passed, there is some concern that support for these types of measures is waning in Alameda.

Scuderi believes a post-pandemic economic environment where households are struggling with inflation and high gas prices is a potential factor in the vote. Alameda also has a number of private and charter schools, which may have some residents questioning why they are being asked to fund schools their own kids don’t attend.

To counter these hurdles, the district is bundling two separate parcel taxes together for the measure in March, so that they don’t have to re-explain the need for the funding every year. They’ve also worked to simplify their messaging, and explain how funding gaps at the federal level, specifically surrounding special education, force them to turn to local sources. The district is also establishing a citizen’s oversight committee, so that residents can see how and where the money is being spent.

If the funding were pulled, the district would likely introduce salary freezes or even roll-back raises. The shortfall could lead to school closures or consolidations, reductions in staff, and a number of other cuts. The district’s salaries, which have been brought up to the county average thanks to the parcel tax, would likely again fall into the bottom quartile.

Scuderi hopes the relief provided by the court victory doesn’t prove to be short-lived.

“Neighborhood schools have always been a big value in Alameda,” Scuderi said. “It’s up to us to make the argument that good public schools are part of what make a local community thrive economically, not just educationally.”