- “The families who will buy homes in Palomino Place are not here yet. They cannot vote. They cannot object. But they will pay: the new fee, the old fee, and three parcel taxes passed by Davis voters-taxes not paid by the 1,200 outside families whose children now use Davis schools.” – David Taormino
by David Taormino
It has often been said, sometimes in reverence and other times in jest, that the Davis Joint Unified School District is “doing the Lord’s work on Earth.” And perhaps, in part, that is true. There is no higher calling than the education of our children—no greater trust than that which we place in those who shape young minds.
But let us not, in our admiration, lose sight of the facts.
The School District, noble though its mission may be, is also a business. It employs administrators, staff, and teachers, all of whom depend upon the continued operation of schools—regardless of whether the children who fill those classrooms live in Davis or are brought in from elsewhere. This is not criticism. It is recognition of reality. But reality, too, must be subject to the rule of law.
That is why I have filed suit—on behalf of myself and future homeowners of Palomino Place—to challenge the District’s newly-adopted fee on new development. The total for a 2,000 square-foot home now exceeds $10,000. This fee, and the rationale for it, strain both legal boundaries and public trust.
The Law Is Clear—and It Is Not Being Followed
California law permits school districts to collect development fees only for one purpose: to help fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities necessitated by students generated from new residential development. Not for salaries. Not for enrichment. Not for maintaining existing structures already built and filled. We voters enacted 3 assessments for these other purposes.
The District’s own Nexus Study affirms this limitation. It does not sidestep it. On page 12, it states in no uncertain terms:
“The purpose of the fee is to assist with paying for the construction and reconstruction of school facilities related to accommodating students from new development.”
The law does not allow the fee to be imposed simply because the District needs more revenue. Nor does it authorize the fee to address declining enrollment.
And that, precisely, is the issue.
The Numbers Do Not Lie
The Davis School District currently invites roughly 1,200 students from outside the city to attend its schools each day. These students—children from Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, and North Natomas—occupy seats that would otherwise sit empty. But for these out-of-area students, our schools would have capacity to spare: more than 1,400 seats, vacant and unused.
Let me be perfectly plain: if these 1,200 students were not brought in, the District would not be talking about expansion. It would be discussing consolidation and closure. In fact, it already is—four schools, potentially, are on the block. This is not growth. It is contraction, masked by imported enrollment.
So what then, I ask, is the justification for charging a development fee under a law meant to address overcrowding?
The truth is this: there is no justification. And in the courtroom, truth still matters.
A Revenue Scheme, Not a School Plan
By inviting students from other cities, Davis has kept its schools open. In exchange, the districts those children leave behind give up their state funding. That funding—approximately $12 million each year—flows into Davis.
It is clever. It is lucrative. And it is, in business terms, effective.
But it is not legal grounds for levying fees on new homes.
The District has made no plans to build new schools. It has not requested land for them from Palomino Place or any of the larger developments coming behind it. In fact, it is preparing to sell its only unbuilt school site—Nugget Fields—as surplus.
If one were to ask, “Where will these new schools be built to house the projected children of new Davis residents?” the answer, quite clearly, is “Nowhere.”
The District’s own Nexus Study omits this glaring contradiction. It does not address the 1,200 outside students who fill our schools. It does not assess the capacity they consume. It presents, instead, a picture disconnected from fact. And it is upon this omission that the fee is built.
The Public Deserves Honesty—and So Do the Courts
The families who will buy homes in Palomino Place are not here yet. They cannot vote. They cannot object. But they will pay: the new fee, the old fee, and three parcel taxes passed by Davis voters—taxes not paid by the 1,200 outside families whose children now use Davis schools.
This is taxation without representation, levied on future citizens who have no voice in the matter.
And there is more still.
In accordance with the state’s Housing Accountability Act, the District agreed—in writing—to freeze fees on Palomino Place as of March 30, 2023. It affirmed that position. It knew the law. And then, once the statute of limitations expired on any challenge, it reversed itself. It imposed the new fee anyway, six months later, and declared it would not honor the agreement it had made.
This is not policy. It is evasion. And it should not stand.
A Time for Choosing
I did not raise my voice against the earlier fee, even when its legal foundation began to crumble. But this new action—layered atop declining enrollment, surplus capacity, and a blatant financial workaround—crosses the line.
It is unnecessary. It is unjustified. And I believe it is unlawful.
The courts will soon decide. And in Part II, I will address what this means for the City of Davis—for our Planning Commission, our Council, and our community.
The issue before us is not merely one of money. It is one of trust, transparency, and the responsibility of public institutions to serve not themselves, but the people—present and future—who rely upon them.
David Taormino makes some great points here.
DJUSD is too oversized for its current student population so it needs to rely on enrollment of as many students as it can from neighboring districts instead of downsizing to actually fit the town’s demographics. But instead of doing what many feel is called for it continues to attempt to FEED THE BEAST.
“The issue before us is not merely one of money. It is one of trust, transparency, and the responsibility of public institutions to serve not themselves, but the people—present and future—who rely upon them.”
It’s sad when private developers expect others to live up to standards they don’t live up to themselves. Of course leadership by example is not something that is common in Davis so we should not be surprised.
Interesting point of view, since it’s coming from one of those who helped create the 1,200 out-of-district students (in the form of Spring Lake) that he’s now complaining about:
From link below: “Most of the Spring Lake builders bought lots/neighborhoods in Spring Lake that I planned, entitled, and eventually sold to these builders.”
https://davisvanguard.org/2022/09/guest-commentary-taorminos-response-to-in-a-battle-of-developer-vs-the-city-we-all-lose/
And is now using the “builder’s remedy” to bypass Measure J.
I must say it’s refreshing seeing a developer tell it like it is.
“But they will pay: the new fee, the old fee, and three parcel taxes passed by Davis voters—taxes not paid by the 1,200 outside families whose children now use Davis schools.”
“The Davis School District currently invites roughly 1,200 students from outside the city to attend its schools each day.
By inviting students from other cities, Davis has kept its schools open.”
The district does not “invite” students. Parents initiate interdistrict transfer agreements. In my years of doing so, the district never contacted me in any way.
Parcel taxes are paid by property owners irrespective of their relationship to the school district. Many people pay the parcel taxes who never have kids in the schools. Commercial property owners pay parcel taxes. I’ve paid them for years here, and I also pay parcel taxes in my district of residence despite my kids never attending school there.
This gratuitous attack on interdistrict transfer families is irrelevant to Dave Taormino’s main issue, which is apparently the fees his home buyers will have to pay and how the city handled that.
“Let me be perfectly plain: if these 1,200 students were not brought in, the District would not be talking about expansion.”
The district is not talking about expansion to my knowledge. Interdistrict students are allowed on a space-available basis only. We went through this repeatedly as our kids were assigned to different schools or classrooms based on what was available the first week of school. In 5th grade my kid did not know on the first day of school which school she would be attending, nor which teacher she would have. In 7th grade we enrolled one child in DSIS as a stopgap because there were no spaces elsewhere.
Note: “The purpose of the fee is to assist with paying for the construction and reconstruction of school facilities related to accommodating students from new development.”
Reconstruction is the operative word.
Any reconfiguration of Davis schools will cost money. Best example is what was done to reconfigure Valley Oak Elementary School to its current purpose as a site for DaVinci Charter Academy. Buildings were renovated, a whole new building was added. The campus now serves older students, whose needs are different from elementary-age kids.
In my years on site councils and during a stint on a ‘business advisory commission’ to the district, I sat through detailed budget analyses by Bruce Colby. They were very informative. Funds from these taxes are siloed off because of the legal requirements for how they be spent. The district budget is Byzantine, to put it mildly, but there is oversight for how the funds are spent. If Dave Taormino believes the district is misusing the funds, that’s a reasonable area of inquiry. But my guess is that a FOIA would be a more productive and efficient way to answer that concern than a lawsuit which might have collateral consequences.
Taramino is profiting mightily from the higher quality of Davis schools. Davis homes are selling at a 53% premium over those in Woodland according to Zillow, basically due to the combination of the presence of UCD, which improves school quality, and the higher district performance. (Same is true for all of the other surrounding cities.) Maintaining a higher enrollment that supports the portfolio of district programs is key to maintaining quality. It also makes accommodating the higher enrollment envisioned in the developments plans easier.
As Ron O points out, Taramino sold Spring Lake as having access to DJUSD (and all of those out of district transfers come with the 17,000 workers who commute to Davis but can’t live here, consistent with state law.) Is Taramino now proposing a bait and switch on his previous customers so that he can lure in new customers? Isn’t that the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
” Davis homes are selling at a 53% premium over those in Woodland according to Zillow, basically due to the combination of the presence of UCD, which improves school quality, and the higher district performance.”
That’s certainly part of the equation, but has it ever occurred to you that the quaintness of Davis and the fact that so far Davis has been able to fend off Elk Grove like sprawl also adds greatly to home values?
Yes, lack of supply drives up prices. Adding supply drives down prices. I think you are starting to understand how it works.
Yes, I understand how it works and I also understand that I don’t want Davis to end up looking like Elk Grove or Natomas.
David Taormino sounds (edit) greedy (edit). He’s going to be making how much from this development? And yet he complains about spending money on the school district that makes this development desirable and therefore valuable. Pay up and shut up!