School district’s tax vote will cost $740,000

Daily Post Staff Writer

Palo Alto’s school board will discuss Tuesday (Jan. 14) whether to pay $740,000 to put a new, 6-year $868 parcel tax on a May ballot.

The district currently has a $820 parcel tax which brings in $15.2 million, or 7% of the district’s budget, a year. That tax will expire next year. The new tax would let the district keep getting that revenue, plus $48 more per parcel.

The new tax would generate $15.6 million a year for the district.

It would increase by 2% each year to account for inflation. The measure will need support from two-thirds of voters to pass and would take effect in July. The cost to send out the mailers for the ballot was estimated by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. It is more expensive than adding a measure to the March ballot because the district is creating its own special election for the parcel tax.

Voters approved a $460 million bond, Measure Z, for the district in November 2018. The bond costs $394 for every million in accessed value.

The school board will be discussing the tax at its Tuesday meeting at 6:30 p.m. at 25 Churchill Ave.


  1. Why create a special election that costs more taxpayer money? So only those who are targeted by the district, and are likely to be sympathetic, will vote. Yay democracy.

  2. PAUSD is fine blowing $740,000 of our tax payer dollars on a low turn out, just them, special election to game the system to better their chances to take more of our money. Property tax revenues are up 42%. Over the past 5 years, and up 70% over the past 10 years. Enrollment has declined 7% over the same 5 years, and is projected to decline 11% over the 10 years through 2023. Why isn’t that sufficient?

  3. Enrollment in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District is also down – and its “leaders” also want more money. The March 3 primary includes Measure G – a $898 million bond measure that may cost BILLIONS to repay over many decades. Measure H is a $48 parcel tax. The parcel tax revenue could not be used to give more money to already-overpaid administrators directly. It would just FREE UP OTHER MONEY to increase administrator compensation. Wake up Palo Alto.

Comments are closed.