Three small paragraphs in the state’s education code will shift up to $90 million from schools in 10 California counties this year, putting the money instead into the state’s coffers for trial courts. But the move could violate another section of state law, county officials said.

Superintendents and school board members from the affected counties, including San Mateo, Marin and Santa Clara, have banded together to urge state officials to stop the practice, saying the money is needed locally to help kids succeed, ultimately keeping them out of those trial courts, officials said.

“This is generated locally by taxpayers and it should be spent locally on education,” said Placer County Superintendent of Schools Gayle Garbolino-Mojica. “That money could have such a phenomenal, substantial effect.”

Since 2011, the state has taken $54 million from Placer County’s Office of Education for trial courts.

In San Mateo, the amount is closer to $100 million, money that could be used to maintain or expand programs and services.

The money comes from local property taxes, designated for each county’s Office of Education, which oversees local school district budgets and provides a range of countywide education services. In most counties, the property tax revenue is all spent as part of a state formula for local education spending. But in these 10 counties, there is money left over after the calculation. These excess property taxes used to stay in each county’s schools account.

But in 2011-12, during the Great Recession, the state decided to pull those excess property taxes to cover the costs of trial courts, an accounting gimmick aimed at balancing the state budget. Then in 2013, a new law made that change permanent, requiring counties to transfer those funds to the state each year.

At the time, only a few counties were affected — San Mateo, Santa Clara and Placer — resulting in a transfer of $28 million to the state’s trial courts.

Now, with 10 counties collecting excess property taxes as the economy booms and real estate prices increase, the amount soared to $90 million in 2018-19.

“It’s the education code of the state that is being used to fund the state trial court system,” said Joe Ross, a member of San Mateo County’s Board of Education. “Almost anyone would say it’s crazy to do so. People often say things like a dollar spent on a classroom now is a dollar less we’ll have to spend later on a courtroom.”

Even before 2011, state law restricted the use of the excess property tax money, essentially freezing it in county education coffers so it could be used in future state funding calculations for schools in case local property taxes dipped, requiring the state to make up the difference. But in the meantime, the counties were able to use the interest generated from the money.

Along with the new requirement starting in 2011-12 to make the annual transfers, counties also had to shift all the money in those frozen accounts to the state — which was more than $20 million in San Mateo County at the time, Ross said.

State finance officials say that the state retains authority to determine how excess property revenue is spent — something granted under Proposition 13, which capped property taxes.

In addition, counties used to be responsible for trial court costs, but when the state took over the responsibility in 1997, counties agreed to continue supporting trial court operations, said H.D. Palmer, deputy director of external affairs for the state Department of Finance.

In other words, the state has the right to direct the use of the funds, Palmer said.

Ross and other county officials says it’s unclear why county offices of education play by different rules than school districts, which are allowed to keep excess property taxes and spend the funds.

County officials are appealing to Gov. Newsom to address the issue and currently have no plans to pursue legal action.

Last year, 13 legislators from the 10 counties also urged the governor to undo the property tax shift.

While the law allows the state to shift court costs to counties, it’s using school dollars to do so, legislators said.

“We think this is now inappropriate and we support returning the funds to county offices of education allowing them to use those funds to serve students and shifting the affected court costs back to the state general fund,” according to the April 12 letter.

State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, and Assemblyman Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, were among those who signed it.

In Santa Clara County, Superintendent Mary Ann Dewan said the funding would significantly boost her budget — and the services and programs provided to students and families, including mental health support, early learning and special education.

“This additional property tax that was raised for purposes of education could be used to support about 10% of our budget,” she said. “Obviously costs are going up and the needs of our students are significant.”

Since 2013, the county has transferred $151 million to the state for trial courts, Dewan said.

It’s unclear whether the ongoing transfer violates voter-approved Proposition 22, which passed in 2010 and amended the state Constitution to say the Legislature can’t “reallocate, transfer, borrow, appropriate, restrict the use of or otherwise use the proceeds of any tax imposed or levied by a local government.”

Palmer said that the measure does not impact the state’s use of the excess property taxes.

Ross countered by saying, “There’s no clear explanation why this is permissible. It’s certainly not morally the right thing to do. It’s not clear that it’s legal or constitutional, either.”

In Placer County, the $8.3 million transferred to the state could be used to fund 40 additional wellness centers, Placer County’s Garbolino-Mojica said.

“It would have such a phenomenal, positive effect in my county,” she said. “Let us use our money locally.”

Jill Tucker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jtucker@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @jilltucker