BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
The Palo Alto school board stumbled into a dilemma last night (June 16) before approving contracts with two unions that will result in the district losing money if property taxes go up too much.
That’s because the district agreed on May 27 to pay the union for non-teachers 80% of all property tax growth above 5%.
Then the district agreed to do the same for the teachers’ union on June 9.
So the district would pay 160% of all property tax growth above 5% to its unions next school year, increasing a budget deficit.
The issue was raised by parent Chris Colohan, who ran for the board in 2024 with a focus on the budget.
Board members were surprised. They said the language in the contracts didn’t match their intent, which was to split property tax growth between the two unions and keep the remaining 20% for the district.
“It sounds potentially problematic. So I’m at a loss as to what we should be doing now,” board member Josh Salcman said.
“Obviously I don’t think we can approve the agreements if we don’t even agree what the ultimate intent of that provision was,” board member Shounak Dharap said.
Meb Steiner, president of the California School Employees Association, the union for non-teachers, urged the board to approve the contracts. She said her union proposed the extra payment because its 850 members are worried about a growing wealth gap, and she’s been working on the contract since September.
“We have people waiting for paychecks, for money,” she said.
Steiner’s union negotiated a 10.2% raise, retroactive to July 1, 2025. Teachers are getting a 10.4% raise, and both unions are getting $10,000 in bonuses.
The board ultimately stopped the public meeting to privately discuss the contracts for 30 minutes.
After the break, Dharap said the board decided to honor the agreements, with the 160% combined payment. The board approved the contracts with a unanimous vote.
So teachers are basically receiving a below true inflation raise of 5% per year. My guess is at the end of 2 years the new sup. and Board will say there is no money left. The reality is the money is there if the District dumped made up positions during the era of Austin . Do we really need a rental coordinator or a sustainability person when there are principals and financial officers? It is time for the District to focus on a basic tackle box of needs not wants. Too much of anything just clutters the reality of what a District really needs to run efficiently.
A “below true inflation raise”? How do you define that? Is that like the “feels like” temperature they use on the news to exaggerate the weather reports. “Oh Jerry, it’s 80 degrees but it feels like 100.” God, let’s hope our kids aren’t being taught crap like that in school!