Board hears feasibility plan and timeline for renewing Palo Alto parcel tax

Charles Heath, a consultant to the district, told the Palo Alto Unified School District board on May 13 that the district's parcel tax, currently approved at $836 per parcel and set to expire in fiscal year 2026—27, could require voters to approve a renewal as early as 2026 to avoid a funding gap.

Heath said parcel taxes in California require a two-thirds vote unless placed on the ballot through a complicated initiative process, reviewed the district's history of parcel-tax measures and described options for rate, duration and voter protections. He said the $836 rate, with a 2% annual inflation adjustment, would equate to about $941 per parcel by 2026—27 if the board chose to preserve purchasing power.

"The challenge with a parcel tax is that it requires a two-thirds vote," Heath said, explaining that polling and a feasibility study are the usual first steps. He urged the district to begin public-opinion polling immediately if it wants to meet 2026 election deadlines, and outlined a timeline for drafting ballot language, establishing an independent campaign committee and conducting a community information effort.

A member of the public, Stephen Davis, urged the board to consider how the parcel tax's revenue—16 million, he estimated—fits with other funding efforts such as bonds and city funding so voters are not "hammered" by multiple measures at once.

Board members asked Heath when polling could begin; he recommended starting right away and noted a services agreement was on the consent agenda that evening. Heath also described legal options that could lower the approval threshold through a citizens' initiative placed on an overlapping city or county ballot but warned of practical and equity complications for a district with boundaries that cross municipal lines.

The board did not vote on a parcel tax proposal on May 13; Heath and staff said they would return with polling results and a draft measure for subsequent board action. Public comments that night included support for the tax as discretionary revenue (about 5% of the district budget, per a public commenter) and concern about coordinating its timing with other local ballot measures.

What's next: staff and the consultant said they will begin a feasibility review and polling work if the board approves the services agreement in the consent agenda; the board flagged several possible 2026 election dates and asked staff to return with recommendations and a draft resolution to call an election if polling indicates viability.