Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 7, 2013

Measuring out A

Filed under: Alameda, School — Tags: , , , — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

So I’ve been thinking a bit about the whole “get rid of Title I and backfill it with Parcel Tax money” while I’ll discuss that later in another post, what I did discover were some interesting things about how the parcel tax was distributed for the 2012-2013 budget year based on the staff recommendation last year.  Now I don’t know if all the money was disbursed exactly as listed in this staff report, but it’s probably pretty damn close.

I’ll caveat this by writing that it’s probably not THAT meaningful since it’s only one year budgeting, but I found it interesting nonetheless.


Unsurprisingly the money was not distributed evenly among all school sites.  And unsurprisingly some of the smaller sites, like Franklin and Maya Lin received a disproportionate amount of money when you consider the size of the school.   Of course given that the parcel tax indicated that it would “preserve neighborhood schools” it appears that it did just that by funding nearly 20% of Franklin’s overall budget for 2012-2013.

Maya Lin was in its first year of being a magnet school so the start-up costs were probably paid for by the parcel tax as well.

Just for funsies, I charted out some of the numbers such as the percentage of the Parcel Tax Share based on Similar School Type (meaning Elementary, Middle, High School):


And how much parcel tax money there is per student by the individual school:



It will be interesting to see how this compares with the budget recommendations for the 2013-2014 school year.



  1. Lauren, would you mind sharing that spreadsheet as a Google doc or somesuch? I’d like to poke around at that data for fun. I’ll retype if you’ve already tossed it.


    Comment by Jim Meyer — February 7, 2013 @ 8:57 am

  2. Here you go! Parcel Tax 2012-2013

    Edited: Somehow the straight upload from Excel didn’t work out so well, so I cut and paste the data into a Google Doc which eliminated the formulas.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 7, 2013 @ 9:00 am

  3. Thanks! Here’s a version with all the formulas restored:

    (Wish I knew your clever link trick)

    Comment by Jim Meyer — February 7, 2013 @ 9:42 am

  4. I think it’s important to note the schools you stated as receiving a disproportionate amount – Franklin, Maya Lin (Washington) and Otis – did so not because of the size of the school but because they would have closed in the 11/12 school year had Measure A not passed. These schools received the monies dedicated to Neighborhood Elementary Schools under the parcel tax primarily to pay for the sraff required to run the schools.

    Comment by Anne DeBardeleben — February 7, 2013 @ 10:08 am

  5. after recent Measure H ruling we first heard that the one time cost for the years the tax was collected before A passed was $7.5million. The Sun (erroneously I think) said it could cost $10M but that was including the additional two years which are moot under A. Now the Journal has run the number $13.6M. Can anybody clarify ? Paying plaintiffs legal costs couldn’t be $6M.

    Comment by MI — February 11, 2013 @ 9:24 am

  6. MI: District just put out a press release with the $13.6 million number as well, it looks like the $13.6 million would be if the whole of Measure H was invalidated, including the residential portion.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 11, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at