The Davis School Board, following reporting requirements set forth by the County Board of Education, set forth a plan for budget reduction should Measures Q and W not be renewed.
He continued, “In order to maintain the ‘positive’ budget certification and maintain fiscal solvency, the district must develop a reduction plan by the December First Interim Budget submission” on December 15.
The election right now is scheduled for March 6 and would renew two previous parcel taxes, the first, Measure Q which was passed back in 2007 and the second, Measure W passed in November the following year, in 2008.
Combined, the two measures provide $6.5 million of educational programs. Measure Q was the long-time parcel tax that the district renewed back in 2007. It provided for $4.1 million in funding. Measure W was a parcel tax that would be used to address a deficit that had occurred during the 2008 year that threatened the district with huge losses of district personnel and school closures.
Ultimately, after cuts by the district and revisions by the state legislature, the number needed was $2.4 million. However, the economy continued to struggle, the state budget continued to run in the red and education proved to be an easy place for the legislature to cut/ So, earlier this year, again facing as much as a $6 million deficit, the district ended up putting Measure A on the ballot which narrowly passed in May.
In order for the district to follow the rules for funding, they have simply pulled the funding for Measures Q and W out of the budget. While it is somewhat of an academic exercise, it also demonstrates to the community what is at stake for our schools should the voters not renew the measures next March.
Measures Q and W fund 78 total full-time equivalent positions (FTE), including 51 teachers and 27 other staffers.
At the elementary school level, Measure Q provides for 14 positions to help maintain lower class sizes – currently that reduces classes by approximately two students. As most recognize, when Measure Q was originally passed, the district was looking at elementary class sizes of approximately 20 students to a teacher, but that is no longer the case due to reductions to the state budget and the backing off of state laws that over the previous decade had lowered student to teachers ratios.
Measure Q also supports ten positions for reading, including reading specialists and aids and four math specialists.
At the secondary level, it provides 12 teachers for 60 sections of courses, it provides three teachers for ESL, at-risk students and career technical instruction, and it also provides for two secondary counselors and a library aide.
Finally, district-wide, it provides three positions for a school counselor, psychologist and nurses. There are two school site technology support staff, there is $65,000 set aside for staff training, $165,000 for classroom supplies, and $70,000 for student nutrition including healthy lunches.
As readers may recall from past discussions of the parcel tax, the district is required to allocate the money and programs that the parcel tax would fund up front before the voters vote on the Measure.
Measure W funded 6.3 science teachers for grades 4 through 6, four librarians, and 3.4 music teachers for grades 4 through 6. At the secondary level, it funded secondary course offerings for classes in math, science, English, social science, PE and foreign language programs. Eight teachers would offer 40 sections of courses.
Measure W also funded a reduction in class sizes for 9th and 10th grade English and 9th grade math. It funded 1.5 librarian positions at the Junior Highs.
It should be pointed out, that should the measures be renewed, there is no requirement that the funds would have to go to fund the same programs that the district back in 2007 deemed important when Measure Q was reviewed as a supplement.
As Superintendent Winfred Roberson said last night in response to a board member’s questions, “This initially is the FTE that is tied into Measures Q and W so this was the natural place to begin.”
Board Member Richard Harris: “$6.5 million is at risk and $6.5 million funds exactly the programs that have been laid out here… So these programs are at risk if that money goes away.”
Board Member Gina Daleiden pointed out, “The optimistic outlook would be if Measures Q and W are renewed on March 6 we don’t have to really have this conversation… I have to say that’s how I think this is going to play out.”
However, as she pointed out, the county requires they go through this exercise in accordance with state law.
“This board of education does not have discretion,” she continued, “So if we want a positive certification from YCOE [Yolo County Office of Education], we have to play the game as they submit the rules.”
According to state rules, local school districts are required to submit a plan for balancing its budget in a realistic fashion for the current year and two subsequent fiscal years.
A district receives a “positive certification” when the local county office of education (COE) determines that it will meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years.
A qualified certification is assigned when the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years. Under this certification, the county office of education would be allowed to provide assistance to the district.
A negative certification is the most serious classification and is assigned when the district is unable to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the current year or for the subsequent fiscal year – under these conditions the COE would intervene and possibly put the district into a receivership.
As Bruce Colby explained on Thursday, “You would be deemed that you’re under fiscal watch and they would assign an advisor, another CBO… who basically gets to tell you what to do.”
“They basically take over the fiscal operations,” he said. “The minimum they would do is they would bring in a fiscal advisor to do a fiscal analysis on your fiscal health.”
It would impact the district ability to borrow money.
“You basically have work through the fiscal budget of the county to get permission to borrow money.”
As an earlier presentation showed, this would not be a small deal. The school district has a huge cash flow crisis stemming from the fact that the state is late on their cash payments. This requires the state to issue deferrals and the school district to engage in massive but short term borrowing to get the cash necessary to meet payroll obligations.
Thus, putting the district into a negative certification could impact its ability to make even its very basic payroll obligations.
The bottom line of this exercise is demonstrating the need for the school district to go through this exercise and show what programs would be cut should the parcel tax not be renewed.
While it is true that the board members are fairly optimistic about their prospects, and unlike Measure A, this would not be a new tax but rather an extension of existing taxes – it is also true with the water rate hikes and the continuing recessions that the voters, of whom two-thirds are required to approve the measure, might be more reluctant than usual to renew the parcel tax.
Then again, we have said this before and the voters have come through.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The City should repeal the water rate hikes and re-study the fiscal program for the surface water plant, and let the school board go to the voters for the school parcel taxes before the city brings the water rate hikes back.
I watched the Board last night. The presentation and discussion of the homework study “data” was painful. The fact that staff would spend what must have been an enormous mat of time creating and compiling the results of such a long survey then presenting each minute detail without seeing the Forrest fir the trees ( very uneven representation of data, not broken out by primary and secondary data) and scant analysis was a testament to this administration’s make work. I agree with the idea of a homework policy but the handling of this aspect was embarrassing. It took Tim Taylor to point out the inadequacies and he was the last speaker. Ah…….
Too late Michael. Your political manipulation of the water infrastructure problem has already tanked the school parcel tax. It’s DOA.
Can it be resuscitated? Not with you, Sue Greenwald, and David Greenwald publicly demagoguing the issue.
“Too late Michael. Your political manipulation of the water infrastructure problem has already tanked the school parcel tax. It’s DOA.”
????? please explain
[quote]It should be pointed out, that should the measures be renewed, there is no requirement that the funds would have to go to fund the same programs that the district back in 2007 deemed important when Measure Q was reviewed as a supplement.[/quote]
I’m not following you here. Are you saying that the school district can spend Measure Q (and W?) on anything they want? Please explain…
[quote]The City should repeal the water rate hikes and re-study the fiscal program for the surface water plant, and let the school board go to the voters for the school parcel taxes before the city brings the water rate hikes back.[/quote]
Susan Lovenburg’s response to you:
[quote]Letter to the Editor from Susan Lovenburg, Trustee, DJUSD Davis on Wednesday:
Will these separate needs – water and students – be pitted against one another? I trust not. Healthy, vibrant communities rely on an array of local services–education, safety, health and public works–that address the needs of the whole community. Let us debate each on their merits.
The quality of life in Davis tomorrow and for future generations depends upon the decisions we make today. Let’s proceed thoughtfully.[/quote]
ERM: [i]I’m not following you here. Are you saying that the school district can spend Measure Q (and W?) on anything they want? Please explain…[/i]
A renewal measure may not necessarily fund exactly the same things that Measures Q & W funded. But the programs funded by those two Measures are an obvious starting point. Right now the school board is soliciting input for what to fund and how to structure a renewal.
“The quality of life in Davis tomorrow and for future generations depends upon the decisions we make today. Let’s proceed thoughtfully.”
Exactly, and voters personal finances also affect the quality of life.
“The quality of life in Davis tomorrow and for future generations depends upon the decisions we make today. Let’s proceed thoughtfully.”
Ms. Lovenburg’s concluding statement hits the nail right on the head and is the basis for the water rate hike referendum that is the only avenue to force the Council to pursue a variance(according to the current head of our Public Works Department) and redo this current surface water plan that Councilperson Wolk characterizes as a “fiscal and planning mess.”
The parcel taxes and other citizen support for our educational system are the first priority to supporting Davis’ “quality of life”, not to mention our residential property values. There is no dire emergency that necessitates saddling Davis voters with a water rate hike at this time.
In an ideal world, the two ideas would be discussed independently on their individual merits but in a world of finite resources, depressed economy, and personal hardships that’s not a very realistic hope.
We dont have infinite resources, so we have to budget. The schools come first, and then we can deal with whether or not we want this particular surface water project or some variation, or not at all.
There is nothing wrong with our current well system for many years in the future. Sure, I would like water with a better taste, but I am sorry, I am going to fund the schools before I spend hundreds or thousands on higher water rates for a project that can wait.
Put the rate hike on the ballot, and let the campaigns educate the voters. I am not debating the merits of the proposed project right now; that will come soon enough.
Michael: [i]There is nothing wrong with our current well system for many years in the future.[/i]
That is not true. The water will violate the state effluent standards very soon. The current groundwater supply is also not sustainable, nor is the deep aquifer.
Michael: [i]I am not debating the merits of the proposed project right now[/i]
You just did.
[i][quote]DG: “In order for the district to follow the rules for funding, they have simply pulled the funding for Measures Q and W out of the budget. While it is somewhat of an academic exercise, it also demonstrates to the community what is at stake for our schools should the voters not renew the measures next March.”
ERM: “I’m not following you here. Are you saying that the school district can spend Measure Q (and W?) on anything they want? Please explain…”
wdf1: “A renewal measure may not necessarily fund exactly the same things that Measures Q & W funded. But the programs funded by those two Measures are an obvious starting point. Right now the school board is soliciting input for what to fund and how to structure a renewal.”[/quote][/i]It’s interesting that the process labels this a “renewal” of Measures Q and W if the only thing being renewed is the [u]amount of money[/u] being sought.
The idea of requiring specific uses of measure funding, if approved, makes sense–as does allowing the cash to be redirected to current needs upon “renewal” five years later.
But, then, it doesn’t really make much sense to spend any time re-announcing and discussing the original purposes of the Q and W efforts if the new vote will be or can be for different purposes. It’s really not a “starting point” unless the district is implying that it generally plans to save the same programs as before and just plans to refine that by taking into account inflation factors, etc.
The district should be deciding what [u]current[/u] priorities are for use of the the funding that would come from the next election, assuming that’s also required by law for “renewals.” How many teacher and other staff positions do we hope to save this time around? What’s our new target for class size or will we just have to give up that concern? Will we maintain all the subject emphasis that we did before? How has success of Measure A affected the needs we’ll have for renewal if the other two measures?
The two board members quoted seem to think that $6.5-million will solve our problems and “funds exactly the programs that have been laid out here.” Once the district staff gets past this “starting point,” this assumption could turn out to be inaccurate (because of inflation, for example).
It also would be helpful to voters to know what emphasis and funding support the district will give various subjects and special programs this time–instead of putting out place-holders from five years ago. A fully informed public discussion needs to get going in order to build support. March 6 is just around the corner.
To Harrington, davisite2, dmg, rusty49: Did you miss Ms. Lovenburg’s statement or just cherry pick what you wanted to hear:
[quote]Will these separate needs – water and students – be pitted against one another? I trust not. [/quote]
Secondly, if the surface water project is delayed, and likely ends up costing us MORE, not less, THEN THERE WILL BE LESS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SCHOOL AND CITY TAXES.
Does anyone know if teachers/administrators/support staff are bringing ‘anything to the table’ in regards to salary/benefit concessions/freezes?
JustSaying: [i]It’s interesting that the process labels this a “renewal” of Measures Q and W if the only thing being renewed is the amount of money being sought.[/i]
The starting default position is ~$6.5 million covering the programs discussed last night, for a likely duration of ~4 years. If community input strongly dictates otherwise, then any of those things could change.
[i]The district should be deciding what current priorities are for use of the the funding that would come from the next election, assuming that’s also required by law for “renewals.”[/i]
This agenda item last night was only for purposes of starting discussion; no decisions were made. There are still two months of input and discussion to go. You can communicate your thoughts and concerns to the school board.
[i]The two board members quoted seem to think that $6.5-million will solve our problems and “funds exactly the programs that have been laid out here.” Once the district staff gets past this “starting point,” this assumption could turn out to be inaccurate (because of inflation, for example).[/i]
Past parcel taxes have been structured to account for a reasonable inflation factor. They have all come in about right. The bigger uncertainty will be the state budget. When discussing school parcel taxes, it is easier to have a discussion about known fiscal shortfalls; much more difficult to propose a parcel tax to cover shortfalls from the state that may or may not happen.
To wdf… are we to assume that there will be “COLA’s” for both salary and benefits for DJUSD employees?
hpierce: Whatever the currently agreed to salary & compensation, that is the base factor for determining what a teacher costs. It also includes anticipated step and column increases (which is usually included as a COLA/inflation factor).
hpierce: [i]Does anyone know if teachers/administrators/support staff are bringing ‘anything to the table’ in regards to salary/benefit concessions/freezes?[/i]
Not that I know of. My guess (only my speculation) is that if any additional cuts materialize from the state after the parcel tax is submitted (I think there is a lead time of about 90 days between submission and vote) and hypothetically passed, that employees would likely be on the hook to take compensation cuts.
This is how Jeff Hudson with the Enterprise saw things:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/schools-news/davis-school-board-reviews-budget-challenges/[/url]
hpierce: [i]Does anyone know if teachers/administrators/support staff are bringing ‘anything to the table’ in regards to salary/benefit concessions/freezes?[/i]
The teachers and support staff took a 5% cut connected with furloughs last school year. All of that was restored for this school year. The administrators also took a cut last year, and at least part of that is still ongoing into the current year. This latter issue was also discussed in last night’s meeting; I think the conclusion was to keep the cut ongoing for now.
EJM wrote: “Secondly, if the surface water project is delayed, and likely ends up costing us MORE, not less, THEN THERE WILL BE LESS MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SCHOOL AND CITY TAXES.”
I doubt that. Dan Wolk wrote in an Op Ed piece that the project finances are a mess. Sue thinks they are a mess. I trust both of them on this issue. Sue has been 100% right on the money as to city finances for many years.
This “hurry up or the financial sky will fall” mantra from staff and ERM and others reminds me of the famous Helen Thompson letter in October 2005 where she wrote, in effect, that Covell Village (1800 units crammed on 385 acres) HAD to be approved right then, or the housing market and city finances were going to crash and burn. Well, we all know that if CV had been approved in Nov 2005, her prediction of fiscal disaster would have come true. Those 385 acres would have been a wasteland of abandoned streets and stick walls with no roofs by 2008. Their plan was to break ground in about a year, and start building houses not later than 2007. I still think the CV developers owe some holiday wine to the No on X committee to thank us for saving them from certain disaster in 2008 until now.
So no, I do not believe the chicken little panic strategy that staff and their wealthy, conflicted consultants are using to rush this project through in the worst economy that our region has seen since 1932.
“I doubt that. Dan Wolk wrote in an Op Ed piece that the project finances are a mess…”
I thought that I read it in a previous Vanguard piece where DMG quoted Dan Wolk’s public statement from the dais during the Council’s deliberations. DMG, please correct me if I am mistaken.
Does Dan Wolk endorse the referendum?
@wdf: what has been the teacher pay trend for the last few years?
Don: I dont think so, unless he has had a change of mind. Dan would not second Sue’s motion to put the ordinance and rate hikes on the ballot.
[quote]This “hurry up or the financial sky will fall” mantra from staff and ERM and others reminds me of the famous Helen Thompson letter in October 2005 where she wrote, in effect, that Covell Village[/quote]
1) Show me where I am wrong in my logic – what expert publicly agrees with your position to kill this “gold-plated” project? Name one single one.
2) Who is using scare tactics here, comparing the surface water project to the Covell Village debacle? I was staunchly opposed to Covell Village.
3) How are you going to guarantee the state will not make Davis pay for its unwillingness to come into compliance with the new standards? What is your Plan B? I have as yet to see/hear you articulate a coherent one…
[quote]A renewal measure may not necessarily fund exactly the same things that Measures Q & W funded. But the programs funded by those two Measures are an obvious starting point. Right now the school board is soliciting input for what to fund and how to structure a renewal.[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification…
[quote]So no, I do not believe the chicken little panic strategy that staff and their wealthy, conflicted consultants are using to rush this project through in the worst economy that our region has seen since 1932. [/quote]
Funny how Susan Lovenburg, DJUSD Trustee doesn’t seem to agree w your position either… The fact of the matter is if the surface water project is delayed, it is very likely to become MORE COSTLY, NOT LESS. And that will result in LESS MONEY FOR THE SCHOOLS AND CITY.
Don Shor: [i]what has been the teacher pay trend for the last few years?[/i]
I’m not sure what you’re asking specifically. I am certain that those numbers haven’t changed in at least four years.
District salary tables are here: [url]http://www.djusd.net/employment/salary[/url]
“The fact of the matter is if the surface water project is delayed, it is very likely to become MORE COSTLY, NOT LESS. And that will result in LESS MONEY FOR THE SCHOOLS AND CITY.”
Not necessarily. Five years from now if the economy has turned around, the district is probably not relying on parcel taxes to do anything more than the parcel taxes did their first 10 to 15 years in existence – supplement state revenue. That’s one of the reasons why this is a particularly bad time.
If people are paying $200 rather than $500 for their parcel taxes, it will make it easier to pay water.
So you support going forward with the water project in five years?
[quote]Can it be resuscitated? Not with you, Sue Greenwald, and David Greenwald publicly demagoguing the issue. — [b]VOTER2012[/b][/quote]Great. Now anyone who dares question the fiscal implications of a policy that is supported by Voter 2012 will be accused of killing a school tax.
Who’s being demagogic here?
[b]wdf1[/b], thanks for the clarifying info. So, even the amount and term are not carried over from the original measures? That makes it all the more curious why it’s a “renewal” rather than just a new measure. There must be something involved that makes one route more beneficial than the other.
I still think the starting point should be a staff evaluation of the current situation rather than the five-year-old rationale for the last measures. Don’t want to make too much of it, but just seems like the “academic exercise” could have provided more useful discussion fodder.
I’m not sure I understand your inflation comment, though. How can we plan that the $6.5-million level can fund the same level of staff and other support the next five years as it did during the first five years?
[b]David[/b], how can you start any sentence, “Five years from now if the economy has turned around…”? I used to say, “Next year when the economy has improved…,” but the last few years must have let all of us know that we cannot predict much and plan much on that basis.
I also don’t think we can expect people will be basing their water opinions on whether their parcel taxes are $500 or $200. Some folks will not care much either way; some folks will be suffering either way.
Why don’t we all just agree to pass school/library/? parcel taxes that make and keep the quality of life what we appreciate about Davis. It seems like tossing this issue in with the water fight is more about stopping the water project than it is expressing concern about support for our schools.
Don: I’ve wanted to wait ten years, but if it has to happen in five, I can compromise.
Just Saying: In fairness, that has been one of my points of opposition to the water for at least three years, maybe longer.
Unfortunately, Sue, the only ones who keep linking the water project and the school tax measures are the opponents of the surface water project. Most of the rest of us figure they are separate issues, and that the voters will judge each on their own merits.
There will always be school tax and parks tax measures on the ballot, every two years if I recall the voting schedule. So there will always be an excuse to keep postponing the water project.
JustSaying: [i]I still think the starting point should be a staff evaluation of the current situation rather than the five-year-old rationale for the last measures. Don’t want to make too much of it, but just seems like the “academic exercise” could have provided more useful discussion fodder.[/i]
It is as much a community discussion as it is a staff discussion. The community votes on pays the parcel tax (if it passes), people move here because of the schools to send their kids there.
And the discussion didn’t end last night, either. Board members are going out and meeting various groups to explain the situation and solicit input. You could give input here, if you wanted. Sometimes board members check.
To see what is funded:
[url]http://davis.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/davis-eAgenda.woa/wa/showMeeting[/url]
Go to Presentation/Discussion/Action, item d. and look at the document there that summarizes what is funded by Q & W.
Some notable items that are funded are librarians, elementary science, elementary music, 7th period for high school, some class size reduction, reading aides, math aides, stipends for coaches in the secondary athletic program. Stuff like that has been cut at many other school districts.
M.Harrington “We dont have infinite resources, so we have to budget.”
I won’t go into the personal finances of the opponents, to do so would be rude. Still it seems to me its not that many of you can’t afford the costs it seems you simply unwilling to pay.
@Don Shor:[quote]Unfortunately, Sue, the only ones who keep linking the water project and the school tax measures are the opponents of the surface water project. Most of the rest of us figure they are separate issues, and that the voters will judge each on their own merits.[/quote]For example …[quote]David Greenwald (6/7/2011) — My biggest concern however is the impact of the rate hikes on the ability of the school district to pass parcel taxes in order to subsidize the decline of state funding.
Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a similar point in a comment on the Vanguard yesterday, “The estimated 2016 annual water water/sewer/garbage bill could make it difficult to pass the supplementary city and school taxes that we need to get us through these difficult times.”[/quote]IMO this is political malpractice if one has any regard for the DJUSD and local property values.
@ wdf: I guess my question, since it’s been a couple of years since I looked at this, is whether the teachers have had COLA’s and/or step increases in the last couple of years. Also, given that inflation has been virtually zero, I wonder what COLA’s would be in any case.
[quote]There will always be school tax and parks tax measures on the ballot, every two years if I recall the voting schedule. So there will always be an excuse to keep postponing the water project.—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, you know that I have been suggesting that we keep rates somewhat lower by phasing in the two projects. So no, there will not “always be an excuse to keep postponing the project”.
[b]Mike Harrington:[/b]We have to work to pass this school tax, and work harder to separate our statements regarding our concerns from statements that could affect the coming school and city tax elections.
[b]Voter2012[/b]: This is political bullying. To threaten someone for voicing a genuine and reasonable concern is political hardball at its worst. And to do it anonymously is reprehensible.
I strongly support both the city and school district taxes. I have never been one to shirk my responsibility to point out fiscal realities and to work hard for responsible fiscal policies.
As I said at the council meeting, I hope I am wrong and that this time I am being overly pessimistic.
I strongly support the school tax, and I will work hard to pass the parks tax
As noted on a previous thread, the cost of drilling the deeper wells is about $80 million.
The rationale has been that the projects be phased in to reduce costs, and that higher rates will increase the likelihood that voters will reject the school and/or parks taxes.
The sewer project is about $100 million regardless, and unless Matt Williams is right it can’t be delayed.
The water project is about $175 million (Davis share).
Instead, you want to pay for the deep wells at a cost of about $80 million.
Then, ultimately, Davis residents will have to pay for the surface water project anyway — another $175 million, assuming things haven’t changed drastically in a couple of decades — after paying for the deep wells.
So to summarize this: you are saying that people will accept rates to pay for the deep aquifer wells and the sewer project, and vote for parcel taxes for schools and parks, but if they are somewhat higher in order to pay for the surface water project sooner rather than later — then they won’t vote for parcel taxes.
Unfortunately, your predictions about voter behavior are unprovable. I believe Davis voters will approve parcel taxes if the school board demonstrates a need and proves it has managed the money well.
Don: The COLA question is a good one. When the DTA (the “teachers’ union”) refers to a COLA increase, they mean it in reference to salary increases over their previous level to cover inflation. When the state legislature and Bruce Colby (the DJUSD budget officer) refer to COLA, it refers to the whole increase in the cost of doing business, including inflation factors on utilities, liability insurance, and step/column increases that employees get in their contract. They don’t mean quite the same thing, depending on whom you talk to.
To answer your question, the district has received either zero or extremely minimal COLA factors from the state over the past few years; I think there was a negative COLA at least one year. District employees have received step/column increases when they’ve earned them, but they’ve had no increase to the step/column amounts for at least the past four years. I can’t imagine there will be any increases as long as there is a realistic threat of layoffs and the current economy.
Clarification: When the district factors in annual step/column increases, that is called a COLA factor to the district, but that’s not what the DTA would call it. Sorry if it’s still confusing. I had to have it explained to me about 4-5 times before I began to catch on.
So looking at this from the perspective of payroll costs, I realize the state was not providing any increase in ADA to the district. It was, in fact, reduced one year, I recall from business advisory committee meetings.
And it is possible that teachers were not getting COLA’s. But total employee costs may have been increasing due to step/column increases as teachers rose up the ranks. I assume that is continuing, since my recollection is that step/column adjustments couldn’t be changed.
What I’m trying to assess here is whether employee costs have been continuing to increase in spite of flat employment numbers and flat or reduced district ADA state payments.
If DJUSD is going to ask the voters to renew the tax, it will be important that they know what it is going to be for.
ps: Bruce Colby if you are reading this and have budget data, you can send them along to me at donshor@gmail.com.
[quote]As noted on a previous thread, the cost of drilling the deeper wells is about $80 million.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]The idea behind the variance would not be to replace all of our wells. We are not even out of compliance on selenium now. Depending on our next permit, we might have to do a little more dilution. Even with the project, the plan is to dig more deep water wells and to take out intermediate wells. Presumably, those costs are already included. If our new permit brings us out of compliance with selenium, the already planned well might take care of it. Or a couple more at $3 million each. We don’t know yet.
A plan to phase in the project has nothing to do with digging $80 million in deep aquifer wells.
[quote]Unfortunately, your predictions about voter behavior are unprovable. I believe Davis voters will approve parcel taxes if the school board demonstrates a need and proves it has managed the money well.–[b]Don Shore[/b][/quote]I hope you are right.
Sue, I am unaware of any specific proposal that involves “a little dilution” and “a couple more” deep wells. Complete replacement of intermediate wells with deep wells would almost certainly be necessary if you plan to avoid the surface water (which you have previously said will eventually be necessary) for a couple of decades.
According to the report I cited earlier (Fogg et al.):
“The use of deep groundwater without demineralization is probably infeasible and fraught with obstacles. Furthermore, even if these obstacles could be overcome, the capital cost savings would be moderate, while risks and other costs are numerous and collectively substantial.”
Deep wells are not a viable option. Certainly not for the 20 – 25 years you have previously indicated you would propose delaying the surface water project. And that report cites numerous other problems associated with delaying the project. I urge you to read it carefully.
It looks like the school taxes will face no organized opposition as the anti-tax crusaders old(Taxpayers Association) and new (Progressives) focus on water rates.
Don
My thanks for posting the Fog et al report. It really helped clarify my very fuzzy understanding of the issues.
I have a question for anyone who favors postponing the project based on the current bad economy and hopes of economic improvement. What economic benchmark would you recommend using as sufficient economic improvement to decide to move forward actively with the project ? Would you favor using a set decrease in unemployment, a set amount of increased state, county, or local revenues, a set increase in local income or household revenue ? I am asking because I have a feeling that at least some of the resistance to moving forward is based on something other than true concern about people’s inability to pay, and more on an unwillingness to pay. My experience with the most ardent opponents of increased taxes and fees in he past is that they will oppose increases under virtually any circumstances. In my mind, it would add credibility to the “postponers” position if they would specify under what economic conditions they would favor moving forward.
Could be interesting… if average household income rise 5%, it is likely, IMO, that construction costs would go up by that, plus inflation that often comes with ‘recovery’. I think we’re seeing bargain basement capital and interest cost NOW.
[quote]Not necessarily. Five years from now if the economy has turned around, the district is probably not relying on parcel taxes to do anything more than the parcel taxes did their first 10 to 15 years in existence – supplement state revenue. That’s one of the reasons why this is a particularly bad time. [/quote]
I’m going to refer you to hpierce’s comment, which is spot on:
[quote] if average household income rise 5%, it is likely, IMO, that construction costs would go up by that, plus inflation that often comes with ‘recovery’. I think we’re seeing bargain basement capital and interest cost NOW.[/quote]
[quote]Sue, I am unaware of any specific proposal that involves “a little dilution” and “a couple more” deep wells. Complete replacement of intermediate wells with deep wells would almost certainly be necessary if you plan to avoid the surface water (which you have previously said will eventually be necessary) for a couple of decades.— [b]Don Shor[/b] [/quote]Don, I don’t even understand where your idea comes from that we would need a complete replacement of intermediate wells would be necessary for a 15 to 25 year postponement of the completion of the project, if we could obtain a salinity variance. I don’t understand your theory.
There isn’t a “proposal” to be aware of. My proposal was for the council to strongly make the case to the WRCB that we need the salinity variance in order to give us the flexibility to postpone the project and to explore options. Obviously, we would also be working with economists and conjunction with the WRCB to determine how we could best schedule the financing and the the timing of the completion of the project to figure out what the ratepayer cost would be under different scenarios, and the best balance between earliest completion date and the least unaffordable rate.
No one can pretend to know this now. I was just asking council to pursue the flexibility to explore it.
[i]we need the salinity variance in order to give us the flexibility to postpone the project and to explore options.[/i]
The options have been explored. I have no idea what other ideas you have that haven’t been reviewed by the experts who have looked at this. There is no way to hold off on the surface water project for 15 to 25 years without going almost entirely to deep wells.
There is scant likelihood of obtaining variances for 15 to 25 years, given the difficulties Dixon and Woodland have had in that regard.
I think you are way more optimistic about the impact of the Tracy decision on other cities than is warranted. Davis has an alternative, already costed out. Woodland is going to pursue that option regardless. Tracy had no option. Davis has options, which have been fully explored. And the experts I have pointed to who analyzed those options say that the surface water project is the best way to go.
“The teachers and support staff took a 5% cut connected with furloughs last school year.”
I should check my facts better. It was a 2.7% cut last year connected with five furlough days.
[i]”I should check my facts better. It was a 2.7% cut last year connected with five furlough days.”[/i]
How did the furlough work: was it like the university’s, where professors still had to teach the same number of days? Or was it essentially just a shortening of the school year?
My understanding is that it was the latter. And if so, it seems to me that kind of a furlough is against the public interest and especially against the interest of the school children. In other words, the district could have kept the school year just as long as it had been, but very slightly reduced the pay rate of the instructors to the point that each was paid for five fewer days. If, for example, they work 200 days a year, they could have been given 195/200 (97.5%) of their pay and still worked 200 days. But as I understand what the DTA decided was that they would reduce the days of instruction by 5 days. So teachers got no more money on this furlough system, but students were harmed by losing five days of instruction. If I am wrong, then by all means please correct me.
Rifkin: It was the latter. A regular school year is 180 days, as previously mandated by state law. The legislature allowed for the school year to be shortened as one of their budget-related conditions for education to deal with fewer dollars. The employees took that option last year, and school was in session for 175 days; they aren’t doing that this year. It wasn’t my preference (the furloughs).
Regarding the use of furloughs instead of pay reductions, does anyone know if this results in significant additional savings, such as decreased energy costs from not having the schools operating on those days, and other physical plant and support costs ?
MEDS: it must. However, given that almost all of the money goes to paying salaries for teachers, admins, secretarial support staff, librarians, janitors, yard maintenance crews, etc., the “savings” from decreased energy costs are meaningless.
Note: I said “salaries” above. I should have just said “compensation,” which includes medical benefits and pension contributions.