If the governor’s tax measure does not pass this fall, local school districts like Davis figure to be hammered by automatic trigger cuts. For Davis that means the loss of about 3.5 million dollars in funding which, combined with the expiration of Measure A and the increased costs of special education, puts Davis in a catastrophic hole at negative 7.5 million dollars.
A Field Poll released today shows that the voters are largely mixed on the latest round of state cuts, with 37 percent believing the cuts went too far, 28% that they did not go far enough and 24% believing they are just right.
But the voters strongly oppose the automatic spending cuts called for in the budget if Governor Jerry Brown’s tax initiative is not approved in the November election. Statewide, 72% oppose these cuts and just 19% of voters are in favor.
Opposition to the automatic spending cuts provision in the state budget crosses party lines, with 79% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans and 68% of independents against the idea.
Governor Jerry Brown defends the automatic cuts not only as a critical element of the budget, but argues that it has helped the state improve its credit rating.
The governor last week vetoed a bill that would have required the administration to notify the legislature in advance of making the trigger cuts and to consult with lawmakers about possible alternatives.
Governor Brown wrote, “Why would we undermine the plan that has earned widespread respect and helped stabilize California’s finances?”
Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll, said “The public is fearful of cuts to K-12 schools, higher education and public health budgets. That’s what they’re concerned about.”
The governor’s spokesperson, Gil Duran, naturally defended the trigger cuts, arguing that they are “the only option that’s left if we want an honestly balanced budget.”
“These trigger cuts are real,” said Democratic Sen. Ted Lieu. “They will be catastrophic if the governor’s initiative does not pass in November.”
All of this rides now on the governor’s tax measure, which he called “fair and temporary.” The budget slashes spending in almost every part of state government and enacts significant welfare reform while increasing funding for K-12 education by 14 percent, pending voter approval of the governor’s initiative.
The initiative will enact temporary increases on high-income earners, raising income taxes by up to three percent on the wealthiest Californians for seven years. It would also increase the state sales tax by one-quarter of one cent for four years. Six billion dollars in additional cuts to education and public safety will be triggered if the initiative fails.
“My revenue proposal is fair and temporary,” said Governor Brown. “Our state budget problem was built up over a decade, and it won’t be fixed overnight. These temporary increases will ensure funding for our schools until the economy improves.”
The budget builds on the significant progress that has been made in tackling the $26.6 billion deficit inherited from the previous administration. Last year’s budget slashed $16 billion and shifted California’s credit outlook from negative to positive.
It may be the responsible thing for the state, but once again it passed the worst of the burden onto local schools and children.
According to Bruce Colby, if the tax passes, the best case scenario will be flat funding. However, if it does not pass, we face the loss of $35 million through automatic trigger cuts from the state.
“The proposed budget along with the prior year reductions has left the district with a structural deficit,” he said. “Additionally, special education costs continue to rise, increasing the deficit. This deficit is being addressed through the passage of the Measure A parcel tax, budget reductions and reserve reductions. The district will need to address this future ongoing budget deficit immediately to remain fiscally solvent.”
In turn this shifts the costs to the local taxpayers, who now have a decision aboutwhether or not to pass yet another local parcel tax.
Board President Susan Lovenburg said the board discussed some of this and it would mean a 30 to 65 FTE (full time employee) reduction on top of this year’s 50 positions that were laid off.
“As Winfred said during the meeting, those aren’t cuts that you can make and keep the doors open,” she said. “So it would involve negotiating concessions to shorten the school year, it would likely involve looking at whether we can consolidate schools, because we’ve really been able to hold that conversation steady – the question of school closure.”
“Cash flow from the State continues to be a challenge and the district could be cash negative at year end based upon the updated payment schedule from the State,” Mr. Colby wrote.
“Should the trigger cuts be pulled, the district will in all likelihood be in a qualified state which is the first step towards state takeover,” Susan Lovenburg said.
“The funding of education is a statewide problem. Budget cuts have left communities on their own to mitigate the impact on their students and I support the proposed parcel tax,” Nancy Peterson said. “Today’s students should not have to make do and wait for the state to adequately prioritize public education.”
Ms. Peterson added, “I support the Governor’s tax initiative as a first step toward stabilizing funding because continual budget deficits have heavily impacted communities and created vast disparities in financial support for public education. The current situation is not healthy for the academic welfare of our state. Every child deserves a quality education.”
As Bruce Colby explained two weeks ago, we are getting close to the point where we lack the cash to make payroll.
If the district runs out of cash, the state will have to loan it money and if that happens, the district ends up in a receivership.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“If the district runs out of cash, the state will have to loan it money and if that happens, the district ends up in a receivership.”
What ARE the problems with going into receivership? Based upon other Districts(Sacramento?)experiences, a close look at the real consequences of such action needs to be looked at.
The school board we locally elect become advisory only
We lose our local superintendent
Financing decisions are made based on state and not local priorities
It’s about a 20 year process
[quote]All of this rides now on the governor’s tax measure, which he called “fair and temporary.” The budget slashes spending in almost every part of state government and enacts significant welfare reform while increasing funding for K-12 education by 14 percent, pending voter approval of the governor’s initiative.
The initiative will enact temporary increases on high-income earners, raising income taxes by up to three percent on the wealthiest Californians for seven years. It would also increase the state sales tax by one-quarter of one cent for four years. [/quote]
“fair and temporary”? LOL I doubt very much this will be a “temporary” fix… just my prediction…
[quote]June 1, 2012:’Richmond Unified School District’ finally paid in full ([url]http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8685984[/url])
After making loan payments to the state for 21 years, the West Contra Costa Unified School District is now paid in full. Back in 1991, it was the first district in California to be taken over by the state before nearly going bankrupt and many believe it was the first in the nation to be taken over. Back then, it was called the Richmond Unified School District and no one had ever heard of a school district having a $29 million budget deficit.
….
Currently, there are three school districts in California that are under control of the state: King City near Salinas, Vallejo, and Oakland. Richmond is now scratched off the list.
[/quote]
People want the services but don’t want to pay the price. The Governor is trying to bridge the structural deficit during his tenure as Governor by making the voters understand the real choice they are facing; either fund the State with higher taxes or de-fund the state function they care about the most, education.
Its no wonder the voters don’t like the choice Brown has crafted they must face the realities that those who govern face everyday, schools, prisons, public safety, care of the indigent and disabled and protecting the environment, it all costs money and the state is broke.
Unless we realize that paying a school superintendent 240K a year, and them having two ‘assistants’ at 180K per year, is INSANE.. there is no hope.
Cut the fat at the top. They are nothing but overhead.
Brown is a nut job.. he still wants a bullet train to nowhere too. He is simply crazy!
And his underhanded attempts to get first billing in the ballot with his proposal.. more games.. reality will hit in November. The public has had enough.
justoutsideofreality: [i]Unless we realize that paying a school superintendent 240K a year, and them having two ‘assistants’ at 180K per year, is INSANE.. there is no hope.[/i]
Your numbers are way off. Until you figure that out, you don’t have any credibility on that issue.
“I doubt very much this will be a “temporary” fix.”
Temporary means there is a sunset on it, not that they won’t try to renew it with the voters.
wdf1. With the retirement plan costs included as they SHOULD BE.. my numbers stand.. prove me wrong
but isnt that the problem with government retirement.. nobody wants to admit the REAL total costs of treating certain public servants with rock star incomes and royal retirements.
wake up and smell the coffee wdf1
[quote]Temporary means there is a sunset on it, not that they won’t try to renew it with the voters.[/quote]
If they keep coming back to ask for more, then this isn’t a “temporary” fix of limited duration as the word “temporary” implies, is it? It becomes part of the permanent mindset of gov’t officials – when the state runs out of money which it always does according to politicians, let’s just ask for more in the way of taxes on the wealthy. In other words, once voters get comfortable paying a tax, it is much easier to keep justifying renewal of such a tax over and over again…
“If they keep coming back to ask for more, then this isn’t a “temporary” fix of limited duration as the word “temporary” implies, is it?”
It’s temporary funding.
Like I said, it isn’t a “temporary” fix…
justoutside: [i]With the retirement plan costs included as they SHOULD BE.. my numbers stand.. prove me wrong [/i]
Then where do your numbers come from to justify those salaries? Seems hypocritical to demand proof, but offer none yourself.
Superintendent Roberson does not make $240K. He makes under $190K. One of the assistant superintendents you mention makes $145K, not $180K. For the sake of this argument, I’ll actually take Jose Granda’s figures ([url]http://noschoolboardtaxes.org/salaries_administrators_.html[/url]). Like you, he thinks that money should be cut by cutting administrators, but at least he is a little more grounded in facts on this issue than you.
Qualified candidates to fill admin. positions are harder to come by than are teachers, require more in the way of credentialing, education, experience, and responsibilities. Salaries in Davis are competitive with those of other school districts in the area, but less than many found in the Bay Area or in many places in Southern California.
So which admin. position would you cut, and who would take over the duties?
[i]Brown is a nut job.. he still wants a bullet train to nowhere too. He is simply crazy!
[/i]
He’s not a nut job. I actually think he’s being more honest in general about budget issues than any recent governor. But the bullet train is definitely a problem.
From this morning’s Sac Bee:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/05/4610612/rail-vote-potential-pitfall-for.html[/url]
[i]”A fifth of likely voters who support Brown’s proposal to raise taxes say they would be less likely to support it if the Legislature appropriates money for high-speed rail, the Field Poll found.
Lawmakers are expected to act on the $68 billion project today or Friday. Fifty-six percent of likely voters oppose the project, according to the poll.
“Here you have an unpopular, multibillion-dollar long-term project kind of rearing its head in the middle of this budget-cutting,” poll director Mark DiCamillo said. “It undercuts that whole message, and that’s really what’s jeopardizing the Brown measure.”[/i]
I agree. The bullet train is an expensive toy that we don’t need (I voted against it originally). And it jeopardizes all his budget proposals. The legislature should scuttle it.
The bullet train is a good idea, but not now. That however does not make him a nut job…
[quote]I agree. The bullet train is an expensive toy that we don’t need (I voted against it originally). And it jeopardizes all his budget proposals. The legislature should scuttle it. [/quote]
Well said! The train from Washington D.C. to NY has been losing money for years, and has had to be subsidized by the gov’t. There was not enough ridership. I think the same thing would happen with a bullet train in CA. There has to be a tremendous amount of regular ridership to make such projects come even close to penciling out. This proposed project is a disaster waiting to happen…