Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Antioch Unified consultants outline parcel‑tax option as district confronts $30M shortfall
Summary
Consultants for TeamCivics and Godby Research told the Antioch Unified School District board that a November parcel tax is feasible in principle but would require a two‑thirds vote; the board asked questions about exemptions, renter impacts and how polling would test flat vs. square‑footage rates.
The Antioch Unified School District heard a detailed briefing Wednesday evening on whether a parcel tax could help close a mounting budget gap.
Joy Coomer, partner at TeamCivics, told the board that a parcel tax “does require two‑thirds voter support for approval” and that, unlike bonds, parcel taxes are legally flexible in how revenues are used, commonly funding salaries and academic programs and flowing directly into the district’s general fund. Brian Godby, president of Godby Research, described the feasibility work his firm would run: split‑sample ballot tests (flat per‑parcel vs. square‑footage rates), translated surveys, and hybrid contact methods (text, phone, online) to estimate likely voter support.
The consultants outlined three common rate structures: a flat per‑parcel charge, a square‑footage rate (which many districts prefer for perceived equity), and a square‑footage rate with a per‑parcel cap intended to limit liability for large corporate campuses. Coomer said many districts include senior exemptions and SSI/SSDI exemptions for homeowners, and that oversight committees and annual inflation adjustments are now common features of parcel‑tax measures.
Trustees questioned practical effects and political competition. Trustee Brown asked whether exemptions could cause landlords to pass the cost on to renters; Coomer replied that only property owners may apply for exemptions per state law and said districts cannot control landlord decisions: “I can't say for sure that someone wouldn't try to pass on the cost over a term of years,” she said, noting landlord‑tenant law can limit immediate pass‑through.
Godby described the research timeline and approach: a kickoff meeting to set priorities and jurisdictions to test, drafting and pretesting survey instruments that mirror legal ballot language, followed by fieldwork and analysis. He said the firm would test a range of ballot wording and program priorities (teacher retention, reading specialists, crossing guards) to identify message framing that moves likely voters.
Board members and staff asked practical questions about competition on the ballot, given other possible county and regional measures; the consultants said the firm would analyze competitive threats as part of the feasibility work and advised that local measures often succeed even when larger measures also appear, because voters vote locally.
Next steps described by the presenters included launching a feasibility survey and, if results are favorable, moving into an awareness‑building (nonadvocacy) phase and later a board vote to place a measure on a specific election ballot. The consultants warned that no action goes to voters until the board adopts a resolution to place a measure on the ballot, and that any campaign organization must be an independent committee separate from district operations.
The district emphasized the parcel‑tax option is one of several revenue strategies under consideration as the board and staff work on a fiscal solvency plan.
