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.