by Nicholas von Wettberg
Come November, Davis voters will have a school parcel tax on the ballot of $620 annually for eight years.
At a special meeting on Tuesday morning, the Davis Joint Unified School District (DJUSD) board of education agreed to the recommended amount, length of term, and programs and services affected.
Also detailed was the wording (text) of the ballot measure.
Finalization takes place on Wednesday night at the Community Chambers.
Davis residents are invited to attend the parcel tax public hearing. The special meeting begins at 7 pm.
School parcel taxes, with a required two-thirds approval for passage, are nothing new to the academically-minded district, having been a part of the educational funding landscape for the past three decades.
Some lively discussion ensued from the five trustees during the meeting, which centered mostly on the measure’s amount.
Eventually, the board voted 4-0 in favor of the $620 (or “lower”) amount. Trustee Alan Fernandes abstained from the process – in disagreement.
Throughout the past few months discussing the topic, Fernandes was the most vocal member of the board that endorsed the highest cost, totaling $950.
That was the sum a recent follow-up telephone survey had polled potential voters about, along with the amounts $620 and $750.
There was a minor divide over whether taxpayers would be willing to have the tax firmly in place (for eight years) or flexible enough for a sooner re-up (for four years).
Trustee Susan Lovenburg, who has the longest tenure on the board, dissented on the length of term (4-1 vote in favor of eight years).
Lovenburg said there’s an entire generation of parents unfamiliar with the parcel tax, which is one of the reason’s she opposed to a measure of more than four years.
She also said she was in favor of a tax with an amount above what many consider the status quo.
“I’ve always favored some increase over $620,” Lovenburg said. “Mostly because I’m concerned about the inherent conflict in the message that $620 is a renewal when it’s actually an increase. I also think that it’s important to actually use this opportunity to do as much as we can for students and I think the support for $620 is so strong that I believe there’s a compelling case that we can aim a little bit higher than $620.”
As far as programs and services Lovenburg would support, given an increase in additional funding, they were the elementary choral program, garden and recycling programs, and STEM technology support.
For both telephone surveys, in which potential voter interest was gauged, over 71 percent of respondents gave a solid yes to agreeing to pay a school parcel tax of $620.
The approval percentage dropped to 64 percent when the tax amount was increased to $750, and to 55 percent (with a solid “yes”) for an increase to $960.
The conversation about the measure included interim Superintendent Kevin French, Associate Supervisor Bruce Colby and district legal counsel.
For Board President Madhavi Sunder, the amount is important, but so is the fact the community has consistently backed its school parcel taxes, which she says sets a positive culture.
“We all agree that it is the citizens’ support of our Davis public schools that makes us the excellent school district that we are,” Sunder said. “Our current parcel taxes contribute a whopping 12 percent of our annual budget in the amount of $9.5 million. We’re proud that the Davis community, young and old, parent and non-parent, understands that investing in our children is the best possible investment in our future for economic and social prosperity for everyone in this community.”
During the discussion, Fernandes asked his fellow board members to bring a new perspective into the fold about the measure.
“I think this community wants us to reach big and so for the amount I have been very clear, I’ve been in favor of a parcel tax above $900,” Fernandes said. “I don’t know that everyone is there, here, but I’m certainly supportive of going downward. I like the $750 we polled at that and it is a nice round number. Our median home price in Davis is $585,000 so we’re talking a tenth of a percent of the value of the home dedicated to probably the most important thing that keeps our home values where they are, which is our schools.”
Fernandes added that he thought the community could not only afford a parcel tax as high as $750, but he believed it is what they want “to see out of our schools.”
He said that it would be the necessary amount for Davis to be more than just a “good” district and gave an example of the community’s willingness to extend over the $620 amount, referencing the trigger mechanism built in to Measure E, from 2012.
Trustee Barbara Archer held the same ground she had for the past few weeks of discussion, sticking with the lower amount of $620.
“I’m still in my cautious place and I’ll kind of reiterate why,” Archer said. “We started doing parcel tax outreach a number of months ago to the community. Everyone was fine on term. Again, this was my experience, my colleagues might be different but everyone that I spoke with…the formal outreach at the PTAs, and site councils and also my discussions with people in the community, everyone is cautious about the rate so we don’t overreach.”
For those of us not following this as closely as others, could someone put the amount in perspective historically. What is this replacing and by how much? Thanks!
One of the parcel taxes they are now asking to be funded was only supposed to be a temporary stop gap tax. Now they’re looking to make it permanent. We’re currently paying $531 for Measure’s C and E. The increase comes from the lost revenue from apartment rentals due to Granda’s lawsuit. Homeowners are now being asked to make up for that lost revenue.
Actually the one that was a stop gap emergency measure was passed in 2011 for two years and then passed for four years in 2012.
They essentially rolled over two expiring parcel taxes and added $90 a year to cover inflation.
Also to cover for the loss that resulted from the legal settlement
The increase covers mostly the loss from the legal settlement. Very little to cover inflation.
It is unclear… is this proposed as a fixed assessment/tax for 8 years, with no inflation/COLA?
With the same exemptions for seniors (irrespective of income) and SSI folk?
There was no discussion of a COLA
thx…
yet, still waiting on response as to exemptions..
Thx, BP… appreciate the clarification….
Exemptions still in place.
They kept the senior exemption and added a new disability exemption.
David wrote:
> They kept the senior exemption and added
> a new disability exemption.
I know that parcel taxes in the past have had an exemption for people on “SSI Disability” does the “new disability exemption” cover more disabled people (like a guy in a wheelchair not on SSI)?
I have not reviewed yesterday’s meeting yet, but I believe they are continuing the inflation factor mechanism, based on CPI inflation, as has been the case for current school parcel taxes.
“As far as programs and services Lovenburg would support, given an increase in additional funding, they were the elementary choral program, garden and recycling programs, and STEM technology support.”
What, the teachers can’t institute a daily sing-along for kids, gardening in pots to grow herbs or even tomatoes in the classroom, recycle classroom trash? I wouldn’t be surprised if teachers are already doing much of this…
I feel a “salad rant” coming on.
I was thinking the same thing.
Nameless, if you believe that the parcel tax should be opposed or minimalist, just say so.
“if you believe that the parcel tax should be opposed or minimalist, just say so.”
I believe that nameless has done so already on a number of occasions.
I want to be on record as in favor of salads
Moi, aussi…
Classroom teachers are held most accountable for standardized test results in math and English. You did not teach under those conditions. They are not held accountable for anything else — musical activities, school plays, gardens. Some teachers in Davis will still do these things that you suggest, because they are older teachers who grew up when such activities were more common. Every year I have seen fewer and fewer teachers do these extra activities.
What we see now are state/federal school funds are paying for state/federal priorities (standardized test scores in reading and math). The school parcel tax covers salaries and costs for priorities that are important to Davis but are not necessarily state/federal priorities — libraries, elementary music, 16-pound cabbages (garden programs), stipends for extra-curricular activities (athletic coaches, robotics, yearbook, etc.) and secondary elective subjects — music, foreign language, drama, dance, voc-tech, etc.
Your comments suggest that you have a philosophy more in line with educational priorities of the state and federal government — a narrower focus as opposed to a broader focus, which I argue for. When budget cutting comes to California school districts, the state priorities are to narrow the focus of schools to math and English (which are being tested) and cut everything else.
‘Yet, have not heard of any teacher (DJUSD at least), personally held accountable for “… standardized test results in math and English…” … if that is an indication of what teachers are MOST accountable for, hats off to DTA for ensuring that no teacher can be answerable to anything except personal behavior of a sexually inappropriate nature involving (or alleged to involve) a student.
In my limited experience the difference between Davis Schools and my previous district is unrelated to money. Davis teachers seem to have a more pedantic style teaching the class as one entity. The difficulty is that kids learn at different rates so the class can only move at the pace of the slowest cohort. My previous schools has the classrooms set up as multiple learning areas with small groups circulating. The advantage of this setup was that each group could progress at the speed of the slowest member and the teacher would put advanced math students in the same group. This allowed the teacher to provide new material to keep everyone interested while they spent the most time working with groups that were making less progress. It did not seem to cost more.
wdf1: “Your comments suggest that you have a philosophy more in line with educational priorities of the state and federal government — a narrower focus as opposed to a broader focus, which I argue for. When budget cutting comes to California school districts, the state priorities are to narrow the focus of schools to math and English (which are being tested) and cut everything else.”
I believe a lot of the money spent for extra programs is wasted. As a teacher, I developed all sorts of creative programs to keep students interested in school – and it didn’t cost anything extra. Just as one example, I do not think it is necessary to send kids to an outdoor camp outside the city, when we have a plethora of opportunities right here in town. On this issue we will have to agree to disagree…
I suspect part of my antipathy towards the public school system and how money is spent is due to the very poor experiences my own children had in the public school system and my experiences as a former teacher. If the schools can’t even teach kids the basics, then they have no business arranging for frills.
nameless: If the schools can’t even teach kids the basics…
That’s the problem right there. The belief that the fundamental function of schools is to teach the three R’s, and maybe science and history if there happens to be any time. And everything else is defined as “frills”.
The function of the schools IS to teach the three R’s!
…and what else? If you say nothing else, then that’s the problem.
And if that was your guiding philosophy (nothing else but the 3 R’s) when you were a teacher, then I say you ran a joyless prison.
I say there is definitely more to school than the 3 R’s.