BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
A rare battle has begun over the Palo Alto Unified School District’s proposal to renew its parcel tax.
Measure B is opposed by two former board members and supported by elected officials, nonprofit leaders, realtors and teachers. Ballots were mailed out on Monday.
The district has experienced a lot of instability this year, so voters should support Measure B to provide some financial stability, teachers union president Tom Culbertson said in an interview. “This community has demanded the highest and best-quality education, and there is investment required to make that sustainable,” Culbertson said.
Culbertson is one of nine supporters who signed the arguments in favor of the $800 per year parcel tax that would bring in $14.6 million annually for the district. Culberton is also part of the union negotiating team that is trying to hammer out a new contract for teachers.
This year the district has seen its longtime and acting superintendent leave, a $3.25 million settlement with a former teacher and about a dozen lawsuits from parents, students and former employees.
“The board is trying to find a path forward, and choosing a new leader is a massive task,” Culbertson said.
Former school board members Ken Dauber and Todd Collins oppose Measure B. Usually current and former school board members endorse parcel taxes. Dauber and Collins said student enrollment has fallen while property taxes have gone up, and the board should spend more than $100 million in reserves.
“It’s as if the district collected the last parcel tax and simply stuck it in the bank,” Dauber and Collins said in an argument against Measure B.
Amount per student
The district now gets $35,000 per student — double the level in 2014 when the district was already well-funded, Dauber and Collins said.
Dauber and Collins said the district didn’t plan for its reserves to grow from $25 to $100 million since 2019.
“It just happened as revenue piled up beyond the district’s needs,” they said. “Let’s not collect another parcel tax just to make the district’s bank account even bigger.”
Collins and Dauber said the board focused solely on how much they thought voters would approve — not what students actually need.
If Measure B is rejected, then the board will return with “a more reasonable proposal” on the November ballot, Dauber and Collins said.
Credibility questioned
Culbertson questioned their credibility yesterday, because Dauber and Collins were on the board from 2014 to 2022 as reserves skyrocketed.
Culbertson criticized Collins and Dauber for hiring and renewing the contract of former Superintendent Don Austin, who resigned on Feb. 20 with a $596,802 payout.
“They’re responsible, and maybe they should’ve taken a different path,” Culbertson said. “They were the trustees during most of what led us to this moment.” Supporters are school board president Shounak Dharap, Santa Clara County Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga, former Councilwoman Alison Cormack, former school board member Susie Richardson, realtors Brian Chancellor and Maggie Ma and nonprofit leaders Lisa Van Dusen and Yudy Deng.
Supporters said the board has relied on a parcel tax since 2001 and compromised by reducing the rate from $941 to $800.
Not outrageous
Supporters also said $35,000 per student isn’t outrageous — it’s in line with great public schools in Los Altos, Woodside, Menlo Park and Mill Valley.
The district’s healthy emergency reserves would be depleted within three years without the tax, leading to teacher layoffs, supporters said.
AP and honors classes, support for mental health and disabled students and advanced programs like robotics and engineering are on the chopping block if Measure B fails, supporters said.
“Even if you do not have school-age children, supporting quality local schools is a wise investment. Good schools improve the quality of life in our community and protect the value of our homes,” supporters said.
Be the first to comment