Last week the Vanguard sat down with two school board members, Joe DiNunzio and Alan Fernandes, as well as Victor Lagunes, the DTA president, to talk about the need for another parcel tax that would add $198 per parcel to fund teacher compensation increases.
Joe DiNunzio calls this “both a complicated and a simple issue.”
On the complicated side, Joe DiNunzio noted that the current board picks up where the prior board left off, identifying teacher compensation as a crucial issue.
“I’m a data guy,” he said. “My feeling is understanding the underlying data – where’s the money coming in? How’s it being spent? How does it reflect our values as a community?”
He said, “It was an important starting point to have a clear-headed discussion about this.”
While LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) remains the law in terms of public school funding in California, the board has committed to attempting to pressure the state legislature to spend more on K-12 education.
“That is something we need to do (raise overall education funding in the state), but it is outside of our local control,” he added.
LCFF remains a mixed bag. On the one hand, the district believes in “equity-based funding” where districts with higher numbers of at-risk or what they call “unduplicated” students have more expenses seeking to serve their needs.
“It’s not inappropriate for them to get more funding,” he said. “The problem is we all don’t get enough funding. And we get less than other districts by a considerable amount.”
He pointed out that the only local control over funding is of the state dollars we receive – which he says is not enough. The parcel tax allows the district to add revenue and set their own priorities for how that revenue can be spent.
“The local dollars stay local,” he said.
Parcel Tax Team Sits Down to Talk as Campaign Roars into Action Down the Quick Stretch – Part I
The next question, he said, is where is our money going? Eighty-five percent is going to employee compensation – consistent with districts across the state.
How does the 15 percent compare to other regional districts? Joe DiNunzio asked.
“It turns out we spend that other 15 percent a lot more efficiently than our comparable districts,” he said.
The key question is whether they can squeeze more money out of that 15 percent. For Joe DiNunzio, “Can you squeeze a few extra dollars there – you always can.”
He noted that when Alan Fernandes had a company look at efficiency, “It’s tens of thousands of dollars. When you look at the compensation gap, it’s $3 million. We’re not going to find it that way.”
Looking at the other side, “staff and programs are tightly linked. So if you cut staff, you cut programs. There’s no two ways about it.”
He said, “We had that conversation with the community – are there programs that you would be willing to live without?” He said, “The answer was no one was willing to live with fewer programs.” He went down the list of programs. “If you can’t effect that, you’re only opportunity is to look at the revenue side. To date the only tool that a school district has on the revenue side is a parcel tax.”
Joe DiNunzio also noted that the parcel tax is a great reflection of the community’s values and spending priorities. “We as a community want to fund those things,” he said. “Those are things that as a community that are valuable to us and we have agreed to fund.”
This parcel tax is focused on the issue of bringing the compensation of the district in line with other districts. “Can we bring our teachers and staff up to the regional average,” he said.
The bottom line. he said: “This comes down to two options. One, we can fund these increases to bring our teachers to the regional average through a parcel tax or we can do it through cuts.”
He said that the board has not had the cuts conversation yet. “It’s not clear where it would come from,” he stated. “There’s not one place it will come from. It will be no easy decision. We will have to cut things that people value.”
The point was made that some people have suggested the need to reduce compensation for administration first.
“I’m happy to do that,” Alan Fernandes stated. “But it’s not going to even pay for the lights.
“And the superintendent is compensated at the average plus or minor of the region… that is a red herring,” he said.
One of the points that has been raised is that not only are school districts underfunded, but they are limited in the ways they can address funding issues.
“What offends me far more than the fact that school districts are underfunded is the fact that they have no tools,” Alan Fernandes stated. “We have a parcel tax which is a two-thirds vote and a school bond which is only for facilities which is 55 percent.”
Compare that to cities, for instance, where they can do a utility user’s tax, a sales tax, a parcel tax – “they send us on a job to care local educational needs in a community and they want us to build schools and they give us a screwdriver and no hammer, no nails, nothing – and a screwdriver you can only use (if) two-thirds of the people say you can use it.
“To me it’s more offensive that we have no other options for raising revenue,” he said.
Very few districts – only about 10 percent according to Mr. Fernandes – have passed parcel taxes.
Davis, though, as Joe DiNunzio points out, “has very consistently supported parcel taxes. That demonstrates the value that we as a community give education.
“We would love to have another tool,” he said, “but there’s not another tool coming down the road to address funding.”
One of the big issues that the district faces is that over the next decade or so, a substantial number of teachers are hitting the retirement age. Replacing them, given both a statewide teacher shortage and a community teacher compensation gap, will be extremely difficult.
That is going to make this even more complicated going down the road.
One key question – did the district ask for enough with this parcel tax? After all, they may have to come back in five years to ask for more.
Alan Fernandes responded: “I think we asked for the appropriate amount.
“Did we ask for enough?” he asked. “No. Because I want to pay our teachers more. But I think we asked for the appropriate amount to at least get to the regional average.”
He noted the escalators in the measure which would add for cost of living and the fact that it doesn’t sunset.
“I think that as long as things stay how they are from the state funding perspective, it’s the appropriate amount,” he said.
“This doesn’t solve all problems for all people in all instances,” he said. “This solves a specific problem at a specific time in our community.”
He said it closes the decades-long gap between pay in this community and the average district.
Joe DiNunzio added, “Budgeting is supposed to be hard. Public budgeting is supposed to be painful… It’s not your money, it’s the public’s money. And you have a fiduciary responsibility to be as responsible as possible.”
Victor Lagunes added, “Would a higher number be better? Most definitely.” But he too said this was the appropriate amount.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David…did they share the rationale behind the unique provisions of the Measure that provide for exemptions from the proposed Parcel Tax available to DJUSD employees who own homes within the District?
I “get” their rationale for the need, and the amount… and am leaning sympathetic… but the ‘new’ exemption is a tad worrisome… am thinking it is a ‘bad precedent’, particularly given the ‘inflator’ built in, and the no “sunset date” aspects. And, bad public policy… even if only ~ $17/mo.
A true skeptic might conclude the exemptions were meant as ‘no pain’ vote getting.
We didn’t discuss exemptions. As I understood it from their conversation they saw this as a way to grant them a small pay increase – at least some teachers.
Actually, it would be, not a pay increase, but a mitigation against a ‘deduction’ from their proposed compensation increase. Get real.
You answered my question of “was it discussed” you have answered that.
I still find it a disturbing precedent. I just have to guess you’d support a similar exemption for City employees from the sales tax increment, and/or future City parcel taxes…
I think there is a “dark underbelly” to the DSUSD exemption rationale… maybe getting full DTA support? Where some DTA members would not support the proposed Measure, unless they were exempted, as their non-Davis homeowners teacher/employee “allies” are? @ < $17/mo? The employee exemption has bad “aroma”. < $17 a mo. Speaks to ‘union mentality’?
When I was a City employee, I supported the city parcel taxes… and paid them (no senior/employee/other, exemptions)… but, perhaps, teachers/other DJUSD staff, are more “special” than other public employees.
From what I see, younger DJUSD teachers more frequently live outside the district because the economics isn’t favorable to live in Davis. I see it meant as an incentive to have such teachers consider living in Davis, which makes them more likely to be longer term employees.
Davis is beginning to resemble many Bay Area cities, where teachers have to commute longer distances to their work in order to have affordable housing. In such scenarios teachers become less connected to the community in which they teach.
And basing that decision on a < $17 / mo. consideration? Really?
Are you talking about the proposed total comp. increase, or the exemptions? Meant as fair question… if you are talking total comp. increases, I tend to agree… if the exemption, not buying that.
Ron Oertel:
I know many very good teachers who live out of district, but enroll their kids in Davis because they teach here. They probably wouldn’t teach in Davis without that opportunity. Our students benefit a lot from this, and thus our schools and community benefit. I see them as bringing a value to the district that far outweighs your immediate fiscal concern.
Perhaps they would/should get jobs in their own districts, and enroll their kids there.
With an added benefit of reducing the number of unnecessary motor vehicle commuters, to Davis.
The current system is providing an incentive which hurts (both) communities.
I wouldn’t be surprised if not a SINGLE teacher moved to Davis, as a direct result of the proposed raise. Many of these folks are probably the SAME ONES who are bringing their out-of-district kids into the classroom – without paying DJUSD parcel taxes.
A raise for “out-of-district teachers”, for their “out-of-district” kids.
You miss the point of the article… the proposed measure…
If the measure fails, out-of-district teachers can enroll their out of district kids in DJUSD… same-same as existing. The will pay for neither of the DJUSD CFD’s, nor the bond assessment, nor the existing DJUSD parcel taxes… the proposed $198/yr levy is de minimus compared to the total of the other DJUSD levies.
If the measure succeeds… see my previous sentence.
If you have a problem with the status quo, fine, do something to address that… has nothing much to do with the proposed measure. Assuming you have ‘legal status’ to pursue it… I opine you’d need to have a student in DJUSD, or be a resident homeowner in the District… I may be wrong on that…
It turns out we spend that other 15 percent a lot more efficiently than our comparable districts,” he said.
What is this claim based on?
If the district stopped accepting students from out-of-district, they would retain more funds per student.
The reason for this is because there is essentially zero chance that an out-of-district student’s family is contributing to DJUSD parcel taxes. (With a handful of possible exceptions.)
Also, it’s not just $198/year, since the amount will increase each year for inflation.
Probably time to try again with a parcel tax for road maintenance, if anything.
“If the district stopped accepting students from out-of-district, they would retain more funds per student”
only for those items funded by the parcel tax. Not for general fund expenditures
The proposed Measure funds the DJUSD GF… that’s where salaries/total comp comes from, I believe.
“Also, it’s not just 8/year, since the amount will increase each year for inflation”
in theory they would the costs constant in 2020 dollars
Uhm – no – not even in “theory”. The ACTUAL amount is what we’re referring to. It will increase each year.
Is that the case with any of the other parcel taxes?
In theory assuming they properly calibrate the increase
DJUSD, or all parcel taxes?
The distinction is important. Even regular property tax is “indexed” to an extent… do you see a problem in that?
You have a “typo” in your number, as well. Should be $198 for the first year, increasing thereafter.
Sorry. Phone.
Yes… and whether you get SS, a gov’t pension, or draw out the $$ from your 401, etc., it will be same %-age of income… and if you aren’t getting more than ~ 2% from retirement savings investments… well, that’s just a …
If $198/yr is a hardship, vote against it, if you can… if you can take an exemption, do so. Remedies.
That is the weakest argument I’ve seen, in decades… limp (impotent?), in fact (opinion)… that kind of argument promotes a positive vote for me… the apologist arguments for the employee exemption promotes a negative vote from me… because they are deflective of “why”?
I’ll decide how to vote in ~ 6 weeks… however I vote, I can take my exemption by ~ June 1.
On either side… convince me that I should make a certain set of decisions… rationally… so far only seen speculation on the matter of the new exemption. And the pros/cons of the other parts of the measure are being are pretty straight-forward…
As Dad said, “it wasn’t that I didn’t like school, it was the principal/principle of the thing”… I still have not come to a conclusion as to my options. Vote or taking exemption. But folk need to be concrete and rational in their arguments to convince me.
That’s quite a few words, in response to a simple factual statement. You’ll forgive me if the annual inflation adjustment is something that I (and perhaps others) may not have immediately noticed.
Not all parcel taxes have a “built-in” adjustment for inflation.
True statement.
Davis JUSD school parcel taxes have included an inflation adjustment since ~early 2010s.
As usual, thank you Hiram, for factual information.
But not ALL parcel taxes have that feature…
There are probably entire SCHOOLS that Davis can live “without” (or at least fewer teachers in existing schools) – if they stopped pursuing out-of-district students. It would be interesting to see an objective, vetted analysis regarding the net amount of savings that would result.
I would argue it’s unlikely to make a huge difference. The offset of 10 k per student would negate the advantage. And closing schools is a bloody mess.
Again, not something that can be “dismissed” on a blog.
For one thing, existing out-of-district students are ALREADY creating extra costs via existing programs funded by parcel taxes (that they’re not contributing to). That amount is not calculated in your statement.
One thing for sure is that it’s not in the district’s self-interest to consider the possibilities. This is an analysis that would have to be done externally.
Back of my envelope calculation is that you might gain about $100 per student by shrinking the student population but that’s offset by losing ADA. I don’t think you gain much – if anything.
Here’s another “back-of-the-envelope” calculation that someone else created and previously shared with me:
(But again, I don’t think that political blogs are the place to conduct vetted/objective fiscal analyses.)
The problem is that, in this example, you’re talking about 500 students spread over 13 grades. In a scenario in which you prevent any out of district students from enrolling, that would work out to 269 elementary students who wouldn’t be there. That’s maybe only half the population of an elementary school.
DJUSD has had experience closing an elementary school with Valley Oak Elementary back in ~2009. To Davis residents and voters, having a local elementary school has a value far greater than the $500,000 that might be saved.
Maybe it’s different elsewhere, but Davis elementary schools do not have two vice principals. As far as I know, I’m also certain they don’t even have one vice principal.
Again, this probably isn’t the place to perform objective financial analyses regarding the possible financial impact from reducing the number of teachers, or combining school enrollments.
As a side note, I believe there’s more than 500 out-of-district students.
Particularly when posts are not “vetted/objective“… The Davisite ‘vetts’ attempted responses, to conform with their author’s subjective opinions… ‘objectivity‘ is not in play as far as I’ve seen.
Hiram-
about 700 out of district transfers
district estimates about $300k savings to close an elementary school
the savings here if there is – is far smaller than the $3 million needed
Ron – this is a place to have a discussion. If you don’t wish to have one – don’t.
The “what”? 😉
I’m not claiming that any community blog is the best place to perform financial analyses (or air quality studies, for that matter).
A discussion among those with an agenda – sure.
An analysis (with spreadsheets, stated assumptions, etc.) – probably not.
The “odd thing” here is that I’m not personally opposed to a raise for teachers. I’m more concerned about the broader impact for the city, and its other (more-important) needs.
You can always make an appointment with the district to see their analysis.
Yeah, the bolded text is the built-in “problem” with that source.
Have they even examined the questions I (and others) have asked (e.g., the financial impact of eventually eliminating out-of-district students – leading to fewer teachers and/or school consolidations)?
Also wondering about consolidating with other districts, as is the case in other counties.
You start with the data and then form your own conclusion.
Another (general) question I have is what the expected financial impacts are as a result of increasing the amount of Affordable housing – particularly housing intended for families.
In fact, I’d like to see a complete fiscal analysis (for the city AND school district), regarding that. (I wouldn’t read more into that statement than specifically what I’m asking.)
The bottom line is that I’m not sure how property/parcel taxes are applied (or not applied), regarding Affordable housing.
Ron Oertel:
Based on what you say elsewhere, it seems like road repair/maintenance is one of those more important local community needs from your perspective. IMO the reason that the city parcel tax on road maintenance didn’t pass was due to a weak campaign. If more folks like you had participated in that campaign, I think it would have performed much better. I voted for it.
Ron Oertel:
All of it is public information available online. I suggest going to school board and city council agendas and look for supporting documents for budget discussions. They always have draft and final budgets available. I also suggest, as was suggested in another comment, asking to meet with the administrators who oversees the budgets to ask your questions.
Can we get folk to understand the is a big difference between, “principle” and “principal”? Basic education, as it were… words have meaning… even if they morph over time….
A principal principle.
“vice principle” = a principle of vice 🙂
I like it! (But, shouldn’t that be “principal”?
Also, I think this comment section needs an infusion of Alan M., at this point.
Perhaps a DJUSD parcel tax is needed just to straighten this out. 🙂
The “problem” is that those with a direct vested interest in road maintenance don’t exist, to the same degree as those who want a raise.
That’s not the “fault” of the city, or any individual. But, it is something to keep in mind during the upcoming teacher “campaign”.
I would argue that the campaign may (unfortunately) result in an outcome that is not in the best interests of the city as a whole.
The current Measure Q campaign appears to be running better so far. The availability of one or two effective organizers can ultimately make a difference. Davis voters are receptive if you make the case effectively to them.
Actually, the teacher campaign would be akin to road maintenance contractors/workers asking voters for a raise. (During a time of decreasing demand, for roads.)
Ron Oertel: You’ve indicated that you’re not opposed to a teacher raise.
All I’m suggesting is that there exists a path in Davis for you to get what you want — road repairs. Apparently you disagree.
The teacher campaign might also be (somewhat) akin to having a utility company send out its workers, to advocate against joining a different utility company which might actually be a better-fit for a given community. (I’m not sure if there’s examples of that.)
Actually, I don’t care much about it. I simply think it’s more important than a raise for teachers.
More importantly, I think that BOTH issues are essentially becoming an excuse for some who simply want to pursue development (for various reasons).
That’s a really odd response you threw in. So it seems that you don’t really care about specific Davis city needs, but have been posing as caring in order to justify a way to oppose a raise for Davis teachers (which you’re also not opposed to, personally)?
Not what I said. I simply said that I think road (and bike path) maintenance is a higher priority.
I don’t think that EITHER issue is a critical need. But more importantly, some (not necessarily you) seem to be using these both of these issues as a pretense to support more development.
And, some others may simply “not care” about sprawl, if it helps meet their own goals. (That’s not necessarily a “criticism”, despite the way it sounds. It’s more of a “conclusion”.)
And frankly, some also downplay the impact that unfunded pensions/medical costs are having throughout California. These folks like to pretend that Davis is uniquely powerful enough to resolve its own challenges, while other communities (facing the same challenges) cannot.
Again, a pretense to support more development. (Which “somehow” has not resolved the challenges in other communities, either. Including those challenges faced by school districts.)
Okay, your comments seemed to suggest otherwise.
Now you don’t seem to be claiming any position of your own; just those of others. What’s going on, here?
There’s nothing “going on”, other than I don’t like seeing sprawl pursued as a “solution” to anything.
Nor do I like seeing challenges “trumped up” for the purpose of supporting sprawl. Which is (sometimes) what I see occurring on here.
Other than that, I don’t really have a lot of other deep-seated concerns regarding city issues.
Folk… for the “good of the order”… might be good to ‘fact-check ourselves’, and identify opinions/preferences as such.
Just a thought… the topic is complex enough.
On the other hand, I strongly suspect anything, one way or the other, expressed on this site will affect MAYBE 1% of the vote (maximum influence).
Folk need to get real.
That’s probably true, and provides a much-needed perspective (for me, as well – since I tend to get caught-up in this blog). Thanks for that reminder.
On the other hand, how could it possibly be that my well-thought out “words of wisdom” in response to the articles and subsequent comments aren’t having a huge influence (in a manner that I would at least view as “positive”)? 😉
A couple of points.
First, I’m not fond of the exemption for DJUSD employees who reside here but for me its not a deal breaker.
Second not all inter district transfer students could be excluded even if DJUSD changed its policy to not take inter district transfers. If somebody lives in Woodland and works inside the DJUSD boundaries, for example at UCD, that person is entitled under state law to enroll their children in DJUSD.
Also if a person has children enrolled in DJUSD and moves out of the district they are entitled under state law to keep the kids in DJUSD. I know of several families that fall into this second group because they couldn’t find an adequate and affordable single family home so they moved to Spring Lake.
So when you figure out how many inter district transfers could be excluded by DJUSD its a much smaller number than you think.
Good points, although I don’t think anyone would suggest that current students be “kicked out” of DJUSD, if their families move out-of-town.
I suspect that a significant portion of the out-of-district kids are the children of DJUSD teachers, who live out-of-district. Who (increasingly) won’t select the city of Davis as their choice for a home in the first place.
From what you’re stating, it seems that out-of-district UCD employees would have a “choice”, regarding where to send their kids to school. I’m not sure how many of those are selecting Davis, but some may have a pre-existing connection to the town (other than current employment at UCD).
Actually, Ron G: Have you seen this? It appears to conflict with what you’re claiming regarding state law:
https://www.berkeleyparentsnetwork.org/recommend/schools/interdistrict_transfer
It is on a space available basis.
Yeah. Perhaps they are “making space” because they don’t want to reduce the number of teachers or schools to match the needs of the community?
While simultaneously not particularly “caring” about the community that they’re “siphoning” kids from?
Why are you citing the Berkeley policy rather than the Davis one?
Aren’t we referring to state law? And if Ron G “got it wrong”, why aren’t you confronting him, instead of me?
I asked a simple question.
What Ron Glick wrote was this: “Also if a person has children enrolled in DJUSD and moves out of the district they are entitled under state law to keep the kids in DJUSD.”
However the DJUSD policy states: “Transfer requests for NEW students to the District are approved by DJUSD based upon space availability in the requested grade level. ”
Notice they emphasize “new” students. I believe Ron Glick is correct – that existing students are entitled to remain in the district.
Also DJUSD has language on residency that you ought to look at as well.
So did I.
That’s the first article I found that addressed state law, via a quick Internet search. Are you disputing it?
You can also look up the specific state code.
Ah, o.k. I did not see that distinction, so my apologies to Ron G. – assuming that information is correct. (I have no reason to doubt it, and I would generally not support “kicking out” current students, regardless.)
“New” out-of-district students are not entitled to that. And since that’s the case, it appears that DJUSD (and the outside school districts) could control this for future students, if they’re “inclined” to do so.
And actually, it still appears that a primary portion of Ron G.’s claim is still incorrect:
Nope. (They are not “entitled” to do so, according to the link I provided.)
Is anyone disputing this?
(b) (1) A school district may deem a pupil to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance in the school district if at least one parent or the legal guardian of the pupil is physically employed within the boundaries of that school district for a minimum of 10 hours during the school week.
(2) This subdivision does not require the school district within which at least one parent or the legal guardian of a pupil is employed to admit the pupil to its schools. A school district shall not, however, refuse to admit a pupil under this subdivision on the basis, except as expressly provided in this subdivision, of race, ethnicity, sex, parental income, scholastic achievement, or any other arbitrary consideration.
(3) The school district in which the residency of either the parents or the legal guardian of the pupil is established, or the school district to which the pupil is to be transferred under this subdivision, may prohibit the transfer of the pupil under this subdivision if the governing board of the school district determines that the transfer would negatively impact the court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan of the school district.
(4) The school district to which the pupil is to be transferred under this subdivision may prohibit the transfer of the pupil if the school district determines that the additional cost of educating the pupil would exceed the amount of additional state aid received as a result of the transfer.
(5) The governing board of a school district that prohibits the transfer of a pupil pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), or (4) is encouraged to identify, and communicate in writing to the parents or the legal guardian of the pupil, the specific reasons for that determination and is encouraged to ensure that the determination, and the specific reasons for the determination, are accurately recorded in the minutes of the board meeting in which the determination was made.
(6) The average daily attendance for pupils admitted pursuant to this subdivision is calculated pursuant to Section 46607.
(7) Unless approved by the sending school district, this subdivision does not authorize a net transfer of pupils out of a school district, calculated as the difference between the number of pupils exiting the school district and the number of pupils entering the school district, in a fiscal year in excess of the following amounts:
(A) For a school district with an average daily attendance for that fiscal year of less than 501 pupils, 5 percent of the average daily attendance of the school district.
(B) For a school district with an average daily attendance for that fiscal year of 501 pupils or more, but less than 2,501 pupils, 3 percent of the average daily attendance of the school district or 25 pupils, whichever amount is greater.
(C) For a school district with an average daily attendance of 2,501 pupils or more, 1 percent of the average daily attendance of the school district or 75 pupils, whichever amount is greater.
(8) Once a pupil is deemed to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance pursuant to this subdivision and is enrolled in a school in a school district the boundaries of which include the location where at least one parent or the legal guardian of a pupil is physically employed, the pupil does not have to reapply in the next school year to attend a school within that school district and the governing board of the school district shall allow the pupil to attend school through grade 12 in that school district if the parent or legal guardian so chooses and if at least one parent or the legal guardian of the pupil continues to be physically employed by an employer situated within the attendance boundaries of the school district, subject to paragraphs (2) to (7), inclusive.
Hiram:
Thanks for posting this, which confirms that school districts do NOT have to accept new students who live outside of the district.
Nor is the “sending district” required to approve it.
Again, Ron G. was incorrect, and David overlooked that fact. A question might be asked of David, regarding the reason he overlooked that incorrect claim.
Ron O,
This is the kicker:
Once a pupil is deemed to have complied with the residency requirements for school attendance pursuant to this subdivision and is enrolled in a school in a school district the boundaries of which include the location where at least one parent or the legal guardian of a pupil is physically employed, the pupil does not have to reapply in the next school year to attend a school within that school district and the governing board of the school district shall allow the pupil to attend school through grade 12 in that school district if the parent or legal guardian so chooses and if at least one parent or the legal guardian of the pupil continues to be physically employed by an employer situated within the attendance boundaries of the school district,
Actually, it appears that two approvals are needed, according to the link above:
(Just remember – it’s “for the kids”.) 😉
Good points… am still on the fence on the exemption thing… it goes to the principle, not the principal… I fully understand how others would disagree… all I can do is vote my own conscience/views…
But if I heard/saw a good argument/explanation from the Board (not its apologists) I could possibly fully support the measure… the exemption for employees is a bad precedent, and poor governing. IMO. If the Measure passes, I see no reason why folk shouldn’t support exemptions for City employees as to City parcel taxes.
Slippery slope, IMO…
Okay, I didn’t have it perfect and I admit I’m not a lawyer but all the kids that are already here and have parents employed in Davis can stay through grade 12. So even if the analysis that there isn’t a net benefit to the district and Davis decided to take a hard line against inter district transfers, an analysis by the way that has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate, it would take many years to reduce the number of inter district transfers in a meaningful way.
I guess the argument against this is that people who work in Davis but can’t afford to live in Davis shouldn’t be allowed to have their kids in a school nearby where they work because it requires a relatively minor subsidy from the residents of Davis. That is a pretty mean spirited anti-family argument in my humble opinion.
In my opinion, the long-term impacts hurt everyone – including those attending or associated with either district. It also may create unintended consequences for both cities.
I’m not aware of anyone who advocates “kicking out” current students.
Yes, you’re saying that we can solve the short term funding problem by barring out of district students. This is a longer term strategy that would take several years at a minimum to implement. That means that you are calling to expel these students at year’s end so that the district can meet its financial budget for the new fiscal year without a parcel tax.
Further you are confusing AVERAGE and MARGINAL costs to serve out of district students. Labor is the only real variable cost of the district, and labor is about 80% of total costs. So reducing the number of out of district students might reduce total costs by only 80% of the average cost. Yet the state funding for out of district students is about 90% of the average costs. That means that out of district students bring a 10% revenue increment above additional MARGINAL costs. The district clearly has done the math and realized that it can gain net revenues by allowing more out of district students. (Thank god they are better at finances than you are.)