PAUSD already has more money than it can spend, with rising property taxes and declining enrollment

The school board never asked the district staff to analyze the impact of declining enrollment, increasing property tax revenues, and over $100 million in reserves. Instead, they only discussed what level of tax could be expected to pass – which is why they reduced the level to $800 / year. That also wasn’t based on an analysis of what the district actually needs. It was based on polling of what voters might approve.

The $100 million in reserves provides a very large cushion for any unexpected changes. For perspective, it’s 10 times larger than the state’s requirement for reserves, and nearly a third of an entire year’s budget. It’s larger than the entire anticipated parcel tax revenue over its full four-year term. If the world changes in unexpected ways, the reserve will provide plenty of time for a future board to adopt a parcel tax.

It doesn't. Property tax revenue has grown by an average of $15 million per year for the last decade, while enrollment has dropped by 20%. The district is effectively receiving much more money per student every year even without a parcel tax. Measure B is a "want," not a "need."

Yes, but so is the district's property tax revenue and its $100 million in reserves. Being "locally controlled" doesn't mean the money is being spent wisely or that more is needed.

The main downside is that you and your neighbors will have less money in your pocket for things that you actually need. Padding the district’s bank account doesn’t deliver much value, certainly once it already holds $100 million. The other negative is that when the district has too much money, it’s very tempting to spend it on unnecessary things. The most likely of these is: excessive pay increases for administrators and staff. In fact, the teachers union is already pointing to the $100 million reserve to justify pay increases that are multiples of the rate of inflation, even though the district is already a very attractive place to work. There is little defense against this with over $100 million in cash reserves.

Actually, PAUSD didn’t have a parcel tax until 2001, when the district faced increasing enrollment and slow growing property tax revenues because of the dot-com bust. The parcel tax was meant to be a short-term measure to close a funding gap. It was never meant to be a permanent tax disconnected from the district’s actual need. The property tax is the long term stable funding source for the district. The parcel tax should be paused until and unless it is needed again.

If Measure B fails, the district will continue to receive over $300 million in property tax revenue, which grows by an average of $15 million every year. It will also have its $100 million in reserves. The district's programs and staffing will remain among the best-funded in the state. If the board decides a parcel tax is truly needed later, they can bring a new, more justified measure back to voters in a future election.

No. Parcel tax revenue is for operational expenses like salaries and programs. Building improvements and safety upgrades are funded through separate Bond measures, like the $460 million Measure A bond that Palo Alto voters approved in 2018.