Help is not on the way for the beleaguered DJUSD school district, which is facing another 3.5 to 7.0 million budget deficit for the coming year.
To make matters worse, things do not appear to be improving. Indeed, in some ways, the district is starting to crack at the seams, as we saw with the report on the district’s technology which is beginning to fail at an alarming rate.
The budget news is not improving, with the economic recovery slow and state revenues continuing to track below projections which thus far have been too optimistic. Given state funding changes and the lack of Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) at least until 2013, Bruce Colby, the district Chief Budget Officer (CBO), is projecting a budget deficit between $3.5 million and $7 million. This is on top of three straight years of budget cuts.
The projection is contingent on state and federal funding and the degree of program restoration levels.
The small decline in enrollment is also figuring into the equation.
As a result of these projections, Mr. Colby is projecting that K-3 class size will increase from the current 25-to-1 (itself an increase over the previous 20-to-1) to 30-to-1 next year. They anticipate the elimination of the 7th period for 7th grade, along with secondary course offerings and counseling services.
There will also be a continued reduction of classified support staff – custodial, clerical, site supervision, college and career and maintenance, as well as reduction of the DHS Vice Principal Time.
The state of the budget is in flux, given the new governor, and Bruce Colby believes it is entirely possible that they will not really know the impact of the budget until the May revise. However, because of state law, the district will have to guess prior to that in order to be in compliance with laws that require notifying employees of possible layoffs.
As the Vanguard learned on Wednesday, a new governor may not bring changes to education funding. Senator Mark Leno warned the Vanguard, “Fifty percent of the budget is education, so education is always at risk without new revenue. Californians, I hope, will begin to focus on that fact.”
Governor-elect Jerry Brown has already made it very clear that he would not be raising taxes without voter approval, anyway.
“We ostensibly have an inability to raise any revenue with the legislature, regardless of whether there is a majority or supermajority threshold,” said Senator Mark Leno referring to the passage of Proposition 25 which will allow the legislature to pass a budget with a majority vote but not raise taxes.
Against that bleak background, Jay Ziegler, consultant for the school district, presented an even more bleak scenario, talking about his work on Proposition 21, a rather modest vehicle license fee of $18 that went down overwhelmingly. In the meantime, voters passed Proposition 26 to limit the ability for government to raise money through fees.
While the environment is a tough one, Mr. Ziegler also emphasized previous polling that showed strong support by the Davis voters for schools and for continuing the parcel tax.
However, he recommended splitting the question, polling both for length and for a separate increase in the amount. He wanted the district to look into a lower-rate parcel tax, but for an 8- to 10-year period.
Mr. Ziegler recommended the board wait until early December to poll the voters, given the national mood and the uncertainty of the changing state administration.
He emphasized that it was important to provide a number that matches the needs of the district and demonstrate that value to the voters.
Board member Richard Harris said it was important to tell people what they are going to get for the dollar amount. The dollar amount is not important, but rather it is important what they get.
He added that any longtime frame for a parcel tax would have to build into it a lot of accountability.
Board member Susan Lovenburg added that the previous polls show that voters prefer a shorter term. Mr. Ziegler agreed, stating that the data shows that as the term lengthens, the support drops.
Ms. Lovenburg added that they need to make it clear that these would restore programs, that the board is not striking off in a new direction or adding programs.
Sheila Allen agreed with her colleagues that people need to know what they are paying for and why they need to pay for these things.
The downside of a longer term parcel tax was brought up by both Gina Daleiden and Tim Taylor, who pointed out that over a ten-year period the real dollar would decline, and thus there needed to be an automatic inflator attached to a long-term parcel tax.
Tim Taylor and Richard Harris also had a small discussion over whether they needed to sell the public on this being an emergency.
Tim Taylor argued that calling it a “B” tax, or emergency tax, is not a bad thing. He pointed out Bruce Colby’s disastrous numbers which, depending upon the scenario, show the district being another $3.5 million to $7 million in the hole, on top of what has already been cut.
This is an emergency, he said. If it is not an emergency, he does not know what is.
He suggested that they need to call it for what it is, sober people up, and if it is emergency tax, then call it that.
Richard Harris responded that he would be in complete agreement in calling it an emergency, if this were three years ago. But the community has already had to pull out their wallets and support an emergency in Measure W, along with DSF (Davis Schools Foundation) fundraising.
He is afraid that if they go to the voters saying that it is an emergency, it will be argued that the district is using the word to manipulate the voters.
For him this is not an emergency but rather a statement about local control, and about a local district and community supporting local schools and showing what this community is about. It is time for the community to step up and determine for themselves, regardless of state funding, what we want this community to look like.
The district right now is looking at a May election. There are questions about whether the district can do a mail-only ballot.
Jay Ziegler suggested that a number of district used them but they were not challenged. He said that the district should find out whether it is legal, as to whether circumstances in the county are comparable to the circumstances specified under revisions to election law.
Superintendent Winfred Roberson stated that they are waiting on the official answer from county counsel as to whether the district can do a mail-in-only ballot.
The bottom line here is twofold. First, Tim Taylor is absolutely correct that this is an emergency. Richard Harris is correct that the community will have to determine whether they want to step up again and fund schooling at current levels.
But, unlike in the past, no one knows if they can pull this one off. The polling suggests that the amount they need may be too much. And then what? The district has survived better than most, but putting huge amounts of the funding into the core programs in the classroom is starting to strain things, as we will start to learn next week.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote] Def. emergency: a sudden unforeseen crisis (usually involving danger) that requires immediate action[/quote]
David: I looked up some definitions of “emergency.” They vary of course, but most refer to something unexpected or unforeseen. I do not think one can say that the current situation is an emergency (though “crisis” may be apt). To me emergency also connotes something that is temporary though that may just be my take.
Why does this matter?
Voters in Davis are savvy. They know K-12 education has been cut by the state and now, after the state has taken away much of municipalities’ ability to spend. This is a permanent situation and it is not unforeseen. Some dictators have declared permanent states of emergency, but in general I think its better to be honest with voters–this isn’t going away any time soon.
I’m generally skeptical of consultants, but I agree with Mr. Ziegler above. It makes sense to poll people in Davis and figure out how much they would be willing to pay to support Davis schools, though how it is presented is likely more important than the exact amount. Davis is not like other communities (we voted to legalize marijuana!) and a school measure has a much better chance of passing.
On the other hand the fiscal irresponsibility of our CC hurts. I voted against Measure Q and will vote against any measure which gives our CC more money (in general funds) to waste until and unless they get their fiscal act together. Of course the school budget is different, but I do think there is a spillover effect–if voters see that our CC is wasting money or being irresponsible on wages and benefits, it hurts efforts to help the school district even though they are separate pots of money.
From what I read above (and admittedly I was not there) I’d say our school district should heed what Mr. Ziegler has to say.
dmg: “The solutions are not readily apparent as Jay Ziegler advised the board on options for polling for a new parcel tax possibly to be placed on the ballot. He suggested that the board take a cautious approach, given the climate, and carefully weigh the merits of a lower-rate but longer-term renewal of Measures Q and W, while at the same time evaluating the need for a shorter-term measure to budget the short-term budget deficits.
Against that bleak background, Jay Ziegler, consultant for the school district, presented an even more bleak scenario, talking about his work on Proposition 21, a rather modest vehicle license fee of $18 that went down overwhelmingly. In the meantime, voters passed Proposition 26 to limit the ability for government to raise money through fees.
While the environment is a tough one, Mr. Ziegler also emphasized previous polling that showed strong support by the Davis voters for schools and for continuing the parcel tax.
However, he recommended splitting the question, polling both for length and for a separate increase in the amount. He wanted the district to look into a lower-rate parcel tax, but for an 8- to 10-year period. Mr. Ziegler recommended the board wait until early December to poll the voters, given the national mood and the uncertainty of the changing state administration. He emphasized that it was important to provide a number that matches the needs of the district and demonstrate that value to the voters.”
I respect Jay Zeigler, and I think he is giving very good advice here. Particularly when he suggests “demonstrat[ing] that value to the voters”. Voters are much more apt to vote for a parcel tax if they know exactly what the money is going to be spent on, and what specifically will happen if a parcel tax is not supported. But any projected parcel tax must be reasonable under the circumstances – taxpayers are struggling mightily from an economic standpoint, and can afford only so much.
dmg: “Tim Taylor and Richard Harris also had a small discussion over whether they needed to sell the public on this being an emergency.”
IMHO, this argument is silly. We are going to have an extended budget crisis in CA. Calling everything an emergency is like Chicken Little saying repeatedly “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. One or two rounds of that, and it will sound like a broken record and be meaningless. Use it for this situation, and you won’t be able to use it in a real emergency. Voters are not stupid, are well aware of the economic budget crisis throughout the nation and CA in particular. Give them some credit…
Good summary, DMG. A couple of clarifications from what I saw of the meeting:
As a result of these projections, Mr. Colby is projecting that K-3 class size will increase from the current 25-to-1 (itself an increase over the previous 20-to-1) to 30-to-1 next year. They anticipate the elimination of the 7th period for 7th grade, along with secondary course offerings and counseling services.
There will also be a continued reduction of classified support staff – custodial, clerical, site supervision, college and career and maintenance, as well as reduction of the DHS Vice Principal Time.
These are all things that were on the “cut list” last spring. They were funded by 1) DSF fundraising last spring, 2) DTA/CSEA concessions resulting in 5 furlough days which was a 1-year agreement, & 3) one time reserve money. This was all 1-time money, which is not immediately available for next year, hence it must all be listed for cuts.
We are going to have an extended budget crisis in CA. Calling everything an emergency is like Chicken Little saying repeatedly “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”. One or two rounds of that, and it will sound like a broken record and be meaningless. Use it for this situation, and you won’t be able to use it in a real emergency.
Many of these very words were used in the discussion between Taylor & Harris. What Harris was really arguing is that this is an issue of local control. Do we want to be begging for school sustenance from the legislature, or do we want to make this a discussion of community values — that we in Davis believe in having quality schools enough that we are willing to pay for it.
As far as calling it an emergency, Taylor said, as quoted in the article above:
This is an emergency, he said. If it is not an emergency, he does not know what is.
But we’re learning as we go along that there may be no limit to how bad things could get.
What was not quite addressed in last night’s discussions is that we’re not yet fully addressing what additional cuts the governor/legislature might propose for the 2011-12 budget. The current year’s budget is already unsound and its optimistic assumptions will have to be corrected with the 11-12 budget. And incoming state revenues are not reaching projected levels, yet.
Harris’ point was good in that it gets back to a bigger philosophical issue. Funding of local schools used to be mostly reliant on local property taxes. With the passage of Prop. 13, funding of local schools was ceded to the state. In times like this, it would be nice to have full funding derived locally, but clearly there are limits to what Davis residents can and will afford.
Here is Jeff Hudson’s take on last night’s meeting, reporting for the Davis Enterprise:
[url]http://search.davisenterprise.com/display.php?id=71320[/url]
You know I read many posts on this blog that say we must pass new education parcel taxes in order to keep our property values up but I also read bloggers who want new housing, even though it’s not needed at this time, in order to bring property values down and more affordable. Which is it?
[quote]Tim Taylor argued that calling it a “B” tax, or emergency tax, is not a bad thing. He pointed out Bruce Colby’s disastrous numbers which, depending upon the scenario, show the district being another $3.5 million to $7 million in the hole, on top of what has already been cut.[/quote]
I think the “temporary” Measure Q generates 4 million/yr, and the “temporary” W another 2.4 million. The school board will pick the most unpalatable areas to cut and state that those will be the first things that will have to go if there are no more funds from a new tax. Add the remodeling of Emerson and the recent DHS multipurpose room problem and I thinks it will bring it up to a “temporary” $1000/yr. The school board will continue to mismanage their budget because they know the Davisites will always bail them out by renewing an approving more “temporary” special assessments.
The school board will pick the most unpalatable areas to cut and state that those will be the first things that will have to go if there are no more funds from a new tax. Add the remodeling of Emerson and the recent DHS multipurpose room problem and I thinks it will bring it up to a “temporary” $1000/yr. The school board will continue to mismanage their budget…
except that there are hundreds of other school districts in California that have made those very unpalatable cuts and more, and those programs are not coming back because those communities don’t have the resources or will to find a way to pay for it. If there is a school district in California that DJUSD should follow as an example, then please point it out to us.
You get the school system that you pay for. Education is expensive but ignorance is even more expensive.
But if you really do have the expertise to make the finances work out, then serve your community, get involved, and run for school board.
wesley506: “I think the “temporary” Measure Q generates 4 million/yr, and the “temporary” W another 2.4 million. The school board will pick the most unpalatable areas to cut and state that those will be the first things that will have to go if there are no more funds from a new tax. Add the remodeling of Emerson and the recent DHS multipurpose room problem and I thinks it will bring it up to a “temporary” $1000/yr. The school board will continue to mismanage their budget because they know the Davisites will always bail them out by renewing an approving more “temporary” special assessments.”
I think you make good points here. As Mr. Zeigler said, the voters are in no mood to withstand a huge increase in the parcel tax this time around. You can only push so far…
wdf1: “Harris’ point was good in that it gets back to a bigger philosophical issue. Funding of local schools used to be mostly reliant on local property taxes. With the passage of Prop. 13, funding of local schools was ceded to the state. In times like this, it would be nice to have full funding derived locally, but clearly there are limits to what Davis residents can and will afford.”
The problem w this argument is the school board would like a blank check – in other words a parcel tax in an amount the school board feels is necessary. But I suspect that boat won’t float w the voters in this economy…
The problem w this argument is the school board would like a blank check – in other words a parcel tax in an amount the school board feels is necessary. But I suspect that boat won’t float w the voters in this economy…
I believe the majority of the school board gets it that you have to be clear and specific to voters about what the parcel tax will fund. There will be no blank checks.
This is not just what the school board thinks is necessary. There are plenty of interests in town that want to see adequate funding for the schools — a large number of parents, quite a number of homeowners, a good number of businesses. In a place like Davis, given the history and expectations of the community, it would be stupid for the school board not to consider this.
I agree this is a tougher environment, but best to have the conversation by way of election to see what kind of priority this is in the community.