![All eyes watch the Palo Alto Unified School District board and leadership Tuesday night at the district office. Allison Zeman, PAUSD reading specialist and parent, said she supports a sustained parcel tax to help maintain staffing levels and a sense of belonging for every student. “In order for us to really provide that [environment] for every student, we need the staffing, because there's nothing more powerful than the relationship between a student and the staff members,” Zeman said.](https://palyvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/IMG_3470-e1770845808759-1200x731.jpg)
Oscar Varodayan
All eyes watch the Palo Alto Unified School District board and leadership Tuesday night at the district office. Allison Zeman, PAUSD reading specialist and parent, said she supports a sustained parcel tax to help maintain staffing levels and a sense of belonging for every student. “In order for us to really provide that [environment] for every student, we need the staffing, because there's nothing more powerful than the relationship between a student and the staff members,” Zeman said.
The Palo Alto Unified School District board Tuesday night voted to cut the June 2026 ballot’s parcel tax rate and duration to reflect declining enrollment and mitigate voter opposition.
The Board officially adopted “Option 3,” which would lower the annual rate to $800 per parcel for a four-year term, with no automatic inflation adjustment. The measure will now head to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for the June 2 election.
To pass, the tax must secure approval from two-thirds of participating voters. If passed, the new rate would take effect in July 2027, representing a roughly 15% reduction in tax revenue for the district compared to current levels, according to board documentation.
School Board President Shounak Dharap said he supported the reduction as a conservative approach to ensure the measure passes.
“There is significant opposition to the parcel tax as it was presented at the last meeting,” Dharap said to the board. “I would much rather see a parcel tax at a lower rate than no parcel tax at all.”
Charles Heath, district consultant for the parcel tax, said that the decision was unconventional but strategic.
“Tax reductions are rare … but we’ll see higher support for a reduced parcel tax than you would for a higher [parcel tax] rate,” Heath said.
According to former PAUSD Board President Todd Collins, district enrollment has fallen 14% in the last five years, while funding per student has risen to over $35,000.
Given these trends, Collins said the district must now demonstrate what he views as fiscal discipline and responsibility.
“You already have among the highest paid teachers in the state, the lowest turnover and the lowest student-to staff-ratio,” said Collins, a supporter of the reduced parcel tax rate going forward. “You have more funding per pupil than any California district in comparable size and 70% more than a typical district. You have everything you need to be successful. A [renewal of the current] parcel tax will not make it any better.”
According to Collins, the tax — which makes up less than 5% of the district’s budget — was instituted when the district had far less funding and higher enrollment.
Collins said he is in support of reducing rates by 15%, as that would align with the drop in student numbers since the tax was last renewed six years ago.
“We really needed the money, but things have changed,” Collins said. “Today, enrollment is 15% lower than it was [at the last renewal], so it falls on you [the board] to adjust to that change.”
Edith Cohen, a community member who spoke at the board meeting, said she hopes the district will focus on results rather than taking funding for granted.
“Despite this unprecedented spending, student achievement had declined,” Cohen said. “The parcel tax should not be a blank check for the same culture, the same barriers and the same lack of transparency.”
According to district Chief Business Officer Charen Yu, choosing the lower rate will reduce the district’s annual income, and when combined with a shorter term, significantly decreases the total revenue collected over the life of the measure.
“Between Option 1 and Option 3, [the difference in revenue] the first year would be around $2.5 million, but because Option 1 has a longer period of time of seven versus four years, there’s a compounding revenue reduction overall.”
However, Board member Josh Salcman said he is in particular favor of the shorter, four-year timeline that offers the district a chance to change course as necessary sooner than a seven-year measure would have allowed.
“At some future point, we’re going to have to go back out to our community and justify additional decisions,” Salcman said to the board. “I think there’s something to be said for us being able to say to them, ‘Look, we assessed the situation, we heard feedback … we made an adjustment.'”