In case you missed it, the Park Street North of Lincoln item on the City Council agenda has been continued until April because of the whole packet didn’t end up on the website.
But tonight the School Board will be voting on the Tentative Agreement which has been okay-ed by the membership of AEA. There is a quickie overview here if you don’t want to read the whole of the Tentative Agreement.
Here was an interesting snapshot of the signature page in the Tentative Agreement which contained Assemblymember Rob Bonta’s signature between the two parties:
We’ll see if anyone on the School Board decides to punt on this issue for any reason at all. Hopefully the District will have the meeting up relatively quickly, there are still some meetings missing meeting on the feed. Like March 12th is missing and some others as well, which means I haven’t had a chance to watch them.
This is how the cost of the Tentative Agreement shakes out according to the staff cover sheet:
- 2012-13: $1,334,298
- 2013-14: $2,690,433
- 2014-15: $1,915,433
Other items of interest include the resolution to set aside $5.8 million in the case of an adverse judgment in the Measure H case, which the School Board members have voted (4 – 1, guess who was the one) to ask the California Supreme Court to take up the issue.
And finally, the School Board will be voting on a pretty benign issue but I have a small wager in place about the final vote for this one which is why I’m calling it out, plus it’s an issue that has been discussed her previously which is the Cross Alameda Trail. So City Staff is putting in a grant to fund improvements on Appezzato between Poggi and Webster, which isn’t the whole Appezzato stretch but a darn good start.
The aspect of Measure H that additionallly burdened small business owners who owned their own property was blatently unfair, and the authors of the measure have been put to task for it, but they’re still hoping some higher court will be blind to the obvious. Good luck with that.
Comment by Denise Shelton — March 19, 2013 @ 8:15 am
I refuse to presume what Denise has stated as obvious to be that obvious though it may be. I am not second guessing but I do have questions. The ruling did not effect all the districts in the state who have passed similar parcel taxes if they were not challenged within a certain time window, therefore the only amicus briefs in this case were from districts who passed similar parcel taxes fairly recently who are also potentially on the hook. If memory serves me those were Albany and San Leandro, perhaps a third in Sacramento area? Hayward? Anyway, from a lay persons perspective it seems like this may not go well at appeal unless a) the defending districts have a new angle to argue, b) there is another angle for prosecuting past arguments at the appeal level, or c) there is something different about the make up of the appeals court. In fact, is it a panel or just another judge? I missed whether the BOE made their decision with or without a recommendation from AUSD staff. I have heard no reasoning for appeal other than not wanting to fork over $7.4 million,and I understand that motivation but have questions about compounding that cost. Is there a dollar amount which can be attached to legal costs for the appeal, aside from the $5.8 or $7.4 Million? and as to over all costs, if AUSD loses, what about plaintiff legal fees? It seemed like the City was doing fairly well fending off SunCal, but in the last round they decided to cut their losses and settle. Doesn’t seem like there is a way to settle with Borakis plaintiffs who obviously are out for the maximum, but the amount is up to the court, correct?. Since this has now been appealed, who will make the ultimate ruling on compensation should the district lose? Please excuse me if I am being naive and there are still some cards to be played, but it seems like they are all on the table face up and now it is up to the court to call the rules for the game to see whose hand wins.
Comment by M.I. — March 19, 2013 @ 11:59 am
History is filled with examples of higher courts like the Supreme Court reversing lower courts for a variety of reasons, including assessing legal arguments differently than a lower court did on issues that have never before been decided by the higher courts.
Comment by Loyal Opposition — March 21, 2013 @ 5:49 pm
3. agreed, but that is generic. I’d like to know if there is any expectation those kinds of circumstances may apply to this case and nobody has offered specifics that lead me to having high expectations. .
Comment by M.I. — March 21, 2013 @ 8:23 pm
#4,
Given the need for confidentiality in legal matters, I suspect we won’t be seeing a press release announcing the district’s planned legal strategy for the Supreme Court any time soon. But detailed information about the district’s approach at the Court of Appeals, at least, is evident in its petition for re-hearing, which is attached to Michele Ellson’s story here: http://thealamedan.org/news/court-will-rehear-decision-nix-portions-former-school-parcel-tax.
And in answer to your earlier question (in #2) the reason the Measure H has bearing on other districts isn’t because those districts filed amicus briefs. It’s because David Brillant has filed suits against other school districts using similar “split roll” tax structures, including San Leandro, Albany, and West Contra Costa. (The fact that Brillant went after the latter district, by the way, really sets my teeth on edge, as the district has had such financial problems and its students are among the most vulnerable in the state.) The H decision also affects whether communities can approve the more flexible “split roll” parcel taxes in the future.
I support the Board of Ed’s decision to go to the Supreme Court wholeheartedly, by the way, because the board has fiduciary responsibility for the district and losing $7.4 million will negatively impact our students, programs and teachers – as well as students, programs, and teachers in other districts. To me it’s a no brainer that the district should fight this and I’m grateful that it’s doing so.
Comment by Susan Davis — March 22, 2013 @ 8:36 am