Alan Fernandes, looking to fund teacher compensation increases, is attempting to place a citizens’ initiative on the ballot that would enable the district to pass a majority parcel tax of $365 on the ballot for November.
The measure has an uphill battle. He will have about a month to gather around 6000 signatures in order to get the measure qualified. He explained to the Vanguard that the Upland court decision opened the door. So far San Francisco has taken advantage of it – but it will likely be a short-term door as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has qualified an initiative for November that is expected to pass that would close the door.
In order to get it on the ballot, it is not the school district’s ballot measure, but rather a citizens’ initiative circulated throughout the city. If he gets enough signatures, the council would have to hold a special meeting at the end of July to put it on the ballot.
In comments to the school board and public last night, Alan Fernandes pointed out that the board has prioritized closing the decades-long compensation gap and stated “we are taking the first step in that 
endeavor.”
He noted that, last year, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion involving the city of Upland. “If the citizens put a measure on the ballot, they can pass a special tax, ie a parcel tax,” he said. “People have no idea generally how school districts are funded. We get 80 percent of our funding from the state. The only two lawful ways that we can raise revenue are (1) a school bond where it’s a 55 percent threshold or (2) a parcel tax.
“That’s it folks,” he continued. “We are not a city. We are not a special district. We are not a county. They have much more flexibility to raise other funds for enterprise activity that they conduct.
“We are what we get from the state,” he said. He noted that the LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) “does a district like ours absolutely no favors.”
Mr. Fernandes explained, while he supports the concept of LCFF, the result is that a community like Davis, as a result, is forced to invest local money in its schools to keep pace.
Alan Fernandes said that he and his colleague Bob Poppenga, who also sits on the parcel tax subcommittee along with a small group of citizens, “have filed a city initiative that needs to qualify for the November ballot.”
This would fund the schools for the specific purpose of closing the teacher compensation gap.
He said that unless and until the community agrees to use local tax money to close the compensation gap, “we will never ever reach that goal.
“Unless we make cuts to make this district completely unrecognizable, to the people that are here for FFA, for music, for everything else,” he said, noting that they did give a 3.5 percent raise in an effort to close that compensation gap. “In doing so, according to our LCFF, it takes our district $1 million into deficit spending in out years.
“I’m asking you to take this energy and help us qualify an initiative that I believe once and for all will put this district not only at level, but actually over time, put this district into a position where we can long term live up to the ‘attract and retain’ that we all aspire to,” he said. “But we can’t do it by divisively splitting the community apart.”
He noted that the Supreme Court case allows this opportunity for a very short window. “There is a measure on the statewide ballot in November that will close – i.e. re-write – the Supreme Court decision once for all and it’s likely to qualify next week,” he said.
He said this allows us to “meaningfully get at what the state has forced public school and public education into, which is we are and have, the state, has continually divested from public education. The only option for public schools is to have the local community respond.”
They have filed the initiative with the city. They will have a rally and BBQ from 2 to 5 Saturday at Central Park for people who would like to learn more about what the initiative is.
He said, “It is deplorable that we are behind. It is deplorable that we have a compensation gap and that we have to fix it.”
Mr. Fernandes stated, “We have a unique opportunity this year only. It is likely that the statewide initiative will pass once and for all, in which case this narrow window of opportunity could close.”
The ballot language states: “This Initiative, if approved, would impose a parcel tax on all taxable property within the City of Davis to provide additional funding to the Davis Joint Unified School District (‘DJUSD’) for school funding and to the City for school safety. The initial tax would be $365 per assessor’s parcel per year. The annual tax per parcel would be adjusted annually commencing in 2019-20 by the increase in the Consumer Price Index.”
It would have the typical permissible exemptions.
Further, the initiative states that “75% of the annualized tax proceeds must be allocated to raising pay and increasing compensation for DJUSD teachers and certain school employees. Annually, 10% of this 75% must be deposited in a DJUSD Budget Stabilization Account.”
It adds that “25% of the annualized proceeds must be used by the City for hiring an additional school resource peace officer and increasing emergency first responders consistent with Chapter 13 of the City’s Municipal Code. The Initiative prohibits use of these funds to pay top level contracted administrators and prohibits redirection of these tax funds by the State of California.”
Following his presentation, Board President Tom Adams stated, “I do want to commend you on your work and your willingness to be inventive and understanding the needs of our community.” He said, “This is an effort that needs all of us.
“We’re all going to work on this together,” Mr. Adams stated.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“It would have the typical permissible exemptions.” meaning the greedy geezers?
;”They will have a rally and BBQ from 2 to 5 ” date?
“In order to get it on the ballot, it is not the school district’s ballot measure, but rather a citizens’ initiative circulated throughout the city. If he gets enough signatures, the council would have to hold a special meeting at the end of July to put it on the ballot.”
What “council”?
The Davis City Council
“We are what we get from the state,” he said. He noted that the LCFF (Local Control Funding Formula) “does a district like ours absolutely no favors.”
In my personal opinion, if this initiative is going to gather enough signatures, explaining in simple terms the bolded statement will be essential.
The principle is simple, it’s scam and a fraud perpetrated by school employee unions. Why do districts with 55% of a certain demographic get a huge payday while those with 54% get nothing? Is there some magic inflection point at 55%?
The answer is more prosaic, the perpetrators of the fraud decided what number would give them the spoils and leave everyone else with empty pockets.
Matt brings up an interesting wrinkle… or more…
Cannot DJUSD place it on the ballot?
If the Davis CC puts it on the ballot, does that mean only properties within City limits get charged? That other property owners residing in the District, but not within the City limits get a “free ride”?
Will DJUSD ‘voters’ get to vote on a levy that doesn’t apply to them?
Damn good question Matt, and it generates more with David’s response!
Yes, DJUSD can place it on the ballot, but if they do it, then it’s a two-thirds vote. The Upland Court ruling stipulated that a citizens initiative has a 50 percent threshold. In order for that to happen, they have to circulate and the city becomes the governmental jurisdiction rather than the school district. (That’s the best explanation I can give based on what Alan told me and my limited understanding of Upland).
OK, get the part about who has to place it on the ballot…
You ignore dismiss the other questions… will it be only a levy on properties within the City limits? Will ‘old Willowbank’, El Macero, Binning Tract, North Davis Meadows, etc. get the “benefit” without ‘paying the piper’?
Seniors/low income folk get to vote while exempting themselves from the levy?
If yes, as far as I’m concerned, this proposal is DOA in my likely vote…
BTW, “taxation without representation” isn’t good… the other side, “representation without taxation”, same.
How could the city voters enact a tax on properties outside their jurisdiction? Of course they can’t.
When you come up with a perfectly fair method of taxation, let us know.
It would be within the city limits.
I noted that it has the standard exceptions.
Your response Don, was a tad ‘snotty’, but thank you for making clear that Davis voters (except those taking ‘the usual exemptions’) will be paying full freight. David did not do so.
Good to know, as you imply that non-residents of the City will have no vote… but I fully expect many of them to come forward, and “strongly support” the proposal… ‘for free’…
But “it’s for the kids”, right? Shouldn’t expect the ‘disadvantaged’ in ‘old Willowbank’, El Macero, Binning Tract, North Davis Meadows, etc. within the DJUSD boundaries to put any skin in the game…
And non-resident property owners such as myself will have no vote, but would nevertheless have to pay the tax if passed. But I would support this measure. Not ‘for free’.
Howard: The district will apparently get exactly one shot at a 50% vote to approve a parcel tax. The limitations of that is that it has to go through the citizens and the governmental agency is the city not the school district. The upside to that is that it is their best shot to get a parcel tax approved for teacher compensation gap closure, the downside is your identified fairness issues. There’s also the huge hurdle of 6000 signatures – which if they get, will pretty much insure that the vote passes.
Don, your two posts leave me confused…
Then,
I’m obviously missing something… cannot logically reconcile your two posts…
The property I own is within the city limits. It has a nursery on it. It’s on Fifth Street. I pay taxes on it.
Don owns a parcel in town which means he pays the parcel tax. Don doesn’t live in town, which means he can’t vote on the parcel tax measure.
FYI the ” ‘disadvantaged’ in ‘old Willowbank’, El Macero, Binning Tract, North Davis Meadows, etc. within the DJUSD” currently pay all the school parcel taxes that other people in the “city” of Davis pay (unlike the hundreds of kids that come to school from Dixon, Woodland and West Sac). If parents from the areas outside the city limits won’t have to pay for a new tax I’m sure people will be upset seeing photos of El Macero Mom’s dropping kids off at Pioneer in an Escalades knowing that the Davis single Moms in one bedroom condos will be paying the parcel tax that helps the ‘disadvantaged’ kids from outside the city limit (where some Moms really are still driving Suburbans and the last generation of Escalades)…
Don… thank you for the clarification… wasn’t connecting the dots…
Ken, as appears to be written, the proposal is only for parcels within City limits…
So,
That will change if the current proposal is enacted… I take it you do not live within the City limits, given your defensiveness… I may be incorrect…
Howard
I am really unsure why you postulate seniors would exempt themselves while voting yes. I am a senior and would certainly vote yes and cheerfully pay. Do you have statistics on the rate at which seniors choose to vote yes and then exempt themselves?
I’m wondering if Tia is aware that “most” (but not all) seniors don’t have PhDs, never made over $100K, and own less than $1 million if real estate. Those are the people that will vote yes and then exempt themselves (while the rich retired MDs will pay the tax and go to The Kitchen in Sac one less time next year but feel good they they are helping public schools)…
Seniors vote yes because it raises the value of their properties while exempting themselves, so they put the cost on someone else.
Why does a person who runs a local blog and lives in subsidized housing advocate against utility taxes which he would pay and in favor of parcel taxes which he does not pay?
Why does a city council candidate describe herself as an advocate for affordable housing for families while living in discriminatory housing where families are banned?
“I am really unsure why you postulate seniors would exempt themselves while voting yes”
The public-sector union Democrat politician cartel lives!
“As expected”…
Another thought… some (significant?) opposition the the City’s ‘Road Tax’ proposal came from folk concerned that it would be used to boost City employee compensation… OK…
Will the proposed measure only increase teacher compensation, or, for every DJUSD employees, particularly including the very highly compensated senior Admin staff?
If “yes”, will go from a slightly “no” vote, to a “hell no” vote
From the article: “The Initiative prohibits use of these funds to pay top level contracted administrators and prohibits redirection of these tax funds by the State of California.”
Missed that… thanks…
Which also means that the $ can be used for non-teaching staff… wasn’t aware there was a problem there… as I recall, there is a “me-too” clause where if credentialed folk got a boost, same would apply to classified folk (non-teaching)… yet, the proposal seems to focus justification on teachers… guess most (if not all) “boats will float”…
More and more interesting… still struck with the dichotomy between City employees, many of whom have as much or more education/experience/credentials than teachers… one group is desired to be frozen (as to compensation, total), and divorced from other agency comparisons, the other is to be boosted to meet/exceed compensation in other agencies… whatever…
Unless there is something that specifically prohibits ANY raises to “top level contracted administrators” they will just take non restricted money for raises after the tax passes (like they always do)…
That’s possible. That’s what they did last night.
Interesting observation… no hint of that on the DJUSD webpage, as to Agenda, nor staff reports…
DJUSD appears to be as transparent as obsidian…
If Charles Dickens walked into a school board meeting and heard Bowes reading his reports in a monotone he would think nothing has changed in 170 years.
It’s sad that the guy who is responsible for educational initiatives believes that droning on and on is the best way to impart information.
Politely, consider checking your grammar in your 4:23 post Jim H… appears some words are missing… that obscures your intended point…
Not a criticism, but not sure of your point…
Point taken Howard. Thanks. I post while on conference calls
If Charles Dickens walked into a DJU school board meeting and heard Bowes reading his reports in a monotone he would think nothing has changed in 170 years.
It’s sad that the guy who is responsible for educational initiatives believes that droning on and on is the best way to impart information. Are we really to expect differentiated teaching from a guy who is unfamiliar with circulating reports via email prior to the meeting?
Thanks… my previous post was meant as ‘a friendly assessment’…
Your “circulating reports via e-mails” addition raises more questions… care to elaborate? I’d understand if you don’t, but seems like a missing piece of the puzzle David alluded to…
It wasn’t a board item. It’s a citizens initiative. Alan Fernandes put it on to go into circulation and collect signatures in his capacity as a private citizen. The board didn’t act.
Again, having problems connecting the dots… given there was no apparent agenda item, nor staff report in the DJUSD packet on-line, how could the DJUSD board take such an “action”… perhaps an “intent” but unless it is in the initiative, or a Brown Act action, am still confused.
Please explain… maybe I’m dense, but am not clear what the H is going on here…
Will probably go to Central Park tomorrow and raise these questions, more stridently… and publicly… and will note the responses…;
I was referring to administrative salaries increases, items 8 d through h which were approved last night.
?????????????????
Two separate things. The board didn’t act on the parcel tax. The board did act to increase administrative salaries.
Ok… yet not on agenda, nor in staff reports… care to share who got the increases, and the magnitudes?
As I said, salary increases were agenda items 8D through 8H.
Did he present this from his position on the dais or did he speak from the podium during general public comment as a member of the public? If the former I think he and the Board acted improperly. Either way, I find the entire effort questionable at best.
Mark – There is an item on the agenda where board members give updates. Alan indicated during this part of the agenda that as part of his assignment to the district’s legislative committee, he investigated the various legislative avenues for trying to fund teacher pay. He then announced the state bill for parcel tax exemptions for teachers and the formation of the Citizen’s Initiative for High Quality and Safe Public Schools. He did tie the announcement to his committee duties.
I’m not making an argument for the propriety or impropriety of his actions, just reporting what happened as I saw it.
Cindy –
Thank you
Jim Hoch had a good point…
So, properties not in the City, but in the district get a pass… as do certain seniors… now teachers are exempt (prospective, or “done deal”?)… just curious…
“circulating reports via e-mails” Not in the same vein at all. I go to a lot of meetings with important people who are often not lacking in ego. If you have notes or reports to present, you circulate them by email ahead of time. 24 hours ahead is considered good manners unless you have some fresh data.
The idea that you would hold a room full of people hostage while you ponderously read prepared remarks is 1) very rude 2) not a good way to transmit information.
Bowes is a complete fool, but the point here is to avoid transmitting information.
“I’m not going to read this since you have the written copy. Here are the highlights.” It’s actually a lot more respectful to assume people can and will read what is prepared for them before a meeting.
Agreed Don. Droning on for 10 minutes is the worst possible way to transmit information. So why does he do it? Because he does not to transmit information and it drives the audience away. Clearly he sees depopulating the room as as desirable end in itself or he would not do it.
So we are going to have a smaller and smaller group paying higher and higher taxes?
Also it seems the Vanguard is now supporting putting cops in schools? I’m not certain that is a good idea and would prefer to use the money in other ways.
News to me that the Vanguard is supporting anything. I have a concern about that very proposal.
My concern is primarily financial. Why spend a bunch of money on someone who will likely not be needed and if they are needed has a high probability of running away?
I would prefer to focus on critical reading as the core educational skill.
“News to me that the Vanguard is supporting anything” That may be true but it’s not news to the rest of us.
Good God, another “Alan” – :—->