BY DANIEL SCHRAGER
Daily Post Staff Writer
The Palo Alto Unified School District’s $905 parcel tax, which funds nearly 5% of the district’s budget, expires at the end of next school year. Tomorrow, the school board will discuss a plan to get it renewed or, if they intend to raise the amount, a new parcel tax to replace the old one.
The tax, which landowners pay at a flat rate for each lot they own, brings in around $16.5 million a year for the district. It can only be renewed through a ballot measure and needs two-thirds of the vote.
At its meeting Tuesday, the board will look at how likely voters are to renew the tax and discuss when to put a measure on the ballot, with an eye toward June 2026.
Senior exemption
PAUSD contracted with the political data firm True North Research to survey 504 local voters on the possibility of a seven-year, $941 tax, with a 2% increase each year and an exemption for seniors.
The Census says 39% of Palo Alto residents are over 55, which means only the remaining 61% would be subject to the tax.
The survey, which will be presented to the board Tuesday (Nov. 4), found that around 73% of respondents were in favor of approving the tax, while 19% were opposed and 8% unsure.
Respondents ranked the quality of education as their top local priority, with 93% calling it either extremely or very important. The survey found that 43% said that preventing additional taxes was their top priority.
Job cuts threatened
If the tax isn’t approved, the district’s revenue could fall from $348.8 million over the 2026-27 school year to $337.8 million the following year, according to a report by Chief Business Officer Charen Yu. As a result, Yu estimates the district would have to cut 79 jobs.
You give Palo Alto voters any excuse to raise taxes, they will enthusiastically support it. Put the word “tax” followed by “schools” or any government program for that matter, they will happily vote in favor of the measure by large margins. A tax for a new government grocery store that gives you only one brand per food item (with the one brand chosen based on political considerations like company internal climate change policy and DEI initiatives, not quality or price), long lines, and mostly empty shelves? They will vote in favor.
The only violation of liberty I can recall that Palo Altans were not entirely enthusiastic about were curfews in the summer of 2020…and my guess is, the city manager did not give them a good enough reason to continue curfews or they would have. supported it.
Heck, we still have mask mandates in medical facilities in Santa Clara County. In the year 2025! No other county outside of the Bay Area imposes forced masking anymore – they have moved on long ago – and nobody bothers to ask the most basic questions, like are patients, visitors, and workers outside of the Bay Area experiencing a spike in deaths and hospitalizations in the winter time while Santa Clara County is doing measurably better? Of course the answer is ‘No’ or you would have heard about it by now on this and other media sites. But people in the county go along like sheep and is it any wonder they still have mask mandates here? It’s only because states like Florida and eventually Arizona dropped their mask mandates did blue states like California and New York reluctantly go along…or we would still have lockdowns and universal masking today. You can’t comply your way out of tyranny, people. Just say No!
student enrollment has declined by 12% since the current parcel tax was passed. It’s time to review the parcel tax with expected future enrollment, and school district performance. Other local high schools (Saratoga, Lynbook, Monta Vista, Mountain View, Los Altos), with less funding per pupil (Saratoga is around $20,000 per pupil, Mountain View/Los Altos around $25,000 per pupil, and PAUSD is $27,000 per pupil).