By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – For years we have justified growth control policies in an effort to keep Davis the small and vibrant community that many remember from the 80s and 90s. But there is growing evidence that those very policies meant to protect Davis are also causing damage to the vibrancy of the community.
Census data shows that the population of Davis grew at just 5.8 percent over the last decade—and the non-student population may have grown at a considerably lower rate than that.
Advocates of slow growth will undoubtedly point to the benefits of constraining growth, but with housing supply limited, prices soaring, and families shrinking, we are seeing an impact that threatens to change the character of our community every bit as much as rapid growth and urban sprawl would have.
Once again this week, the school district sounded the alarm. It is creating a dilemma for a school district that has been a lifeline for the community, a driver of quality of life and a stabilizer of housing prices.
Interim Superintendent Matt Best warned the Board of Education: “Our district is facing some significant long-term challenges regarding our budget, related to our enrollment, which is the primary driver in determining the vast majority of our funding.”
This week he told the board that they need to focus on declining enrollment which they project will lead to declining of funding from the state over the next few years and which will greatly stress the programs that have made DJUSD what it is.
While some will point to a decline in the number of births in Yolo County—a trend that started around 2008, a big factor locally is the lack of affordability of family-style housing in Davis.
The district cited a number of students who started in Davis schools but moved to Woodland or Dixon, because the housing costs were lower and there was more housing availability.
This is not a new issue. We have raised it many times. The link to new housing makes it a very volatile issue in Davis. Davis had to address UCD student housing needs over the last five years, but has left untouched the need for family housing. And as we have seen from our analysis of the Housing Element, where to put family housing is going to be increasingly an issue.
Should we even worry about declining enrollment? I have argued this is a basic quality of life issue. Declining enrollment—which we have managed to shore up through transfers from outside the district—will eventually add stress to the school district and compel the community to live with a district that has fewer resources, or drive up parcel taxes further or explore other ways to fund core educational programs.
For certain, as we have seen, some people will push back that the city should not be adjusting its growth policies to make sure that the school district stays vibrant—my words, not theirs.
Moreover, they have argued the need to “right-size” the school district, that is, close a school or adjust to the new reality rather than other options like parcel taxes and inter-district transfers.
The problem of right-sizing runs into economies of scale problems. As Bruce Colby, the former Superintendent for Business used to point out, you really can’t right-size a district. You can’t shed enough cost to keep ahead of the reverse economy of scale (as you grow, fixed costs take up a smaller portion of your overall budget plus products decrease in per-unit cost at higher volumes; when you shrink the reverse happens—fixed costs become a higher share of the overall budget and the per-volume costs elsewhere increase).
Moreover, Best this week warned, “We’re coming to a point where the declining number of resident students will outpace our capacity to bring in nonresident students.”
So even that interim policy will no longer stem the tide.
Best believes, “As a result, we will face some very difficult challenges” in the next few years.”
Increasingly I have seen people in this community—many who are well past the age of child-rearing—unconcerned about this trend, and some may even welcome it. Few are willing to find solutions to it.
But as I have argued many times here: Davis has been a vibrant community BECAUSE we have young families and kids in our midst. The extent to which that diminishes, the vibrancy will disappear. Moreover, great schools have increased people’s property values, and thus as schools shrink and become more resource-starved, they are likely to decrease in quality as well.
This is a slow leak and is part of the problem that we face now. An immediate crisis would be evident and we would meet it head on. This is going to be a 20-year slow decline on our quality of lives—and some of the impacts will be patched up with parcel taxes and transfers over time to decrease the impact.
People have been advocating that we constrain new housing as a way to prevent growth and the problems of growth that other communities have experienced, but the problems of stagnation and lack of growth are only now coming into focus.
I’ve argued before that the school district should (like the city) pursue revenue producing solutions. What if the school district, closed a school and put up high density mostly affordable housing (51%) some of which it used to house it’s own teachers? What if they closed Willet and put up 300 units with some mixed use community retail? The school could sell some of the units for immediate income and rent out the rest for regular continuous income.
One problem – you couldn’t use that revenue for instructional money.
Why not? I’m not familiar with the way school districts are funded in terms of what they can use their funds for. And if they can’t, couldn’t they use the revenue to pay for other costs to the district and move that money over to pay for instructional money?
Having sat through a couple of full DJUSD budget presentations, I will say that the answer to your question is no, they cannot do that. Use of dollars is locked in place in certain regards and they are answerable to county board of education and the state for how it gets spent.
I’m not sure I follow. I understand that they can’t use funds meant for instruction for other uses. But we’re talking about money going the other direction. Money from outside sources (much like the school district property tax we pay)….in this case revenue from apartments and condos to be used to fund the schools.
Didn’t the school district sell land to Don Fouts for Grande Village? Or did they donate the property and get some teacher housing deals? If so, the district could JV with a developer by contributing to the land to the deal and share in the revenues.
My point is that they can’t “move that money over.” The accounts are siloed. Not to say it couldn’t be used for some purposes, but shifting funds is not allowed. That’s my impression anyway. The school finance system is very Byzantine due to constraints enacted by the voters and legislature over the years.
Don is completely correct. But even if you could do it, you are not going to generate enough money to make a different in declining enrollment.
True if the land is ‘sold’… not so convinced about the situation if DJUSD brought in a developer, built homes/apts, etc. nd then rented them out… theoretically, that money could be used in DJUSD general fund… but, big problem… that scenario would be very expensive with up-front costs, with revenue only coming over time… not a good plan.
In short, you “could do it”, but you “shouldn’t”.
However the DJUSD could ‘rent out’ their existing facilities, (MPR’s, sports fields, etc.) for weddings, ‘start-up’ churches (COD does those, with VMB facilities), local non-profits (theater, other uses), etc. Weekends, holidays, and Summer… I strongly suspect that would be “street legal”.
Yes – even if developed and rented out, it’s leveraged off facilities and therefore goes to facilities. I checked in the past – this isn’t the first time someone has floated the idea.
There are basically two ways to fund instructional money – ADA and parcel taxes. That’s it. There are a few categorical grants but those are restricted monies and have to spent as apportioned. You could fund raise privately but that would be one-time money.
Wait…what??? I get what you’re saying about restrictions in school budget and finance making my proposal difficult. But “if you could do it”…..you seriously believe that if you put up 200-300 units; half of which are market rate that it wouldn’t net significant revenue for the school district….as well as closing down a school and getting rid of some of the fixed costs (yes not proportional by your claim….but still costs).
How many birds have we killed with this stone?
Revenue for the school district
Reducing district expenses (closing a school)
More community housing
Affordable housing
Infill housing
Dense urban housing
How much net revenue would 200 units of apartments generate annually?
Where have I heard that type, tone, of question on the VG before?
Find it funny coming from someone who has been quoting rental rates for years… when it bolstered his arguments…
Huh? I know how much a place rents for, I don’t know how much net revenue they generate.
I ballparked one figure to give an idea – if an apartment generated $1200 in net revenue per month, 200 units, would generate about $2.8 million per year. That’s the size of a relatively modest increase in the parcel tax. Which as we know gets wiped away every four years or so, with another needed parcel tax. It would be helpful but not a gamechanger. But I could be completely off on net revenue – do you know or are you just spit balling?
If you did 300 units (remember all that nice legislature that granted density bonuses for affordable housing?); at your rate of $1,200 per month (a mix of affordable, workforce and market rate rental rates….) it would generate $4.3M per year in revenue. PLUS the reduced expenses for getting rid of a school.
Here’s the thing about students revenue; there doesn’t seem to be a break even point. The revenue a student brings in doesn’t seem to match the expenses required to educate them. So we’ve supplemented with a parcel tax. But that doesn’t fix the problem if we keep pumping more students into the system just for the revenue without regard to the net bottom line. We can’t just increase the parcel tax….the voters are going to rebel at some point. So school district needs other sources of revenue and to stop pumping in students without regard to the net bottom line.
Any revenues from real estate deals end up going to facilities, which are largely unneeded in a district with declining enrollment. That said, the district does have a large bond in place to upgrade facilities, so that can go towards addressing that problem. But that doesn’t solve the problem of operating costs.
One question not addressed, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt on Russell Blvd.?
“Increasingly I have seen people in this community—many who are well past the age of child-rearing—unconcerned about this trend,…”
As my brother observed sitting outside of Noah’s “This town is all seniors and college students.”
“People have been advocating that we constrain new housing as a way to prevent growth and the problems of growth that other communities have experienced, but the problems of stagnation and lack of growth are only now coming into focus.”
The implication of no growth is steady state but the reality is decline. You supported Measure D so as a supporter of no growth you should welcome the predictable outcome you supported.
Assuming you mean off-spring of the in married student housing… better question would have been, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt, how many students are projected for DJUSD when the married student housing gets rebuilt, that are of school age?
From the folk I’ve known, all young families, with children, have moved out of the housing before the oldest child is 5.
It is time for the residents of Davis to begin planning for the next generation’s housing supply. The region is growing and Davis will need to provide its share of housing. The changing demographics here (skewing to the older and younger age groups) reflect the lack of housing supply in the mix of sizes and price ranges that appeals to young families and workers.
The constant talk about infill and densification has almost become a deflection. A new subdivision with a mix of densities and housing types, including single-family and multi-family housing, would benefit the school district, the city’s tax base, the retail sector, and more. The sites are obvious if you just look at a map.
I looked at a map:
• East of Mace Curve (ouch no more mountain views)
• West of West Davis (ouch no more sunset views)
• Annex Kidwell Road to Davis (ouch, land changing counties)
• NW (already voted for old people – ouch NO KIDS to stock our schools!)
• Annex North North Davis from Woodland to Davis (ouch)
I resemble that remark.
We are so dumb
Alan your map reading skills need a refreshing.
Northwest quadrant
Covell Village
Mace Curve
Shriners
North of the hospital
Ramosland
There are sites for thousands of single family homes. Covell Village alone was slated for over 2000 homes.
yeah, but “The Tree” fell over, dooming the property to be forever vacant.
Well, Don, my “next generation” housing supply has been taken care of. No entity is dependent on their decisions, to accomplish what has already been accomplished. Even for that of my ‘next-next’ generation.
Now, If you’re talking other folks, next generation, that would be an act of altruism or charity, or believing that those generations will be altruistic, charitable towards mine.
I am not being opposed to altruistic or charitable, but don’t hang that on me as an obligation. Our family had to cut their own path.
I do not agree with this sense of obligation. The region is the region it grows and it doesn’t grow. All the cities and counties do what’s in their own self interest in terms of economic and residential growth.
Why and to what degree do the residents of Davis need to plan for people in the future’s housing needs? I mean sure if it makes sense in terms of local economics…..but again this notion of blind obligation makes not sense. Hey…if you wanna live here….we’ll make sure you have housing options! Uh…why? Again, I’m not against growth. I just want the growth to have a reason.
I was referring to the state increasingly informing local jurisdictions that they must provide housing in numbers that correlate somewhat to regional housing growth.
The RHNA requirements will have to be addressed one way or another eventually. There’s still lots of pushback going on. Most of it has been stopped by the courts but it’s still going on. I suspect the methodology for those calculations will be what’s attacked next and I can see it being a legitimate complaint against the RHNA assigned numbers. One complaint is that it forces some communities to become bedroom communities; take on the costs of serving residential units because other cities have drawn people to the region. A basic example is if Woodland suddenly brought a major Amazon regional distribution and operations center to their city to employ 5,000 people. Based on that population growth projection, the RHNA would assign the majority of housing requirements to Woodland but it would then assign spillover to other surrounding cities and regions….the closer to Woodland you are the more units you’re assigned. Or if an a big institution right next to you but not in your city limits grew and the housing requirements spilled over into your town. There is a push by some municipalities in CA that in regions where there is growth that the specific justification where the growth occurs is responsible for housing that growth. I can see that gaining some traction.
Unfortunately, that attitude has led to segregation and a growing disparity in wealth between whites and Blacks. The larger societal interest trumps local individual interest if we want a society that is just and sustainable in many different ways.
“The constant talk about infill and densification has almost become a deflection.”
It was always a deflection.
But what about PG&E? Surely we can build high density housing on PG&E! 😐
Regarding the self-interested claim that right-sizing the school district won’t save money, the evidence is that the school district would not be the same size today – if it was designed from scratch.
The issue is not the absolute size, it’s that declining enrollment shrink revenue faster than you can shrink costs. I’ve explained this many times, I’m stating this now for the benefit of those who did not have to witness those previous conversations.
And no matter how many times it’s explained, it’s still not correct. 🙂
What David is describing is the result of self-interest. Close a school or two (which has no impact on the number of students), and costs drop overnight.
Ultimately, the same is true with administration.
In regard to those who want to grow the town to meet the desires of the school district, there’s another issue, as well. Eventually, all new families “age-out” of the school system. So, unless existing housing is turned over, folks like David will continue to advocate for more-and-more sprawl – simply to avoid right-sizing the school district.
Even if one were to pursue the path that David advocates (otherwise known as the “dog-chasing-its tail”) approach, one has to look at the type of housing that he would advocate for. Unless it’s a traditional “sprawl” model of development, it’s not likely to have units that are large enough to accommodate families with significant numbers of kids.
And even when it does (such as The Cannery), one cannot count on the occupants having enough kids to satisfy the “dog-chasing-its-tail” crowd.
My comment was deleted, so I’ll have to retype it.
David’s conclusion is derived from a self-interested source. As such, it has no credibility.
If a school or two is closed, costs will drop overnight (without even impacting the number of students). Same is ultimately true with administration.
For those who advocate growing the town to meet the desires of the school district, there’s another issue as well. Eventually, all families “age out” of the school system. So, unless there’s turnover, folks who advocate for more sprawl will continue to do so, simply to avoid right-sizing the school district. This can be described as the “dog-chasing-its-tail” approach.
And in regard to the “dog-chasing-its-tail” approach, one has to look at the type of additional housing that they advocate for. If that housing is anything but a traditional, single-family “sprawl” type single-family housing, it’s not likely that the units would be of sufficient size to appeal to families with kids.
And even if it is a traditional type of development (e.g., with single-family housing), the results may not be what those advocates hope for (as with The Cannery).
Ron O
You have no stake in this discuss as you are not a resident of Davis. You’ve already made demands of DJUSD to somehow create a financial analysis showing the results that you want rather than the findings that contradict your hypothesis.
You also do not have a stake or a voice in the question of whether Davis should grow because you live in Woodland and have no discernable interest in our town.
Richard: Again, your conclusion is incorrect.
Why does the Vanguard continue to allow you to comment regarding this?
If its not true why don’t you provide an explanation as to why its incorrect.
My opinion is that at some point Davis and the school district have to bite the bullet and size the school system to the actual number of students enrolled.
The problem is that if enrollment declines – you lose revenue faster than you can shed costs. That’s the issue. Focusing on size is missing the problem.
You have to start somewhere, shedding costs would be a good start. Don’t you think?
You shed ADA money and costs is the problem. You end up losing more than you gain. That’s why this is very tricky.
The only thing that’s “tricky” is the false claim that closing a school or two (without even impacting the number of students or amount of ADA money) won’t save money.
One only has to ask if the same-sized (and same structure) school district would be designed and implemented today. If not, there’s a problem with the school district, not the city.
Exactly, does the closure of schools necessarily mean a reduction in the number of students?
Ron O
Please provide the empirical evidence to support your speculative assertion that closing a school will on net save DJUSD money, and it’s a “false claim” otherwise. Oh wait, we’ve already gone through this roundabout with you endless times before! You got your answer in great detail from David before in a DJUSD analysis. You’ve already been proven wrong before–please accept you’re wrong on this issue.
If you can’t do the analysis to support your assertion and you can’t find anyone foolish enough to try to do it for you, then you need to drop this.
Amazing, coming from someone who claims “economic expertise”.
Of course closing a school would save money. Should we go through all of the costs (salaries, facility maintenance, etc.)? Again, there’s no evidence that it would even result in a loss of students. But if it did, they’re ALREADY a money-loser on an individual basis, using the district’s own figures!
Do you always believe analyses from a source that has a vested interest in the results? If so, you wouldn’t make a very good auditor.
“Do you always believe analyses from a source that has a vested interest in the results? ”
But it is interesting that you believe analysis that you never do without examining the numbers.
The cost of educating each student exceeds the revenue that the district receives.
That’s a fact.
Technically not, otherwise the district would be operating in a perpetual deficit.
To clarify, the cost of educating each student exceeds the revenue received by the state.
You already know all of this.
There comes a point of “diminishing returns” for you to continue arguing something that makes no sense. And yet, you continue.
The district has chosen to educate students beyond what the state reimburses, the district makes up that money through local parcel taxes approved by the voters.
We already know all of this, David.
I know that you don’t “like” the facts regarding all of this, but putting forth political arguments isn’t going to change them.
You’re on a losing side with this, as you’ve already somewhat acknowledged in the article itself.
If it didn’t bother you, I assume you wouldn’t continue writing these type of articles.
As I said, not much gratitude expressed on here regarding those with no kids paying for the cost of those who do. (And not just “Davis” kids, either.)
Are people in Affordable housing (such as yourself) even subject to DJUSD parcel taxes? (In other words, do the owners of those properties pay DJUSD parcel taxes, or any other city parcel taxes?)
What bothers me is that people want to argue stuff without doing the legwork and research to make sure they have the numbers right. You don’t. You don’t even live here. And you don’t have kids here. So like Richard, I’m baffled that you spend hours of your time arguing about stuff that you have never bothered to research.
You want to say my source is biased, fine. You have no source. You’re just arguing based on assumptions and suppositions.
Maybe you should start with this:
And then move on to this:
You’d think that those who live in Affordable housing would be grateful that others (in one way or another) are paying their costs. But, it apparently doesn’t work that way. Some of them seem to have the loudest voices in the room, regarding what someone else (or the city itself) should do for them, in addition to subsidized housing.
It is not up to me to perform a full financial analysis regarding the school district. But for sure, I would not automatically trust information from a source which has a vested interest in the outcome.
If you want to pay me to audit the district (and its claims), I might give it a shot.
But really, it’s THEIR problem.
As I said, who cares about them, anyway? Especially when many of their students, parents, and teachers don’t even live in Davis in the first place.
I think you are missing the problem here. What it means is that 60 percent of the costs, or some estimate thereof, are either fixed or incremental and thus you cannot create the savings when you reduce the district population by one student. Part of the problem is that losing even 30 students is not sufficient to reduce teachers by one, because you don’t lose 30 kids in one grade at one school. They are distributed. Eventually you can reduce staffing, but not by nearly as much as you lose revenue. And then there are costs that are not going to decline at all as district populations decline.
Here’s another way to think about it – 700 out of district students generated a few years ago (when we did this analysis) $5.6 million in ADA. 25 sections costs the district $1.6 million. That gives you an idea that the district is advantaged when they add students and disadvantaged when they lose them.
I am not missing the problem.
The numbers show that each student is costing the city $5,000, in addition to what they receive from the state. Adding more students (as Keith E.) noted will increase this “demand” (cost).
Again, you’re citing claims by the district itself. What did I just say regarding that?
Who said anything about “losing kids”?
Close a school and see how fast costs are reduced. This does not correspond with losing students, as they’re simply transferred to other schools.
Probably not a major factor. And if it is, that could be a reason to consolidate with the district that’s already sending 800 of its out-of-district students to DJUSD.
Let’s see how total costs go down, as the number of students naturally declines. Even if one assumes that the incremental cost of educating each student rises, as you and the district claim.
10 students, each costing the city an additional $5,000 = $50,000 cost to city.
5 students, each costing the city an additional $6,000 = $30,000 cost to the city.
A total savings of $20,000.
The parcel tax is definitely not adding $5000 per pupil. That would mean that it’s increasing instructional money by 50%, it’s not.
I was referring to this comment:
If you’re claiming that’s not correct, what number do you believe is? And if it’s different, is it actually relevant to any larger point?
I’d suggest a full-blown audit of the district’s claims. Either that, or just ignore them – and let them deal with reality. They are their own entity, separate from the city. (Except to the extent that property owners are forced to subsidize them, since they’re not the only ones who have the ability to make such decisions.)
I have the exact figures – 10.5 million in revenue, 8500 students, approximately $1250 per student.
$1,250 (additional) cost to the city, per student.
Seems like numbers are tossed-about quite a bit on here, but none of them change the underlying points or reality.
Students are not a net revenue-generating machine, for cities (or school districts). Can you imagine if that was the case?
I don’t know why you say to the city. It’s costs to parcel owners.
I would argue that education is an investment in the future. You are looking to get students into college and into jobs. We pay about $10,000 per year per pupil to educate them and we pay $85,000 per year to incarcerate people who we fail to educate.
Parcel owners comprise a significant portion of the city – perhaps even the majority (other than perhaps students). In fact, they “own” the entire city, in regard to private property.
Do Affordable housing owners pay those parcel taxes?
Hmm, prison or education (as if Davis is the only place that schools exist, and that they’re headed to prison if Davis doesn’t save them). What a dilemma.
Seems to me that Davis should educate all of the children in the entire state (if not the entire country), to save them from a life in prison.
Stabilizer of housing prices? Housing prices are skyrocketing! Is that “stabilizing”? Didn’t you site that as one of the causes of the problem of fewer children?