News

Interpretation of exemptions trips up school parcel tax

Palo Alto school board passes resolution to confirm superintendent's authority to make changes to ballot language

In response to a reversal by Santa Clara County Counsel on its interpretation of a legal statute regarding parcel-tax exemptions and having missed the deadline to make any formal amendments itself, the Palo Alto school board Tuesday decided to reaffirm its superintendent's authority to make changes to the language of a new tax coming to voters in May.

Though the district's attorneys disagree with County Counsel's reading of the law that school districts must offer all, rather than a selection of, three optional tax exemptions, the board unanimously passed a resolution that buys the district more time to talk with County Counsel, along with wiggle room to potentially offer all three exemptions instead of one.

The tax, which the board approved in late January and if passed by voters would increase the amount residents pay to $758 per parcel, includes only one exemption -- for taxpayers who are 65 and older as of July 1 of this year. County Counsel informed the Palo Alto school district -- as well as the Campbell Elementary School District, which also has a mail-in ballot measure with a sole exemption for seniors going to voters in May -- last Thursday that including only one exemption and not all three offered in state law might be illegal. County Counsel assistants indicated to both school districts' legal representation, firm Lozano Smith, that this opinion would show up in the county's impartial analyses of the ballot measures, which are included in the pamphlet sent out to voters.

Until 2013, there were only two exemptions allowed: seniors and taxpayers who are receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for a disability, regardless of age. Legislation passed in 2012 that went into effect Jan. 1, 2013, added a third exemption: taxpayers receiving Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) benefits, regardless of age, whose yearly income does not exceed 250 percent of the government's 2012 federal poverty guidelines. The statute reads that there can be an "exemption from those taxes for all of the following taxpayers"; with the word "all" now being the sticking point between County Counsel and the school district.

"We have understood that from the beginning to mean 'any or all,'" attorney Harold Freiman of Lozano Smith told the board at a special meeting Tuesday afternoon. "So you could have one; you could have two; you could have three. That is how it's been applied around the state."

Palo Alto Unified's existing parcel tax, which voters passed in 2010, also allowed for the sole senior exemption. Freiman said that since the third exemption was added in 2012, other school districts, both within and without Santa Clara County, have successfully passed parcel-tax measures with an exemption only for seniors, including Evergreen School District in San Jose and Emery Unified School District in Emeryville.

Freiman said his firm provided about 20 pages of legislative history to County Counsel that illustrate "clear as can be" that the intent is to provide school districts with more flexibility on exemptions, not less.

Freiman was seemingly surprised by County Counsel's new interpretation of the word "all," though in limited talks since last Thursday County Counsel now has come to agree that the "legislative intent of the bill was to allow a school district to pick any one of the three or up to all of the three exemptions." Counsel will still write in its impartial analysis that the legal question exists, however, Freiman said.

He acknowledged this as an improvement, though marginal.

"It's gone from saying 'may be illegal' to 'there is a legal question,'" Freiman said.

Freiman offered three options to the board on Tuesday: do nothing, and let the impartial analysis be published with a statement that there's an open question about the single exemption; file a lawsuit against the county; or, in a move more symbolic than action-driven, pass a resolution to reaffirm the superintendent's authority to make the change from one to three exemptions.

Superintendent Max McGee could make this change under the interpretation that when the board approved one exemption, they approved all of them.

"The analogy I've been using in my own head -- if you order a turkey sandwich, you usually don't say, 'I want it on bread.' You say, 'I want turkey on my sandwich,' and with that, necessarily, comes bread," Freiman said. "If it were the case you'd have to do all three (exemptions), if it's determined along the way, arguably you've already decided that because you decided you wanted the turkey, and with it comes the two slices of bread -- the SSI and the SSDI."

Assistant County Counsel Steve Mitra told the Weekly that the district has 10 days, starting Wednesday, Feb. 18, to challenge his office's impartial analysis and have a judge rule on the interpretation of the statute.

"If they feel like that position is incorrect, it's up to them to challenge it," he said. "We don't have a stake in the outcome other than to be accurate."

District Chief Budget Officer Cathy Mak told the board Tuesday that there are about 2,000 seniors in Palo Alto who take advantage of the exemption. There is not data available on the number of taxpayers who might apply for the SSI or SSDI exemptions, but district consultant Charles Heath said he's seen fewer than a dozen applications for the disability-related exemption in other school districts that aren't in a city as well off socio-economically as Palo Alto.

Mak said adding the two exemptions would have a "minimal" fiscal impact on district revenue.

The resolution the board passed is more of a "back up" to have something in writing while the district's attorney continues talks with County Counsel, Freiman said.

"We're talking about issues that are unprecedented, so it's just belt and suspenders," he said.

Board President Melissa Baten Caswell said as talks with County Counsel continue and other pieces might have to be adjusted, she wanted to formalize the superintendent's authority to make changes.

The board also also added a clause to the resolution, as suggested by member Ken Dauber, to make clear that "potentially adding the disability exemptions would not in the board's view constitute a significant change to the parcel tax measure."

The proposed parcel tax, now dubbed Measure A, would begin on July 1 if passed and last six years with 2-percent annual increases. It would raise the $638 per-parcel tax that voters now pay by $120 to $758 per parcel. (Voters approved in 2010 under Measure A a $589 parcel tax, which included automatic annual increases of 2 percent.) The proposed $120 increase would generate an additional $2.3 million in parcel-tax revenue, initially providing $14.7 million in total revenue in the 2015-16 year.

Comments

4 people like this
Posted by Yitwah
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 18, 2015 at 2:31 am

Typo: In 2010, voters approved a $589 parcel tax, not $539. Source: pausd.org

[Editor's note: Thanks for spotting this error. It's been corrected.]


3 people like this
Posted by FedUp
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:25 am

It may be politically correct to exempt seniors, but why?
Why blankly exempt seniors who are often those who are financially the best off,
or why exempt any group based on some kind of social perception that they need
help or are unable to pay when we do not know all of that group fits the category.

Why not exempt anyone without kids, who does not use the schools. The public
schools in this area do not help any of us tax payers. You don't get a good job
that pays taxes by going to public schools.

This is an unfair regressive tax that has gotten non-trivial and onerous for many
people in Santa Clara county and Palo Alto, and shows no sign of stopping,
instead just keeps increasing and increasing.

Want to fund the schools properly ... then fund them fairly in a non-regressive
manner and quit dumping more and more burden on us average folks who
are not billionaires and have a limit to our community contribution!

I am not only NOT for this increase, I think the whole tax ought to be done away
with, it is repressive and unfair in its very nature.


3 people like this
Posted by Greenmeadow Resident
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:29 am

If we exclude seniors from paying the tax can we also prevent them from voting for the rest of us to pay this tax? This would seem to be a consistent position to take.


1 person likes this
Posted by FedUp
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:33 am

>> District Chief Budget Officer Cathy Mak told the board Tuesday that
>> there are about 2,000 seniors in Palo Alto who take advantage of the
>> exemption. There is not data available on the number of taxpayers
>> who might apply for the SSI or SSDI exemptions, but district
>> consultant Charles Heath said he's seen fewer than a dozen
>> applications for the disability-related exemption in other school
>> districts that aren't in a city as well off socio-economically as Palo Alto.

How about a few more stats ... like how many property tax payers
pay their taxes late ... and why do you think that is.
I'd speculate that it is a pretty high number, and that it is because of
deliberately obfuscated and confusing communications.

This tax is one of those things they throw in and know they can
rip-off a certain number of people who will not read their tax documenation
carefully because they have no idea something like this could be in
there ... and then they blame the taxpayers for not reading carefully.

Go run a poll and find out how many people even know about this
parcel tax, or what it is, and how many seniors know they can opt out?
I bet that number is close to the number of seniors who opt out.

They used to have laws or at east standards about having documentation
be clear and understandable. The very nature and form of the property
tax documents is very confusing and disordered, and that is aimed at
certain people to make this even more regressive. The whole idea behind
this is corrupt and purposefully confusing - get rid of it.


5 people like this
Posted by mutti
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 18, 2015 at 12:33 pm

I'm now a senior and will opt out of the parcel tax and donate my $758 to Ravenswood district. PAUSD already has way more money than almost any district in California. Those on SSI and SSDI are those who truly can't afford to pay this. Don't be even greedier. Let them opt out.


5 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 18, 2015 at 1:23 pm

In this richest school district asking for more and more money from some people who can ill afford is unjust. Yes, there are people in this town who inherited their parents homes but themselves don't make much. Oh, they are might be even teaching in PAUSD... Then there are renters who can fork over 5-6 thou or more and don't pay anything...Please vote against this regressive and unfair tax.


Like this comment
Posted by notanimby
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 18, 2015 at 4:53 pm

gotta love my neighbor who says that they don't get anything out of having educated graduates matriculating from the palo alto schools. such myopia is not shared in crescent park...there's nothing weird in the water here, but anyone who would say that we should exempt childless people from taxes should really take a look at the inherent inequality of their position. The stinging sentence, "The public schools in this area do not help any of us tax payers. You don't get a good job that pays taxes by going to public schools," is borne of a frustration that is understandable but about as rational as Donald Trump on a given day pontificating on the President's birthplace. It should be noted that Mr. Trump never paid off on his $1million dollar bet after Mr. Obama circulated his birth certificate, so Trump is both a liar and a cheat. The writer from crescent park reminds me of the same; he repeats the same line over and over in a soothing way until it feels good to hear, being so familiar. I find this position, that schools are essentially worthless, about the most insular comment I have read on this forum in some time, which is really saying something..


3 people like this
Posted by mixed feelings
a resident of Community Center
on Feb 18, 2015 at 8:24 pm

@notanimby,

Like you, I do not agree with all that FedUp says but I do think he makes a valid point that exempting seniors raises some issues around fairness. I've yet to hear a valid argument about why seniors are exempt other than that seniors are a powerful political group and we need this exemption in order for the measure to pass. It seems inherently unfair that a wealthy senior (possibly even with children still in high school) is exempt while a poorer childless couple or a family with children in private school must pay these taxes. Fortunately, it looks like only a small percentage of seniors (I'm guessing 20% based on the limited statistics provided) are taking this exemption. I'll choose the to be an optimist and assert that most seniors are voluntarily paying this tax because they feel it's important to support our public schools.


5 people like this
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:30 pm

The average spending per student (total PAUSD budget divided by number of students) is $14,766.

The average classroom size in elementary school is 22.

The average classroom budget should be roughly $325,000 per year.

Assume that the average cost of a teacher is $135,000 ($90,000 in salary + $45,000 in benefits).

Assume that the cost of the principal is roughly $210,000 ($140,000 in salary + $70,000 benefits. Typical elementary school has 21 classrooms, so that works out to $10,000 per classroom.

Front office staff (2 people), custodial staff (2 people), another $16,000 per classroom.

Throw in $10,000 per classroom for building maintenance, utilites.

Total budget is roughly $170,000; yet based on per pupil spending $325,000.
So where does the other $155,000 (48%) per classroom of the money get spent on?

With roughly 6000 elementary school students, it's about $40,000,000 that I can't figure out where it gets spent.

The public needs answers to these questions so that we can feel the parcel tax money is being put to good use.


Like this comment
Posted by Veteran
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:37 pm

@mixed feelings:

Of course, seniors in Palo Alto that are truly scraping by on limited retirement funds and SSI should be exempted. We just need a system that separates them from the rich seniors that "game the system."

That said, I agree, that a blanket exemption for all seniors is unfair given that many of them are quite well off. @Mutti is a great example of a senior that can afford the tax but instead chooses to use the "senior status" to divert their funds (so they say) to their own personal cause rather that supporting our city's schools (which are helping to keep Mutti's property values high).

Exceptions should be based on need, not age. The tax should apply to all and those that don't feel they can pay should have an "exemption request" process to state their case.

Able-bodied, volunteer seniors, could help staff the "exemption request" process.


Like this comment
Posted by Veteran
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 18, 2015 at 11:43 pm

@common sense:

Would you please cite sources or at least explain where your numbers come from?

Otherwise, just sounds like a bunch of guesses...


3 people like this
Posted by Legacy
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2015 at 12:17 am

Kevin Skelly, Barb Mitchell, and the Lozano Smith law firm are the folks we thank for this, unless Max McGee is truly unable to anticipate such conflicts that arise when the district lawyers are telling him one thing and common sense and the surrounding districts' experiemce are telling him something else. This issue is a waste of board time and makes me question competency. Either way, I'm voting no because the board have been terrible stewards. Max, know that recent PAUSD history is full of examples of the lawyers telling the board they can do something when they should be advising that the board shouldn't. Not surprisingly, we end up having to bill even more hours later because of blowups like this.


Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 19, 2015 at 12:34 am

Veteran @ Midtown,

My numbers are derived from the PAUSD website budget book, salary ranges, and SARC (School Accountability report cards) for the 2014/2015 school year.

The general fund budget from the PAUSD website is $185 million. The number of students is 12,553.

Teacher salaries range from $55,000 to $111,000.

Principal salaries for an elementary school principal is from $112,000 to $146,000.

I used Addison Elementary (first elementary school on the list), and their SARC shows 21 classroom for the 2012 - 2013 school year, with class sizes ranging from 21.5 students to 24 students.

There are two points:

(1) is that the "direct costs" spent on each elementary student is about 50% of "per pupil spending".

(2) there is a much better way to present the budget numbers so that parents could understand where the money is being spent, but instead we are given an "opaque" budget, and left to our own analysis to figure out how the money is being spent.


Like this comment
Posted by Crescent Park Dad
a resident of Crescent Park
on Feb 19, 2015 at 6:34 am

I think your calculations are missing quite a bit in terms of overhead and maintenance costs. District staff and programs. Landscaping and field maintenance. Pools at the middle schools and high schools. Maintenance of auditoriums and multipurpose rooms. Insurance. Much more.


1 person likes this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2015 at 7:05 am

I think there may be some missing aspects to Common Sense's breakdown, but I like that idea of discovering where the money is being spent.

I think that if all school campuses could be broken down in a similar fashion we could see where the money was being spent. Methinks that then we would see where the real money pit was, at Churchill. I don't know how many administrators work there, but the number of Churchill administrators should be fairly constant over the past couple of decades, however I suspect that is not the case and instead of low level paper pushers required may have increased with increasing enrollment, I suspect it is the higher level, grandiose sounding levels that have increased.


Like this comment
Posted by neighbor
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2015 at 10:04 am

Unless this has changed in very recent years, PAUSD staff and teachers who reside outside the district may send their children for free to be educated in this district - quite a perk "worth" a lot and also an expense to us local in-district taxpayers.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 19, 2015 at 12:32 pm

The PAUSD budget book has spending by school; for example, Addison for the 2014/15 school year has a budget of $3.7 million for 462 students - that works out to $7,700 spent per student.

This is quite a bit different than the per pupil spending by taking the total PAUSD general budget ($185 million) divided by number of students (12,553) = $14,766.

Where does the other $7,000/student go? if this is the same for the other elementary schools, then there is about $40,000,000 that gets spent elsewhere...


1 person likes this
Posted by what is being hidden?
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 19, 2015 at 12:44 pm

I'm starting to have my doubts about McGee. In some ways he is our least transparent superintendent in recent memory -- even less transparent than Skelly. Since being here, he has completely stopped complying with the press CA public records act requests to provide emails between board members and the administration. Skelly would run behind a few weeks but he did get them out. The last one that was posted by PAUSD was from June. Max arrived in July.

In addition to that, he was discovered to be using the district PR person who never should have been hired and is exhibit A in why many people are skeptical about the need for this parcel tax to monitor and grade press coverage.

Then he was discovered to have created a serial meeting under the Brown Act by emailing board members.

Why is McGee so much less transparent than Skelly and isn't that kind of worrisom?


Like this comment
Posted by I would like to know
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm

@what is being hidden?

I have had the same experience. Charles Young is actually the bottleneck with Skelly, he spends enormous amounts of effort writing up the records requests as a way to say he can't honor them.

With McGee, there now seems to be almost an attitude that this perspective, that honoring records requests being just tooo tooo much of an imposition on the district, is to be expected and parents better not go there. Myself I haven't pushed it because I'm trying to give him room, but at some point, he's going to get called to the mat.

Ken Dauber promised us more transparency. It sure seems like we could solve a lot of problems by just making a lot of documents automatically public in an archival way.


Like this comment
Posted by what is being hidden
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 19, 2015 at 1:20 pm

I think it's a good idea to get in touch with Dauber and ask him to either get the district to do this or to just put what he can out there. But doesn't Dauber only see what comes to him alone, not to all the other board members? Most of the district correspondence probably goes to Melissa Caswell and Heidi Emberling as the board president and vp and before that to Barb Mitchell. Plus, don't put it past these guys that as Dauber starts putting his correspondence online that will be the end of his correspondence, other than the bare minimum. This is a bunch of sore losers looking for a reason to exclude Dauber anyway and that is obvious if you attend a meeting.

I am more making another point which is what is up with McGee. He wants to make it seem like he's all progressive and a good guy and I want to believe it, but why is he so nontransparent? There are a few other things he has said that worry me -- like when he called the LAH town council rude because they are upset about not having an elementary school or a bus. They pay taxes like everyone else. But even if you think they are wrong, or rude, it is impolitic and counterproductive to get in some kind of peeing contest with them. Is that his job to go mano y mano with LAH or to defuse conflicts before they turn into distractions. I expected better.


Like this comment
Posted by So It Begins
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 19, 2015 at 1:37 pm

"Why is McGee so much less transparent than Skelly and isn't that kind of worrisome?"

So it begins. It is hard to be a good leader without good followers. When was the last time there was super/board that people thought actually did a good job?


Like this comment
Posted by I would like to know
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 19, 2015 at 4:21 pm

So It Begins,

Please don't just be negative and say there's nothing we can do. What is Being Hidden, from a different part of town, is making some observations that hit home because I've been seeing the same thing and not really verbalizing it.

I'm not sure how to take your statement "It is hard to be a good leader without good followers." You seem not to understand the definition of a leader. A good leader by definition makes good followers. However, point taken about the district office: I really can't see how McGee is going to make much of a difference with Charles Young, Brenda Carrillo, and two other people in the district office I won't name still there. He's sequestered there with them, the families in this district don't stand a chance.

However, some transparency would probably help a lot. [Portion removed.]

I had hoped McGee would see through what was going on, but instead he seems to have bought what they're selling. Maybe you're right, so it begins.


Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 19, 2015 at 8:35 pm

Here's the data from the PAUSD budget book for the 2014/15 school year:

Elementary School Spending per Student:

Barron Park budget $3,048,832, students 340, per student $8,967
Briones budget $2,962,457, students 347, per student $8,537
Nixon budget $3,962,064, students 475, per student $8,341
Palo Verde budget $3,353,049, students 405, per student $8,279
Escondido budget $4,727,963, students 575, per student $8,223
El Carmelo budget $3,235,442, students 404, per student $8,009
Addison budget $3,661,289, students 462, per student $7,925
Hoover budget $3,172,602, students 403, per student $7,872
Duveneck budget $3,777,826, students 483, per student $7,822
Walter Hays budget $4,008,873, students 516, per student $7,769
Fairmeadow budget $4,143,317, students 544, per student $7,616
Ohlone budget $4,530,285, students 608, per student $7,451

Young Fives budget $762,109, students 100, per student $7,621

Middle School

Terman budget $7,361,443, students 720, per student $10,224
JLS budget $10,814,877, students 1103, per student $9,805
Jordan budget $10,494,351, students 1105, per student $9,497

High School

Gunn budget $17,469,514, students 1874, per student $9,322
Paly budget $17,990,098, students 1933, per student $9,307

Total spending on schools $109,476,391

Total PAUSD operating expenses $182,296,443

% spent on schools 60%


Like this comment
Posted by transparent as
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 19, 2015 at 8:40 pm

It would be nice if politicians kept their election pledges.

Points for identifying which PAUSD board member pledged the following and has failed to deliver:

"I pledge myself to make available to the public, via the Web, all of my communications with district staff and other board members that are not legally confidential."


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on Feb 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

With only 60% of the budget being spent on the schools why would anybody vote for a parcel tax?

Sadly parcel taxes pass because the proponents are more likely to vote than the opponents.

In California Special Districts have the authority to hold an election by mail ballots only. Why not have the parcel tax done by mail ballot?


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Feb 19, 2015 at 9:24 pm

Peter Carpenter - Correct. They hold the parcel tax elections on the off cycle elections, so that the PTA/PIE contingent comes out strong, with no show from the rest of the electorate for that 'boring' election. The school board has really learned the formula for guaranteed win at the ballot box. Question is will the opponents finally wake up one of these times and actually come out to vote on an non-national election cycle? Otherwise, this is another sure win for PAUSD, they could have asked for 3x this amount... I guess the trick for the district is to keep the amount small enough not to wake up the people so much that they're motivated to drop a ballot in the mail, or god forbid turn off the tv long enough to drive down the street on election day.


Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Feb 19, 2015 at 9:31 pm

common sense, so whats the other 40% ($72,000,000) of the OPERATING budget spent on? And we know enough to know that 'operating budget' isn't the only spend, some expenses sit outside the operating budget? For example, debt repayment (or interest) expense? Is that outside operating budget? What about payments to the pension fund? What else sits outside the operating budget? While they love to separate these things out conveniently for us - its ALL comes out of our pocket, no matter what bucket they partition it up to.


Like this comment
Posted by Mike Reno
a resident of Gunn High School
on Feb 22, 2015 at 4:10 am

The average cost per student per year is over $12,000 and with a class size of 30 that amounts to about $360,000 per teacher. Let's say the teacher makes $100,000 and throw in $50,000 for benefits. I think this is generous enough, it might be slightly more or less but the real question is where is the other $210,000 going. Bonds have paid for the buildings and utilities and janitors aren't that big of expense. I believe it goes to all the administrators from the state to county to local. I prefer to keep the local ones although there might be too many and get rid of the others but that would require a statewide ballot and unfortunately there are too many uneducated voters who actually vote for these taxes with so little understanding of who pays. I am a senior and vote against all new taxes. I know some of the money goes to pay for retirement benefits but it can't be that much. Why not demand a full audit of where all the taxes go and who benefits. Also I would like an audit of the bond issues to see how much went for school buildings versus expenses. Bonds are solely for capital improvements not salaries.


Like this comment
Posted by xPA
a resident of another community
on Feb 22, 2015 at 5:56 pm


Please stop this lazy speculation.
The budget is a matter of public record

Web Link




1 person likes this
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 22, 2015 at 9:38 pm

@xPA -- It's more fun to speculate than to read through a 326-page document. One thing I got out of the charts (page 9) was the 5.9% average annual growth rate of property tax proceeds over the past 15 years, while student enrollment annual growth averaged only 1.7%. Thus property tax per student grew at 4.2% per year, almost double the consumer price index. Aggregate teacher salary growth was erratic but the annualized average was 3.0% over the ten years tabulated. Seems to be some gaps getting wider as they compound over the decades.

Also indicated was that the more money we throw at our students, the more funds the state takes away from us. The Willie Sutton school of taxation -- tax wealthy districts because that's where the money is.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 28, 2015 at 3:44 pm

I am looking at some letters to the editor comments from someone in Sunnyvale. Does Sunnyvale have a Parcel tax for their school system?

I am wondering who gets a parcel tax in PA when People live in a multi-story condo project - the building in total or the individual condo owners?

Or if the condo is owned by a corporation is there any parcel tax?

I have not thought about this before but there seems to be a whole group of people out there who are unaware of parcel taxes. It is possible it does not occur on their property taxes.

Hopefully someone knows the answer - if we are now being motivated to build huge condo projects is there any parcel tax at all for those people?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Salt & Straw Palo Alto to open Nov. 23
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 4,131 views

Lakes and Larders (part 2)
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,419 views

Can we ever improve our schools?
By Diana Diamond | 8 comments | 1,193 views