Mostly cloudy skies this evening will become partly cloudy after midnight. Low 48F. WNW winds at 10 to 20 mph, decreasing to less than 5 mph..
Mostly cloudy skies this evening will become partly cloudy after midnight. Low 48F. WNW winds at 10 to 20 mph, decreasing to less than 5 mph.
Updated: April 17, 2026 @ 4:52 pm
A slate of Peninsula lawmakers are trying to ease the path for school districts seeking parcel taxes by lowering the voter support threshold required for the local funding measures to pass.
State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, introduced with co-authors Assemblymen Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, and Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, legislation designed to push the parcel tax approval requirement to 55 percent.
Lawmakers claimed State Constitution Amendment 5, or SCA 5, is necessary now more than ever as local communities are asked with increased frequency to fill the funding gap left by inadequate financial support from the state.
“We need to allow districts to locally increase their revenue, if they can do it in a fair way. And to me, 55 percent is more fair,” said Hill, of the proposal unveiled Wednesday, Feb. 27.
The proposed legislation aims to reduce the parcel tax passage rate to the same level required for bond measures. Parcel taxes finance school district operations, while bond measures pay for facility improvements.
Mullin too shared his support for the proposal, which would ultimately require approval from voters across the state to pass should it reach the ballot with consent of state lawmakers.
“This is a solid local control approach to dealing with ongoing funding shortfalls and, as an amendment to our state Constitution, will only take effect if a majority of statewide voters concur with lowering the threshold going forward,” he said in an email.
The proposal would require two-thirds support to pass each house of the state Legislature, but only a simple majority from state voters on the election ballot.
In his justification for backing the proposal, Berman said reducing the voter support threshold is closer to alignment with the simplest definition of democracy by which majority rules.
“Lowering the threshold for school districts to pass parcel taxes is the democratic thing to do,” he said in an email. “Just like with school construction bonds, which require a 55 percent passage rate, if a strong majority of residents in a community want to invest in their local schools to improve the educational outcomes of their youth, they should not be stymied by as little as one-third of the voters.”
For his part, Hill pointed to the recent decision by Redwood City school officials to shutter campuses due to financial struggles as an indictment on the insufficient funding offered to public school systems.
“When you look at San Mateo County — districts are struggling, schools are closing and class sizes are growing,” he said. “It’s not a pretty picture.”
Amidst their decision to close some of the schools, Redwood City officials encouraged residents to call on local legislators to seek amendments to the state funding formula to better support school districts.
Hill acknowledged it is unlikely state officials would overhaul the larger school funding mechanism, but suggested the proposed legislation could be a sort of compromise.
He also noted the Local Control Funding Formula promotes reliance on local communities in financing school systems in building his case for making parcel taxes easier to pass.
Furthermore, Hill recognized Gov. Gavin Newsom’s advocacy for improved school funding in fueling his optimism for the proposal’s potential success, though he noted Newsom would not need to sign the bill for it to become law.
County Superintendent Nancy Magee said she supported the proposal as a means of allowing San Mateo County residents to better support their local school districts.
“An investment in education is an investment in the community. By lowering the threshold, communities would be in a better position to create the schools they want,” she said in an email.
More simply put, Hill said he believes the proposal is a simple way to address an essential state school funding issue.
“We have to recognize reality and admit to the problem and fix it,” he said.
(650) 344-5200 ext. 105
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
The Best Cymbidium and Orchid Show and Sale held in the San Francisco Peninsula will be the … Read moreAnnual Cymbidium & Orchid Show and Sale hosted by the Gold Coast Cymbidium Society & Peninsula Orchid Society
What is a fantasy in music—a form, or a freedom shared between performers? Read moreViolin Fantasie: Polina Sedukh, violin, Irina Behrendt, piano
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(13) comments
What a complete bunch of horse manure. Get these politicians out of there positions. Making it easier and easier to tax people is all our politicians are doing to us. Fight back, this is a complete travesty.
Et Tu, Jerry Hill? You are a disgrace to your constituents. The main reason schools are underfunded is the Local Control Funding Formula and the onslaught of illegal alien children. As can be verified by the County Office of Education almost two thirds of children in our K-12 public and charter schools are English-learners. Jerry and the gang should fight for stopping illegal immigration which will restore adequate funding for our own kids. But hey, taxing ignorant voters is easier than having to fight the swamp.
Dirk, you are pushing an absolute straw man argument that shows great ignorance of how public school systems are financed in California.
While I’d rather just dismiss your borderline racist fear-mongering of calling kids "illegal," your numbers -- as I have verified with the county office of education, as you suggested -- are simply factually incorrect. First, let’s clarify that there are thousands of fully documented immigrant students who are English learners, and their presence not only does not reflect “illegal” immigration, I consider it a boon to our schools and our community. The percentage of English learners varies greatly from neighborhood to neighborhood and school to school, because we live in de facto segregated communities in San Mateo County. But schools are funded at the district level, so let’s look at district numbers: In my district, SSFUSD, about 22% of the students are English learners. San Mateo-Foster City has about 25%. In Redwood City ESD, it’s still only about 37%. So, right off the bat, you are greatly exaggerating.
Let’s also look at how schools are funded. Most school districts in the state are “revenue limit,” meaning they get an amount set per student from the state. In those cases, the MORE students a district has, the better off it is financially. So your logic falls apart right there. But even in my district, SSFUSD, which is “basic aid” (i.e. funded almost solely by local property taxes), where declining enrollment would seem to be a boon (because more money is spread among fewer students), we have trouble paying our teachers what they’re worth and have millions in deferred maintenance because we are underfunded.
The reason schools are underfunded is primarily Prop. 13, which by limiting the growth of tax revenue, meant that revenue did not keep up with expenses. In this county, we have people living in nine-room homes in Belmont paying less than $4,500 in property taxes annually on homes worth $2.2 million. This bill is meant to address that, and it must be addressed. Because until we as a society decide that education is a priority and fund it appropriately, the next generations will suffer.
sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me John. Why are these politicians trying to make it easier to levy taxes on us? Why not just answer that simple question.
John, it seems there is selective editing on both sides.....
We are well past Prop. 13 funding arguments now.... it's been over 40 years .....As I'm sure you know and overwhelmingly now for years, most of the funding for K–12 education comes from the state, NOT local sources...
And yes it's true that about a quarter of students are English Learners....BUT the real issue is that a much larger number of public school students in San Mateo County are economically disadvantaged...
There is plenty of blame for under-funding to go round....
Changes to state pension systems have required districts to direct an increasing share of their budgets to pension contributions. In 2013, school districts were required to pay 8% of their teacher payrolls for pensions. By 2020, that contribution will rise to 19%, requiring districts to pay about $1 billion more over each of the next three years...... Finally, in half of all districts, declining enrollment is leading to reduced funding from the state. These trends, combined with pressure to increase teacher salaries, are putting many districts in a financial bind.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/financing-californias-public-schools/
As Mike McMahon said....California has many competing aspirational goals. Fair and full funding for public education, healthcare for all, adequate housing for everyone, carbon reduced environment, etc. Tough choices and even tougher sources for funding.....
Dirk, please do us all a favor and crawl back under the rock from whence you came. Your inaccurate, xenophobic rants are tiresome and offensive.
Why isn't Jerry Hill proposing that a portion of the State's enormous surplus go to schools?
Why does he always fight for higher taxes and larger and larger government control of our lives?
He is the poster child for why lifetime politicians are a disaster for their hard working and tax paying constituents.
Kudos to Jerry, Marc and Kevin for taking this unfortunately necessary action. What we critically need, however, is to reform Prop 13.
If you're such a fan of reforming Prop 13 and so interested in helping the kids and their education, why don't you set an example by donating all of your savings and assets above your Prop 13 assessment to the state of CA? I, for one, would be very appreciative, as it would also help with the pension shortfall - which, for some reason, nobody wants to address.
Investment in education really is an investment in the community. I recall the days of school funding pre- and post- Prop 13. It was as if a water faucet had been turned off, and many of the programs that were taken for granted were suddenly gone.
While I agree that egregious taxation is overly burdensome for all, having a democratic mechanism to improve local school funding - one which does not require a supermajority to employ - is a common sense solution to our current predicament. Even a 60% threshold would bring a welcome change, although would still favor minority rule. Bringing us back towards a more rational threshold is the democratic approach, allowing the majority to decide the goals of a community to more closely align with their values.
Jim- how come we always talk about the revenue side of the equation and never the cost side? If educators worked half as hard on costs and efficiency rather that funding, we might get somewhere in their budgets.
Newsom's budget is described as a "windfall" for K-12 schools. Highest ever. State spending now $17,000+ per pupil, PLUS here's our local funding.
I'd be fine spending more on schools if they'd only give the students more than the paltry 180 days a year they get in instruction. But schools are highly resistant to change, (the risk-takers are in start-ups). Schools demand more money each election for doing the same. And Dem politicians support every tax increase, which appear on every ballot.
If RWC is closing schools, my hunch is it isn't b/c they don't get sufficient revenue.
The problem is our local politicians think the way of solving school. and in general other so-called problems, is to throw money at it. Traffic, tax the people. More housing, tax the people. Fix the potholes tax the people. The underlying strategies are ignored' howabout living with less? Live within our means. Lets get back to basics. Simple solutions are ignored. Politicians love to mortgage the future--, their easy solution. Kick the can down the road. I'm not happy with the" problems solvers".
Their strategy impacts he least able to afford it, seniors, working families, millennials, which are clamoring for affordable housing, but none is coming.
Their solution is to provide workforce housing but in our district no one makes enough money to save for a down payment for a million dollar house in San Mateo County,--the median price range; leave the district to find affordable outside the area taking future property taxes with them. Until we tell them to stop the crazy taxation, the state will keep losing our population to Texas and lower taxation states
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.