Let’s get this out of the way – the parcel tax is the worst conceivable type of tax that could ever have been created. Critics are right to point out that the parcel tax is extremely regressive. You basically pay the same amount if you own a $100,000 assessed value home or a $1.5 million one.
The irony perhaps is that it was made worse by lawsuits like Borikas. Prior to Borikas, the district had different rates – the main parcel tax rate (then it was $204 per year for single-family homes) and a rate for multi-family dwellings of $20 per unit per year.
But Borikas claimed that state law requires “uniformity” in a parcel tax and that the tax has to “apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real property within the district.”
The result is that the district lost some money and the tax got even less fair.
The problem here is Proposition 13. As it turns out, California is the only state in the country that uses this form of property tax to fund its schools.
The problem is that Prop. 13 “prohibits school districts from raising property taxes based on the value of property,” i.e. “ad valorem taxes.” There is an exception for General Obligation bonds, but those can only fund facilities, not instruction.
So under Prop. 13, the parcel tax has become the only way to finance instructional money for local school districts. That makes little sense – cities can finance through sales tax, TOT (transient occupancy tax), or utility 
user taxes in addition to parcel taxes, but school districts can’t.
Because the tax is so regressive, the law has permitted some exemptions: exemptions for senior citizens (65 and older), for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, and for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) recipients who meet the income qualification.
It is a little better than it used to be – it used to be just a senior tax exemption. And once again the exemption holds whether the individual is of low income or not. Again, it is not perfect.
But there was a “moral” reason for this and also a political one.
The “moral” one is that at least it allowed those poor seniors on a fixed income to take an exemption. The hope would be that most people who could pay for the parcel tax probably wouldn’t opt out. And when I last looked at the list of exemptions – it is a public record – that appeared to be the case. But that was several years ago and the parcel tax has gone up.
There is a political side to this as well. Seniors are the group that are least likely to support the parcel tax, in part because many are on fixed incomes and in part because their children having grown and they lack the self-interest.
In 2016, there was a poll for support of the parcel tax. It was 60 percent for the 50 to 64 group, but 66 percent for the 65 and over group. A good part of that was the senior exemption, where 47 percent of those over 65 considered it very important and another 25 percent considered it at least somewhat important. Meaning 72 percent of seniors considered the exemption at least somewhat important, compared to less than 50 percent of those under the age of 50.
The support level for this parcel tax in the polling from last year was considerably lower than it was in 2016. It is not tremendous, but if seniors alone voted, we would not pass parcel taxes. So the district figures that they can trade perhaps half to a full million in exemptions for the increased possibility of passing a parcel tax.
The polling here gave the district little margin of error to begin with.
That leads us to newest exemption: DJUSD employees.
We seem to have forgotten that this was not permissible until September 2018 – effective in 2019.
Senator Bill Dodd carried legislation allowing DJUSD to provide this parcel tax. It is a law that only impacts Davis.
“This new law will provide a small but meaningful incentive for public educators and school staff to live in the community of Davis where they work,” Senator Dodd said. “I thank Gov. Brown for recognizing teachers and the critical role they play in supporting their community.”
Davis schools trustee Alan Fernandes in Senator Dodd’s release said it would encourage more of the district’s more than 450 teachers to live in the community they serve. Now, about two-thirds of the teachers live outside Davis where housing is less expensive, he said.
“We in Davis applaud the efforts of the senator in recognizing the need to obtain greater flexibility with our local budget to become more competitive for our teachers and school employees,” Fernandes said. “We appreciate the governor’s recognition of that in signing the bill and look forward to continuing to work with our senator to explore other ways to ensure that we do everything to honor the service and commitment of teachers and school employees to our students.”
This exemption is probably less about the political and more about giving the teachers a small amount of money to help ease the compensation gap.
Someone wrote the Vanguard: “If it’s good for the Seniors and teachers, then why not for UCD faculty and staff as well – hey they’re all teachers/and/or ‘public school’ employees.”
The short answer is the law says you can’t allow for one rather than the other. I think the longer answer is that the district saw the exemption as a way to provide a slight benefit (we are talking $200 a year) to district employees.
I am not sure why this is creating angst in some, but it clearly is. For the me the tax is unfair to begin with. The district has no other local funding options available to them. And so, if they can find a way to make it somewhat more equitable for some while finding a way to get the measure to 66.7 percent of the vote, they have to take that route.
If this fails, then we will see a whole different sort of approach from the school district.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So… pretty good disclosure…
Given the title of the article, the “moral” thing for ‘seniors’, SSI, SDI folk to do, is if ~ $200/yr is not a “budget buster” (not even ‘beer money’, for most), a ‘moral’ senior, senior, SSI, SDI recipient, DJUSD employee, would not apply for the exemption… correct?
Or did I miss something?
So, one question of mine (previously asked a few times), remains… if we take our senior exemptions, and donate the same $$$ to DJUSD, would that qualify as a Fed/State tax deduction? As it is, with SALT, the new levy is not, as between income, property, etc., state and local taxes, we are over the $10,000 deductible limit for feds…
Think it was Shakespeare who wrote, “the law is an ass…”
And since most, if not all laws are drafted/composed, argued, and voted upon by an orifice of government (legislatures/Congress)…
Hi Bill,
I would be a little careful in assessing what $200/month may mean to those who live on the ragged edge of our communities. For the first 18 years or so of my life, $200/mos would have made the difference between having a place to live, enough to eat, or new shoes when needed ( not beer money).
In today’s $$$? Adjusted for inflation?
And it is less than $200/year (not mos)… ~ $16/mo… less than $4/wk…
Anyone who believes in the levy, its purpose, should vote for it… but, as to taking the exemption, can’t think of any senior, SSI/SDI, DJUSD employee, subject to the levy (the homeless are on the ‘ragged edge’… some working poor), but they are not subject to the levy… which given the other DJUSD, state, City levies, is deminimus.
Not trying to be argumentative, but I am careful in my comment. Anyone who will struggle with a $16/mo assessment, even if they owned a parcel, landlord passes it in in rent, is in serious trouble… utilities are far more than that!
Respectfully, I do not understand why you question my comment and admonish me… you have my e-mail, and would be glad to discuss off-line, and/or over a cup of coffee… my treat.
Bill,
I questioned not to argue. It is not just about your comment. Many people have used the “daily cup of coffee” argument here on the Vanguard with regard to many issues. While it may seem incredible to those who have never been there, $16/month may be the difference between eating ramen or eating fresh vegetables for days. It may be the ability to pay for those utilities you cited. It may be a prescription or a co-pay. We are able to see the homeless. We frequently do not see those living just on the edge. Those making just enough to not make the exemption cut, but not quite enough to escape that “raw edge”.
“in part because their children having grown and they lack the self-interest.”
An attitude severely limited in foresight and perspective IMO. Do we not all have a “self-interest” in having well educated future doctors, lawyers, engineers, politicians…? Geriatricians do not grow on trees.
On this, Tia, we agree… for both practical (for those who are dependent on things like SS, which needs educated folk to perform professional services, pay taxes to hold it up), and philosophical/moral (think, “noblesse oblige”)…
I certainly don’t disagree with the general intent of the measure, and the $$$ is de minimus.
I say again, it is not about the purpose, nor the $$$, for us…
I believe that this is factually incorrect. The majority of money for instruction does not come from parcel taxes. It comes from the state.
I believe that there are school districts operating without any parcel tax money.
Thought I’d see what I can find, regarding this. According to the attachment (which covers the period 1983-2012), approximately 1 out of 4 school districts throughout California has attempted to get a parcel tax approved.
Approximately 1 out of 8 districts has succeeded.
See “Principal” (not “Principle”) Findings on page 2:
https://edsource.org/wp-content/publications/pub13-ParcelTaxesFinal.pdf
It might be interesting to know how many of the 1 in 8 are specifically earmarked for salary increases.
Ron, you are factually only partially correct… the State does indeed ‘dispense’ the bulk of the $$$ to schools… but the origin of that money is almost all local property taxes (which used to come from ad valorem ‘parcel taxes’), which got nixed by a combination of Prop 13, and the Serrano-Priest decision… then, after Prop 13, the State ‘reaped’ the local property taxes (think, ERAF)… you over-simplify a very complex (and contorted?) history.
Just saying…
So, given the Prop 13 ‘benefits’ to long time homeowners as to less property taxes, the history, you still practically and/or philosophically oppose the purpose and/or amount of the proposed levy? Honest question.
Note that the quote (from David) that I was responding to had to do with parcel taxes, not property taxes.
I don’t have a strong opinion on this issue, other than my concern that it would inevitably lead to reduced opportunities to raise funds for the city itself.
So, you’d support and/or vote for an increased levy for the City ($198/yr) , in lieu of the current proposal for DJUSD?
Just wondering…
I’d say it’s a higher priority. I suspect that (regardless of what an individual thinks or supports), the voters as a whole would not approve both.
I find it odd that some of the people who claim to be concerned about the condition of roads, bike paths, unfunded liabilities are completely silent regarding the proposed salary increase for DJUSD.
They only seem to come “out of the woodwork” when ARC is discussed. Maybe some of them are putting “all of their eggs” in that basket.
I also suspect that an “average” voter looks at all of the existing DJUSD parcel taxes as “one”, which I believe is already in the range of $1,500/year.
And that ultimately, all of the nonsense regarding funding categories, limitations resulting from earlier lawsuits, refusal to “right-size” the district, etc., could lead to rejection.
But perhaps the biggest factor is the reduction in the number of school-age children per household.
For sure, there seems to be more concern than usual, that this won’t be approved.
I guess we’ll soon see.
Right now the parcel tax is $620 and could go up to $818
I’m referring to all of the DJUSD parcel taxes – including those for facilities (some of which may not even be needed, if they stopped pursuing out-of-district students).
All together, it’s apparently in the range of $1,500/year. However, I’m not sure how much this differs, per neighborhood.
I recently posted an article regarding the total amount charged at The Cannery (for example), and can probably find it again.
The problem is that you are calling things parcel taxes that are not parcel taxes.
Do you think that the average voter cares what they’re called? Or, do you think that they pretty much “lump together” all of the fees and taxes for DJUSD – especially since they all appear on the same tax bill?
If it makes you feel any better, we’ll call them “fees and taxes” for DJUSD. And, they’re significant.
I was correcting your statement which inaccurately stated that there were about $1500 in parcel taxes. Also, the special CFD taxes are assessed development by development and so while somewhere like Wild Horse may still be paying their CFD, not everyone is. You would have to look at a map of CFDs to see how much a given person is paying. It’s not uniform across the city.
I acknowledge that I used the wrong terminology.
It would be useful if you published that information.
From what I recall (in an earlier Vanguard article), the “no” side referred to an average of approximately $1,400 in DJUSD fees and taxes, throughout the city.
Regardless, perhaps there’s a level of irony in advocating for new developments that would likely oppose additional fees and taxes, as a result of what they’re already paying for. (At least, I’m enjoying that irony.)
Here it is:
https://davisvanguard.org/2020/02/no-on-measure-g-campaign-begins/
Ron Oertel: “From what I recall (in an earlier Vanguard article), the “no” side referred to an average of approximately $1,400 in DJUSD fees and taxes, throughout the city.”
They don’t say where they get that figure. I think it would be hard to actually come up with an average because it relies on more variables than they can keep track of.
Not everyone pays the same amount in CFD or bond assessments.
Sidebar: (as we’re talking about a ballot measure…)
Although it is long hours (6A to ~9P), ~ minimum wage, we definitely need 30-50 more poll-workers, County-wide…
Contact Yolo Co Elections…
https://www.yoloelections.org/contact
I’ve chosen to work the polls ~ 25 years… took a vacation day when I was working… (yeah, got ‘paid’ twice)… I love the process, the folk I work with, and the folk I interact with… many of whom I have known for many years…
If you can’t/don’t want to do that, at least, VOTE (I care not how)… if you are eligible to vote, and don’t, I, for one, will have no tolerance for any complaints you have on results.
You have now made 7 posts on this thread, so this is your final one.
“In reality, I don’t think that anyone cares about support (or lack thereof), at an individual level – regardless of the issue at hand.”
I strongly disagree with this statement. I have been surprised as I go about my business in town how many times I have been told that my opinion as expressed on the Vanguard influenced someone’s opinion. I am sure many of you have had the same experience. This is largely why, after a brief hiatus, I have returned to commenting.
To clarify, I was not referring to how someone might influence others.
Commenting on blogs (not just this one) might have some impact. Of course, it’s also possible that it has an impact in the opposite direction from what’s intended. 😉
The same thing is true regarding the articles, themselves. In fact, most comments are probably made due to some perceived bias in the articles. (Which, in my opinion, is not a “challenge” to see.)
You have now exceeded 7 posts on this thread, so this is your final one.
Some comments:
This legislation also terminates soon, maybe within the year (at the moment I can’t remember when). So it may apply to this school parcel tax alone, if Measure G passes.
There are also other teachers who live in Davis but work in other districts where the pay is higher. I see this as a signal to nudge them to consider working for the Davis school district.
Also, the HR department in the district cannot make Davis residency a condition of employment in the district, or even imply that residency would be preferable. This is one legal way to signal that local residency would be preferred. I get that a ~$200 exemption looks like spit in the ocean when evaluated against many other financial concerns, but I think the message that it can send (“We would like you to consider living in Davis and working for the district”) is worth more than the $200/exemption to the district.