Every Monday from here until the election, the Vanguard will ask all five of the council candidates one question which they have precisely 250 words with which to respond. This is the final question.
Question 8: DJUSD has seen a decline in enrollment of 78 students per year since 2004. At the same time, that has been stabilized by about 71 additional out-of-district transfers. In your opinion, should the city step in to address declining enrollment and, if so, what they can they and should they do to address, in particular, housing for families with school age children?
District 1
Dan Carson
DJUSD’s excellent schools are an important component of the high quality of life we enjoy in Davis. It was an important reason that Maureen and I settled on Davis when we were getting married. We have hardly been alone in that judgment. The district’s record of academic success unquestionably creates additional demand and adds a premium to the value of our Davis homes.
DJUSD adds to the fabric of our community through sports, music, and other on-campus and off-campus activities. The district is one of our largest employers and is a potential draw for high-tech businesses and the economic development we need to pay for city services and infrastructure.
Thus, the gradual slide in DJUSD enrollment is a legitimate civic concern. So is one of the major reasons for that decline – the unaffordability of our housing for young child-rearing families. Many people who work in Davis simply cannot afford to live in Davis with their school-age families. In recent years the Davis City Council has approved a series of projects now underway to add market-rate and affordable housing that will help, but more family housing is clearly needed.
Our draft Housing Element nearing final approval includes a series of specific and credible proposals to address that housing need, such as my proposal to examine use of surplus DJUSD property for teacher and faculty housing. Our community will need to pursue such creative approaches to ensure stable school enrollment and preserve the huge community asset that our local school system provides.
Bapu Vaitla
I believe the City should indeed take steps to support schools. Declining enrollment is a symptom of our broader housing crisis. If families with school-age children cannot afford to live in Davis, enrollment and consequently school district revenue will fall. Relative to other school districts in California, our starting and average teacher salaries are already low; declining revenue will make recruitment and retention of high-quality educators even more difficult, and may force cutbacks to the programs that we value.
A General Plan update is the most important step we can take to create a comprehensive housing vision that outlines where and what types of teacher and family housing could be built in the City. We must ensure that such a General Plan update process reaches all groups in our community, instead of only those who are presently civically engaged. That kind of proactive outreach means utilizing existing nonprofit, cultural, religious, and other social networks to create new spaces for underrepresented populations to participate.
A General Plan update would identify locations for affordable, dense, climate-friendly, transit-linked for-sale housing to be built, including starter homes for families with school-age children. Affordable for-sale homes have always been the engine of upward economic mobility, the building of intergenerational wealth, and the creation of community. In the short-term, the City can provide downpayment assistance, consider upzoning to increase density on lots, and pursue other policies to facilitate homeownership by families, but the long-term vision of a thriving Davis school system depends on greater housing stock.
District 4
Gloria Partida
Declining enrollment in our schools will have a negative impact on the quality of education available to our students. The cause for the decline is multifaceted and part of a larger decline seen across the state. While the solution to this problem will require more than just increasing the number of families in Davis, the fact that families still see Davis schools as valuable enough to commute to does mean that if housing were more affordable and available, it would stabilize some of the declining enrollment. The city has a responsibility to provide housing for basic reasons, helping maintain the quality of our schools is an added bonus.
Adam Morrill
It is not the city’s responsibility to ensure the school district is fiscally solvent, just like the school district is not responsible for the city’s fiscal situation. Success in education is not measured student numbers, but student outcomes. So the focus of the district should be on utilizing the funding it receives to provide the best education possible for the students it has.
Additionally, to suggest that the solution to more students is more housing is nothing but a straw man argument.
Fertility rates have been in steady decline in California for many years, so it should be expected that enrollment should see a steady decline and thus the district should plan accordingly.
It’s unfortunate that Adam is the only candidate who comes right out and states the most basic, obvious truth.
Maybe others don’t agree that it’s a “basic, obvious truth”
I would “agree” that others don’t agree. You can see some of their opinions in your article.
Apparently, they think the city should grow to meet the desires of an oversized school district.
Though much of what Adam notes is factual, not opinion-based (e.g., regarding declining fertility rates, etc.). Yolo county itself is projected to continue experiencing declining enrollment, as is the state as a whole. In other words, this is not unique to Davis.
If any given school district is dependent upon continued sprawl for its survival, there’s something wrong with the district, itself. And if city officials believe that this is a legitimate goal (especially in regard to the city’s responsibility), I’ll refrain from expressing my opinion regarding that. Suffice it to say that I would view them as unqualified to be a council member, in regard to understanding their own role and responsibility.
Ultimately, all housing eventually turns over (new owners). No one lives forever, and few even stay in the same place for their entire lives.
A candidate who doesn’t understand the symbiotic relationships among cities, counties, special districts and school districts isn’t qualified to be a Council member. The city is in charge of ensuring the safety of children traveling to and from school, and even on campus for significant emergencies. (The district doesn’t have its own fire department.) And the schools use the parks maintained by the city. The schools and city use the water delivered by the joint powers authority. The county provides the social services that support both city and school functions for their citizens and and students. And the schools provide quality education to support the well being of both future citizens and the future retirees who will rely on their output to provide income through investments and pensions. Finally quality schools support housing values. Being fiscally myopic about that synergism reflects a lack of full understanding of how all of these entities must work together.
Let’s explore this further, in regard to the examples you listed –
True, to some degree. And all the more reason to shut-down underused / unneeded schools.
The city does not have unlimited funds to support a school district that is larger than what the city actually needs.
So do others. Parks don’t exist for the purpose of serving schools. Schools have their own facilities.
And if they’re using city facilities, they should be paying for them, as well.
Your point being?
Your point being?
Some will be future (local) citizens, some won’t.
In any case, you’re referring to a broader argument (beyond Davis), in regard to what is essentially a Ponzi scheme. (In other words, subsidize those having children now, so that they’ll take care of us when we retire. This “solution” is one of the reasons that Social Security is collapsing.
Uhm, “housing values” are what you and others claim to be concerned about (in terms of “keeping families out”) in the first place. Maybe you should pick a lane, as they say.
Schools are subordinate to cities. They serve a minority of a city’s population in the first place, and only do so for a brief period of time for those who are served by them.
Immigration is the biggest factor in California’s population increase or decrease, and has been for years.
“Until immigration is a consistent force again, California may bounce around zero for a while, with slight positives and negatives,” Schwarm said. “It really is immigration that in the last 10, 15 years has provided the majority of growth in California. That immigration flow is an important part of our diversity and force for the economy as well. We are attracting a well-educated, ready-to-work, dynamic immigrant population that really helps the state considerably.”
Twenty counties, largely in the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley, and the Inland Empire saw population gain, estimates show. And most inland counties had positive population growth rates, continuing a trend that started in 2016.
— L.A. Times
While immigration dropped during the pandemic, it is rebounding.
“Some data suggests that the pace of immigration has picked up lately. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported a surge in enforcement activity last year, and the Census Bureau’s monthly employment survey also detected an uptick in foreign-born respondents in late 2021.”
Davis demographics:
“Davis, CA is home to a population of 68.6k people, from which 87.2% are citizens. As of 2020, 20.8% of Davis, CA residents were born outside of the country (14.3k people).”
This is significantly higher percentage than the US as a whole, higher than the Sacramento region, lower than Yolo County and the state overall.
The point: a significant percentage of Davis and DJUSD residents are foreign-born. We can assume that a similar percentage of DJUSD students are foreign-born (possibly a lower %-age due to UCD stats). As UCD grows and continues to attract staff, researchers, graduate students, and professors from other countries, so will the population of Davis reflect those arriving from other countries.
Calling for better planning between UCD, DJUSD, and the City of Davis would have been a more measured and thoughtful answer.
The belief that sprawl should be pursued so that a school district does not have to “right-size” itself is neither measured nor thoughtful. And yet, that’s exactly what other candidates are proposing.
No one said anything about pursuing sprawl
By focusing on the macro – ie things like birth rate and the like, the micro level is being completely ignored.
Basically Davis’ declining enrollment is due to the lack of school age families moving in and that is a local issue and it is based on lack of housing affordable for families.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding of how school financing works. If enrollment is declining, you are going to struggle. You can’t right size the district and fix the problem because the problem occurs every time you have a decline in enrollment.
There is potentially a state level fix – decouple funding from ADA. That’s a potential long term solution.
I don’t advocate for new Housing to blindly feed the School District. BUT MORRILL IS AN IDIOT to say that the school district enrollment is simply the district’s problem. Obviously he’s not technically wrong; the school district and city have separate fiscal responsibilities. But the schools are an integral part of the community. What the community does effects the schools and vice versa.
The school district either needs to grow or shrink to get to some form of financial stability or equilibrium. The district needs a financial plan going forward. So far the only answer has been to mindlessly keep pumping in students. Right now I’m not sure if the money from student enrollment even meets the cost of educating them. So pumping more students into the district seems like filling a water balloon with a hole in it and the more you fill it the bigger the hole gets.
So again, the school district needs to come up with a financial plan and present it to the city. If the district needs to grow by X number of students to reach fiscal equilibrium….fine then they can work with the city about housing. If they need to shrink, then they can work with the city on closing a school and maybe getting some teacher/affordable housing approved on their property. So it’s in the city’s best interest to work with the school district. But the school district needs to get it’s house in order and come up with a fiscal plan to work with the city going forward.
IMO the biggest thing the school district needs to do is figure out ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF REVENUE GENERATION. A big one I’ve suggested in the past is becoming a landlord and create some housing that would house some of their teachers as well as generate revenue for the district. The district’s facilities are under utilized and should be rented out more frequently. Child activities and care outside of school are other possibilities.
The biggest problem is that the district DOESN’T HAVE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF REVENUE GENERATION other than a parcel tax. That’s it. That’s the only legal revenue source for general fund money locally in a school district. The state has latched money to average daily attendance (ADA) and has limited local revenue to a parcel tax.
One solution might be to get the state to decouple money from ADA. Or perhaps set ADA as the funding floor, have an inflation escalator, and then school districts will not be tied to growth as they currently are.
I’ve suggested numerous ideas here on this blog for alternative revenue for the school district. Other districts construct housing. No reason DJUSD shouldn’t do it not only for their teachers and for revenue generation. Please show me where the district has no other way to get revenue other than the ADA and parcel tax. There’s some serious lack of imagination going on here.
If you construct housing and sell it (as DJUSD with Grande) it’s not classroom money but facility money.
Again, lack of imagination….if Grande is your frame of reference. That project for the school district was stupid….other than maybe a quick infusion of cash. For one it was large single family housing. It was simply land for the developer…likely for money and the agreement that some of the homes are offered at a discount to teachers…..$1M homes not affordable or workforce homes.
Where does it say that the funds have to go to facilities? If the money was tied to a Mello Roos bond…sure. But other than that why would the funds have to go to facilities?
No, medium to high density homes can be built. 51% can be a mix of affordable and work force homes. Some reserved for teachers. 49% can be market rate homes. Some of which can be sold off (if you record a condo map) for immediate funds and the rest held for long term market rate rental income for the school district.
School districts can even bypass city approvals if they designate 100% of the homes to be affordable and workforce housing and for local teachers, for teachers in adjacent school districts and finally local government employees.
“But other than that why would the funds have to go to facilities? ”
State law is arcane. Basically there is an absolute division between classroom money and facilities money, and the law precludes converting facilities into classroom money (with some exceptions that come with pretty punitive consequences).
Yes, that has to do with facilities rentals. And if they rented the facilities out that could help make a dent in the budget that eats up the facilities part of the budget that comes from the district general fund. This town really needs more after school care options. The district has an opportunity to fill that need and generate a little revenue (btw. if the district provides the service then I do believe that the service can be carved out from the facilities use so that some of the revenue goes directly into the general fund….the part that is facilities would still have to go towards facilities expenditures.
But I do not see anything that says that revenue generated from district real estate that is used for teacher housing has towards district facilities.
Interesting, they did do a short-term exception to the law in SB 98:
“SB 98 adds Education Code (EC) Section 17463.7, until July 1, 2024, to expand the purposes for which a school district may deposit the proceeds from the sale or lease of surplus real property – together with any personal property located on the property, purchased entirely with local funds – into the general fund of the school district and may use the proceeds for any one-time general fund purpose, as provided.”
However, that’s one-time fund purposes, not ongoing revenue.
Also from
17463.7.
: If the purchase of the property was made using the proceeds of a local general obligation bond or revenue derived from developer fees, the amount of the proceeds of the transaction that may be deposited into the general fund of the school district may not exceed the percentage computed by the difference between the purchase price of the property and the proceeds from the transaction, divided by the amount of the proceeds of the transaction. For purposes of this section, proceeds of the transaction means either of the following, as appropriate:
(2) For a transaction that does not result in a lump-sum payment of the proceeds of the transaction, the proceeds of the transaction shall be calculated as the net present value of the future cashflow generated by the transaction.
I’m thinking of long term real estate holdings….rental income. Also, to what degree this applies to Teacher Housing, I don’t know. If anything restrictions on the creation of teacher housing might make blending it with market rate housing (as a revenue generator for the district) easier.
The school district is not interested in shrinking. (This isn’t unique to Davis.) As such, you will never, ever get an honest answer from them. Don’t hold your breath waiting for one.
This is similar to the situation in which proposed military base closures had to be decided by an outside agency, rather than letting politicians in those areas do so. (Actually, that same type of self-interest is at play regarding prison closures.)
They already have a “plan” – and it’s the only one you’ll ever hear of. (Pursuit of endless sprawl, supported by the council incumbents.)
It doesn’t. Hence, the parcel taxes.
They literally don’t care, and that is their “plan”, regardless.
And in their back pocket, there’s always the “it’s for the kids” argument. And more recently, mixed-in with fake “diversity” claims. Whatever the “soup de jour” concern is that they can latch-onto at any given moment.