Consultants lay out parcel‑tax options and timelines as district weighs $15–20M goal
Loading...
Summary
A TeamCivics consultant told the Santa Rosa City Schools finance subcommittee on Jan. 5 that parcel‑tax options — flat per‑parcel or square‑footage assessments — could produce the district’s $15–20 million target if structured across both the elementary and high‑school districts, but district‑sponsored measures would require a two‑thirds vote and narrow citizen‑initiative paths exist.
Charles Heath, a partner at consulting firm TeamCivics, told the Santa Rosa City Schools finance subcommittee on Jan. 5 that parcel taxes remain one of the few local tools school districts can use to raise money for ongoing operations such as staffing, programming and student supports.
Heath said parcel taxes placed on the ballot by a district must win two‑thirds of voters, and that typical structures include a flat per‑parcel fee or a square‑footage assessment. “State law does say that parcel taxes must be applied uniformly across all parcels,” he said, while noting courts have allowed caps on assessments for very large properties and state law allows limited exemptions for seniors and some low‑income homeowners on SSI or SSDI.
He presented 2023 polling the district commissioned showing roughly 64% support for a $75 flat parcel tax in the high‑school district and about 72% support for the same flat rate within the elementary district, and cautioned that those numbers predate current conditions. Heath and staff modeled combinations of elementary and high‑school measures and said square‑footage structures, if layered across both districts, are among the scenarios that could approach the committee’s $15–20 million annual target.
Heath outlined an alternative pathway opened by a 2017 California Supreme Court decision: a citizens’ initiative can sometimes place a special tax on the ballot and be decided by a simple majority, but such campaigns must be entirely independent of the district and are limited to city or county boundaries rather than school‑district boundaries. He noted examples in other Bay Area cities and urged the committee to weigh legal, geographic and political tradeoffs.
Heath also listed deadlines for district‑sponsored timing: March 6 to qualify for the June ballot and Aug. 7 to qualify for the November general election. He and staff emphasized those dates matter to when revenue would be available under the district’s fiscal calendar.
Committee members asked several legal and design questions — including about exemptions, duration and caps — and several members said the committee should return in April with more analysis and with a clearer picture of whether any independent citizen initiative will materialize. Heath said the district’s staff received spreadsheets modeling different rate and exemption assumptions and that legal counsel should be consulted on untested approaches.
Next steps: staff and the subcommittee will revisit parcel‑tax scenarios in April and consider whether to return a recommendation to the full board on a resolution that would place a district‑sponsored measure on a future ballot. The committee did not adopt any formal motion on Jan. 5.
