|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
More than $1 billion that San Mateo County and its 20 cities are counting on over the next decade may never make it home due to what local officials say is a broken state Vehicle License Fee funding formula.
At a Redwood City press conference on April 7, county and city officials urged the state to release money it says it’s owed and to permanently fix the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) mechanism that has left San Mateo County among the few counties excluded from funding.
“San Mateo County is one of only three counties that is being treated unfairly due to a flawed California funding formula created to address a state budget deficit long ago,” said Joan Dentler, state Sen. Josh Becker’s chief of staff, on behalf of the senator. “I will fight for every dollar our county is owed and push for a permanent fix so we can finally end this cycle of uncertainty.”
Local leaders blame the state for sticking with an imperfect tax system that has harmed San Mateo County and its cities. Some state officials and critics have said the funding gap has been known for years and that local governments should have adjusted to it.
How the VLF system works
At the center of the controversy is California’s Vehicle License Fee mechanism, which has provided 55 of California’s 58 counties with roughly $12 billion in funding for the most recent 2024-25 fiscal year, according to Kenneth Kapphahn, a principal fiscal analyst with the Legislative Analyst’s Office. San Mateo County was one of the three left out.
The VLF is like a property tax on a car, paid to the California Department of Motor Vehicles and then handed back to local governments, according to the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office. For decades, it was at about 2% of a car’s market value. In 2004, voters lowered it to 0.65% as a popular tax relief program. It has remained there, reducing a key source of local revenue.
To offset the loss to schools from the lower tax rate, the state has backfilled school funding through its General Fund.
But some school districts do not qualify for General Fund money from the state because they receive sufficient funding from property taxes, noted Paul Steenhausen, a principal fiscal analyst at the California Legislative Analyst’s Office. These are known as basic-aid districts, a category that 19 of San Mateo County’s 23 districts fall under.
Basic-aid districts are not always located in wealthier property-tax areas. East Palo Alto’s Ravenswood City School District is basic-aid, while Burlingame School District is non-basic-aid, said Justin Mates, a county assistant executive, because the equation to determine a basic-aid district relies on a constellation of factors that include student attendance, and not just property values.
Because basic-aid districts rely largely on property tax revenue for funding, they are legally unable to share this revenue with local governments, which would otherwise serve as VLF backfill, Mates added.
The problem first surfaced in fiscal year 2011-12, when San Mateo County was hit with a $432,000 shortfall, Mates said. The state wrote this backfill for San Mateo County into the governor’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2013-14 without any resistance. The county did not see another shortfall until fiscal year 2019-20, he said.
California had a large budget surplus at the time because of the COVID-19 pandemic, so the state jumped in to help and plug the shortfall again, according to Kapphahn.
However, Mates said the county faced an “increasingly contentious fight to get that money” starting with the fiscal year 2021-22 shortfall, when the state’s Department of Finance no longer included the county’s shortfall in its budget. That’s because state spending started to exceed its revenue.
The county and its cities were able to win this fight year after year, with the state finding just “enough coins underneath the cushion,” said Steenhausen.
That is, until last June, when the state declined to fully reimburse the county and its cities for the first time, given the state’s annual deficit of around $35 billion the last few years, Mates said. Local leaders secured $76.5 million in backfill for fiscal year 2023-24, but San Mateo County and its cities were still left about $38 million short, Mates said.
The state’s defense has been that its reimbursements have been one-time gifts, no strings attached, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.
In fiscal year 2024-25, the countywide shortfall reached $119 million. County officials submitted a reimbursement claim to the state in August for inclusion in the 2026-27 state budget, Mates said.
In August, San Mateo County sued the state alongside its 20 cities and the counties of Mono and Alpine, which were also excluded from the backfill mechanism.
The lawsuit alleges the state violated California law by withholding nearly $38 million from San Mateo County and its cities, money local officials say supports housing, health care and public safety.
What it means locally
This funding makes up nearly one-fifth of the county’s General Fund, with a $119 million shortfall in the last completed fiscal year alone. The county estimates, conservatively, that in a decade it could lose at least $1 billion in funding if the state fails to make good on its backfill payments.
Redwood City’s February budgetary report projected annual shortfalls of up to $19.7 million beginning in fiscal year 2028-29, which is at least $6.3 million more than what was expected in June 2025. City staff attributed its projected shortfalls to this Vehicle License Fee problem. With litigation pending, the city has revised its backfill assumption from $4.8 million in June to $0.
The press conference last week at the fire station was intended to raise awareness of this VLF mechanistic issue and appeal for inclusion in the state budget.
“Today our message to Gov. Newsom and state leaders is clear: we need two things to correct this inequity – full payment of the outstanding amount owed, and a permanent legislative fix so this never happens again,” Noelia Corzo, the president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, told attendees.
The speakers at Fire Station 9 warned of critical consequences from the loss of state backfill funding, which they said would reverberate across public safety, health, education, labor, housing, nonprofits, government and other sectors across the Peninsula.
If the funding is not restored, San Mateo County would lose $13 million from its public safety budget alone, according to the Sheriff’s Office and Central County Fire. Officials said that would end programs addressing domestic and gun violence and could shut down multiple fire engines, increasing response times by about five minutes for each engine taken out of service.
Eight shelters would shutter without this funding, eliminating housing for 5,000 at-risk individuals, and slashing $7 million for mental health services, said Laura Bent, the CEO of Samaritan House, a nonprofit that assists the county’s working poor.
U.S. Congress member Kevin Mullin underscored the fact that the state’s failure to make good on backfill payments is taking money from local taxpayers that was contributed fair and square. Moreover, he said he considers San Mateo County a “donor economy” because it drives not only the state budget, but also the national budget.
More traffic, air pollution, displacement and other effects of the lost funding don’t just hurt San Mateo County, but the whole state, said Julie Lind, an executive with the county’s Labor Council.
Gavin Newsom for president, for remarkable leadership!
What a tragedy that our basic-aid school districts can’t “share” their property tax with our city and county governments, as Justin Mates, San Mateo County assistant executive, phrased it. Is “sharing” the permanent fix that Senator Becker’s chief of staff said he will be fighting for?
Why take more of the most reliable, stable funding away from local school districts? Does this form part of the final solution to the VLF problem? Let’s throw Ravenswood, Redwood City, Millbrae and Redwood Shores back under the state’s fiscal rollercoaster — rejoining the wild ride that Daly City, Burlingame, Pacifica and San Carlos are still on.
If not, why mention it?
County, city and state officials seem to think it is OK to leave schools struggling with the chains they themselves are trying to escape. Schools have to wait and hope for full payment of their debts from the state — days, weeks and months after each fiscal year closes. Yet the county and cities file lawsuits and hold press conferences when they are caught on the same hook.
But wait! Hoping to be reimbursed is a mere insult compared to the core injury our local officials do to the working-class school children of San Mateo County. The shell game played with school property tax funding shows how children’s well-being is subservient to another agenda. Starving working class schools seem to be OK, since they prod local votes for more revenue … “for our schools” and local governments’ large unfunded pension obligations.
The new statewide school funding formula introduced in 2013 did not include the local cost-of-living supplement that was in its blueprint for ‘equity.’ Our local school children are only offered the same dollar funding as children anywhere else in the state. This translates to 20% fewer resources in our high-cost area — an area that contributes twice the per-capita property tax and three times the personal income tax of the state average.
Our city and county governments enjoy 42% more property tax per capita — then they get to take $350 million MORE — from education property tax. This mushrooming diversion isn’t even mentioned in this article, although it has exploded since the “new” formula was introduced and emptied the bucket the VLF was supposed to be funded from.
Had respect for local costs remained in the fine print of the 2013 school funding formula — or had it been introduced by any of our state electeds since then — the VLF deficit would not exist. Strange but true, such is the shell game that property tax allocation has become.
A local cost supplement would have been paid out of the $350 million of that “excess educational” property tax San Mateo County removes from the countywide educational revenue fund each year, 77% of which it keeps for itself, 18% it hands to the wealthiest cities, and the remainder to special districts (fire, harbor, ‘hospital’).
This property tax was available to level up the least wealthy of our school districts (named above). Instead it flows to cities and a county that already lay claim to 42% more property tax than the state average. Let me restate that: our county and cities already get a 42% local cost of living supplement before the first dollar of “excess” educational funding flows to them.
Impossible as this seems you need only look at the most recent County Controller’s annual Property Tax Highlights report. It details the $164 million local governments took — emptying the coffers of the Daly City, Burlingame, Pacifica and San Carlos elementary schools — to repay the state’s VLF debt to themselves. (And mentions the $119 million more in the lawsuit.)
But in the next column you see their “Excess ERAF” allocation. Note how it just covers the ‘missing’ VLF reimbursement for the cities (albeit favoring some and shorting others) and dramatically overpays it to the county ($270 million vs. less than a $98 million VLF shortfall). And hands $20 million to the special districts gratis (love the Menlo Fire museum!).
Local government officials love to call this their ERAF “rebate.” If Proposition 13 qualified as Original Sin, then the allocation of local governments’ property tax in 1993-94 was their Cain v. Abel moment. Which kind of ignores one small lapse in memory. Assembly Bill 8, one year after Proposition 13, which took 30% of the property tax that was left to schools after the Original Sin of Prop 13 … and handed it to counties and cities. The state would take care of the schools. So Prop 13 cut local school property tax funding by 50%, then the cities and counties took almost a third of what was left. The state couldn’t actually afford to make up the difference, drove school funding into the basement and had to resort to the 1993-94 grab back. Rebate? How disingenuous.
Four counties have a cost of living 10% or more greater than the state average. Four counties have “excess” educational property tax that has grown six fold, from $200 million to $1,300 million ($1.3 billion) in the last 12 years. This would fund a local cost of living supplement for the state-funding dependent schools in each of these counties. Is it allowed to? No.