The school district has some very important considerations to make in the next few weeks as they decide what do with a parcel tax proposal that they intend to put to Davis voters in May.
Upon hearing the school board’s proposed parcel tax, my initial thought was why not ask for what you need.
We have noted the opposition of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association and other groups that may be forming in opposition to a tax increase that would take the parcel tax from $320 to $495.
The latest expression of opposition comes from a letter to the editor in the Davis Enterprise. The write, Jose Granda, who says he “attended Thursday’s school board meeting for reasons unrelated to the tax levy” but was “appalled” by the proposal from the board. He said, “There is no justification for this at this time of economic hardship for everyone.”
Is this a lone voice of opposition? Hard to know. He claims he voted in the past to support the schools, but not this time.
He reasons, “Many of us have suffered through furloughs and a 15-percent pay cut. The state budget is in trouble, there is a lack of jobs and people are losing their homes. Davis is not an exception. This is not just a renewal, but a tax increase.”
“This is a very bad time to do this. Most people in Davis are so busy with their lives that may not even know the school board wants to dig deep in their pockets,” he continues, “The tax increase at this time of hardship for everybody has no merit. A 54.7 percent hike is particularly inappropriate.”
It is difficult to read tea leaves, especially when there is actually no ballot language approved. However, my sense is that there is more opposition to this than there was last time, when the measure passed overwhelmingly.
I am not saying it will not pass, too soon for that. But this is likely, at the very least, to be a very different campaign from what we saw in November of 2007 or November of 2008.
Complicating the picture is the lack of any idea of what will happen at the state level.
There are now really two variables at play.
First, is the proposal by the new Governor Brown that if the voters in the state pass his tax extension, there will not be a need to cut educational funding this year. That would be the first time in four years without cuts, and the prospects for even getting the proposal on the ballot are in doubt, but it certainly signals a new regime in Sacramento that could change the free fall that we have seen in education.
Second, is the proposal by the Governor that we discuss today to either eliminate or modify the redevelopment agencies in the state, hoping to shift more money to schools and counties. Again, it is not clear that this would be able to pass in light of the powerful monied interests that will undoubtedly align against it. But again it is a variable.
Bottom line, it is not even clear at this point, and will likely be no more clear in May, how much money we actually need.
I am not yet supportive of pulling the ballot proposal, but I am at the very least backing off my position that we should put the full proposal on the table and if we have to come back with modified amount in November, then so be it.
I think even the current $495 amount is at least in some doubt. Polling numbers show support, but that is before a campaign is waged with competing claims, something that we have not seen the last two cycles.
My spending priorities in this community remain the same – education, and social services at the county level I continue to believe that the city has squandered valuable resources not just for our city services but for other governmental services in other sectors by creating overly-generous compensation packages to many of the top employees, particularly safety and management.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
you don’t seem to address the opposition issue of Board refusal to link tax to Sac monies, reduce if Sac contributes more. The whole idea of emergency funding that is chgd if emergency eases. I believe the letters addresed that point as Board ‘trust us’ arrogance. And tho I didn’t watch it does ring a bell with me.
Recently, the teachers’ union proposed “un-doing” the furloughs they originally agreed to… this is a “in your face” approach to what most city, county, and state workers have had to deal with over the past few years… unless it is clear, that there will be no “restitution”, nor COLA’s (maybe even forgoing their 2.5% range/step increases) during the term of the proposed parcel tax, I will vote against the renewal/increase in the parcel tax… which I have consistently supported in the past. It is apparent that ALL of us need to “suck up” some of the pain that the current situation has presented to us.
I think this article omits the key complaint to the parcel tax increase, as stated by Dennis Lindsay in yesterday’s Davis Enterprise:
“Several residents of Davis have proposed that any parcel tax increase have some sort of provision that the tax be reduced proportionately if the state (as required by law) begins to reinstate any of the funding due to the school district. The school board argues that any sort of required reduction in the tax is unacceptable because of other uncertain potential needs of the district and that we should trust them to do the right thing. To me, that is analagous to having a car loan, selling the car and not repaying the car loan because you need a new roof. The bank trusts that a borrower will repay the car loan, but the balance is due when the car is sold. I’ll trust the school board to do the right thing while the emergency lasts, but when the emergency is over, the tax is over. If there are other unforeseen needs, they can make their case at that time…Personally, I am not interested in providing emergency funds with no strings attached.”
Also from Jose L. Granda in the Davis Enterprise: “The board voted down 3-2 the proposed language to give back the tax money should the state restore funds. It was clear, when board member Gina Daleiden clarified that she would have to look at the “whole budget” before giving the money back, that the tax funds are being thrown in a general pool with no specific purpose. Therefore, this tax increase is also a blank check.”
Also from Dennis Lindsay: “Personally, I could support $495 or even a higher tax if the emergency portion (the excess over $200) had a shorter term; or if the term was longer with required reductions as funding is restored. These are either emergency funds or not, they can’t be both. If they are emergency funds, they are like a loan and should be reduced as the emergency is reduced.”
Bottom line is the public is more savvy than the School Board thinks. The School Board has labeled this parcel tax increase as necessary for an “emergency”, but is unwilling to concede that once the “emergency” is over, the parcel tax should go back to its previous levels. Therefore, this is not truly an “emergency” tax increase, but a permanent tax increase that will be used in whatever way the School Board sees fit in the future. In these tough economic times, this sort of unfettered, no strings attached tax increase will not go down well with voters… the School Board needs to rethink this one.
hpierce: I am also disappointed that the DTA leadership has taken this position. All I can say is that I know that this is not a unanimous position of the Davis teachers. I suspect that a few influential teachers are still living in the shadow of bad blood from about 15 years ago.
SODA: you don’t seem to address the opposition issue of Board refusal to link tax to Sac monies, reduce if Sac contributes more. The whole idea of emergency funding that is chgd if emergency eases. I believe the letters addresed that point as Board ‘trust us’ arrogance. And tho I didn’t watch it does ring a bell with me.
Even if Brown’s proposed tax extensions pass, the proposed parcel tax would only partially cover what has been cut from the district budget. In framing the parcel tax renewal (with its increase) as an emergency, the question might really be, how long do you think this fiscal shortfall will last? An earlier draft of this parcel tax proposal asked for a 6-year term. It’s hard to imagine, convincingly, that this shortfall would last for six years. Since then they cut the term to four years. That satisfied at least one of the conditions that the Yolo County Taxpayers’ Association laid out in Munn’s commmentary.
So if you are on the more optimistic side that our economy will recover quickly, then that would be solid grounds for skepticism. If you think that the recovery will be more gradual, then a four year term might make sense. I think the loss of property value in California has been so steep that only another quick housing boom/bubble would recover the lost revenue within four years.
The board voted down 3-2 the proposed language to give back the tax money should the state restore funds.
I watched that meeting, too, and this statement isn’t quite true. The proposed language said that the board “shall consider lowering the assessed rate in years subsequent to restoration of state funding, as defined by full or partial restoration of the District’s revenue limit deficit factor as of May XX, 2011.” That is language that basically referring to state cuts made to education during this economic downturn.
The motion asked for a consideration, not a binding commitment.
I should have included that part in my commentary today, just an oversight on my part, I think it was a huge mistake not to have the deflator included which leads to the perception that this is not temporary or emergency, but rather a permanent tax hike.
I think it is becoming clear this tax was intended to be used as part of a slush fund by the school board.
dmg: “I should have included that part in my commentary today, just an oversight on my part, I think it was a huge mistake not to have the deflator included which leads to the perception that this is not temporary or emergency, but rather a permanent tax hike.”
BINGO! And the lack of a deflator clause may be what dooms this parcel tax increase from passage… citizens are tax weary/wary…
I’m a little nervous about supporting a tax increase even if the school agrees to pay it back. once they have the money, there is no guarantee they will pay it back, and they can easily cook up a story about needing emergency funds after the fact, whether it is a genuine need or not.
wdf1: “The motion asked for a consideration, not a binding commitment.”
Do you honestly think the School Board would seriously “consider” any reduction in the parcel tax for any reason to the extent there would be an actual reduction? Once the money is in hand, there will always be some dire reason to spend it – that is just human nature…
wdf1: The motion asked for a consideration, not a binding commitment.
ERM: Do you honestly think the School Board would seriously “consider” any reduction in the parcel tax for any reason to the extent there would be an actual reduction? Once the money is in hand, there will always be some dire reason to spend it – that is just human nature…
First, I’m just clarifying the comment that the language in debate was not to insert any automatic reduction trigger. Granda mischaracterized the discussion in his letter to the editor.
If you’re in favor of a reduction trigger, then are there no unintended consequences that would be generated? That seems to be the achilles’ heal of most proposed law — you think you solve one problem, but you create a problem elsewhere.
I think there might be at least a couple of board members that would offer make a reduction. You can always make it a campaign issue in a school board election, provided that there is a candidate willing to run on that basis. John Munn might be one example.
Susan Lovenburg just posted an information summary of the parcel tax on another local blog:
[url]http://www.davisvoice.com/2011/01/a-taxing-issue-for-local-schools/[/url]
“Recently, the teachers’ union proposed “un-doing” the furloughs they originally agreed to…”
You mean they asked to add the lost instructional days back onto the school year. This is not a completely self-centered request.
Interesting article about how Yolo recently lost more jobs than all but one other county in the nation. Since State government is cutting and the University is cutting and the county is cutting and the schools are cutting and construction is dead we are in what you would call a liquidity trap. It is a bad time to be raising taxes from a declining base. I will vote yes for the kids.
I do find it interesting that people who are opposed seem more against the increase on principle instead of their own personal circumstances. Could it be that they would be opposed even in a good economy and are just using the bad economy as an excuse?
“I will vote yes for the kids.”
Thank you Mr. Toad for reminding us what this is really about. If the state will not provide the for the schools it is our responsibility to do so. If you do not trust the current board then vote for someone else next time, but don’t hold children’s education hostage. That strikes me as petty and mean.
I do find it interesting that people who are opposed seem more against the increase on principle instead of their own personal circumstances.
How do you know that?
[quote]Could it be that they would be opposed even in a good economy and are just using the bad economy as an excuse? [/quote]No… in our case, we have lost over 15% of family income in the last six months.
[quote]You mean they asked to add the lost instructional days back onto the school year. This is not a completely self-centered request. [/quote]Ok… if the teachers are so altruistic, couldn’t they have taken an equivalent temporary pay cut during the ‘crisis, and preserved the number of instructional days?… public expectations of what they should get from other levels of government that have imposed furloughs has not diminished…
“How do you know that?”
I don’t but the usual suspects seem to be at it again.
“No… in our case, we have lost over 15% of family income in the last six months.”
Sorry to hear that.
“Ok… if the teachers are so altruistic, couldn’t they have taken an equivalent temporary pay cut during the ‘crisis, and preserved the number of instructional days?”
Maybe but there is a history in Davis of teacher give backs that have to be fought for to be reinstated. Also Arnold led the way with days off instead of pay cuts.
“No… in our case, we have lost over 15% of family income in the last six months.”
Sorry to hear that.
I don’t know anyone whose income hasn’t been adversely affected in the last two years. Disparaging opponents of this parcel tax really misses the point. In the absence of clear indication of fiscal prudence by the board, it is hard to support it. I’m not usually a big “taxpayer’s association” supporter, but their criticisms are right on target. The board needs to address them directly, respectfully, and substantively.
ok, Mr Toad… from the tone of your comments, teachers should be immune, despite whether the are the best and greatest, or the marginal ones, from any sacrifices… they must be gods… you have the right to believe that, and espouse that… I disagree…
If the teachers and other employees agree to a freeze (including step increases) of salary during the term of the tax increase, I will vote for & support the measure… even though that will mean a sacrifice…
Don Shor: “I don’t know anyone whose income hasn’t been adversely affected in the last two years. Disparaging opponents of this parcel tax really misses the point. In the absence of clear indication of fiscal prudence by the board, it is hard to support it. I’m not usually a big “taxpayer’s association” supporter, but their criticisms are right on target. The board needs to address them directly, respectfully, and substantively.”
Well said Don. Furthermore, I think folks who normally would oppose the school parcel tax in good times, would be more likely to pass the school parcel tax increase now – bc they know these are very tough times for our schools. But there must be accountability for that money; it must last only as long as the emergency; there needs to be specificity as to what the expenditures will be spent on. I don’t think that is too much to ask in the current economic downturn when everyone is suffering.
The fact that the School Board is unwilling to do this is very telling, IMHO, that they do not want to be held accountable as to how that money is spent, want to continue getting the parcel tax increase even if there is no longer an emergency, and do not want to specify exactly where/how the money is to be spent. In other words, the School Board wants to continue receiving a blank check, much as they have in the past. The School Board needs a wake-up call – economic times are drastically different now…
Furthermore, I think folks who normally would oppose the school parcel tax in good times, would be more likely to pass the school parcel tax increase now – bc they know these are very tough times for our schools. But there must be accountability for that money; it must last only as long as the emergency; there needs to be specificity as to what the expenditures will be spent on. I don’t think that is too much to ask in the current economic downturn when everyone is suffering.
Measure W was passed in 2008 in the context of a fiscal emergency. It did not have a reduction trigger, beyond the usual late June public hearing, at which no one spoke last time. Why is a special reduction trigger necessary now, when it wasn’t an issue then?
So far I haven’t seen as clear a definition of funding allocations in the proposed parcel tax as what I saw for Measures Q & W. But if you demand rigid specificity, then you may find the district funding stuff that doesn’t make sense if the situation changes, especially if it gets worse. How would you propose to deal with that?
Since 2008, per capita income is down, unemployment is up, rents and mortgages haven’t changed, college tuition and fees have increased, health insurance premiums have increased. The trigger would have been a good idea then. It is an even better idea now.
I know two-income families in the private sector that have lost 25 – 50% of their incomes. I know two-income families in the public sector where each has lost 15% or so of their incomes. These folks don’t have lower mortgages or utility bills, and the cost of their kids’ college is increasing. Increased taxes need to be justified specifically, and need to be presented in the context of fiscal prudence.
“…you may find the district funding stuff that doesn’t make sense if the situation changes, especially if it gets worse.”
If the funds aren’t specified, they will go into the general fund become a bargaining chip. You and I have sat through the DJUSD budget presentations and understand that there are many funds going to specific uses. We also know how the contract process begins: all funds that are not specified are considered available for COLAs, step increases, and restoration of cuts from previous years. I think the voters need to know that monies they approve are going to program restorations.
Shor: If the funds aren’t specified, they will go into the general fund and become a bargaining chip.
In the case of the most recent posted draft of the proposed parcel tax, the fund expenditures are specified. There is a list of programs that they are designated to fund. There is an oversight committee to verify that those funds are spent on those programs.
wdf1: “There is an oversight committee to verify that those funds are spent on those programs.”
To quote from dmg in his follow-up article: “The district has a 10-person Citizen Oversight Committee, and there have been some criticisms of that oversight…”
wdf1: “Measure W was passed in 2008 in the context of a fiscal emergency. It did not have a reduction trigger, beyond the usual late June public hearing, at which no one spoke last time. Why is a special reduction trigger necessary now, when it wasn’t an issue then?”
As Don Shor noted, there is a vast difference in the economic climate in 2008 vs 2011…
wdf1: “So far I haven’t seen as clear a definition of funding allocations in the proposed parcel tax as what I saw for Measures Q & W. But if you demand rigid specificity, then you may find the district funding stuff that doesn’t make sense if the situation changes, especially if it gets worse. How would you propose to deal with that?”
A lack of specificity says to me the School Board wants a tax increase/blank check, rather than an “emergency measure”…