Budget/Taxes

If the school district were not intentionally timing the final approval of the parcel tax to coincide with the time that the district’s Chief Budget Officer (CBO) Bruce Colby came forward with the January Budget Update, they could not have had a stronger case put before the public than the one that Bruce Colby put forward – highlighted in technicolor graphics.

Taxpayer Advocate and Former Board Member John Munn remarked that he felt like he was kicking at a house of cards.  Indeed, he may have been kind, because unfortunately it is closer to reality to suggest that the district is a house of cards, held together by silly string.

As opposition appeared to be mounting to a parcel tax proposal that would impose a $495 tax on every residence, suddenly the school board’s Parcel Tax Subcommittee, comprised of Sheila Allen and Gina Daleiden, is proposing radical changes to the ballot measure.

The Vanguard learned on Saturday, “After considering the district’s immediate emergency fiscal situation, public input, the Governor’s budget proposal, the economic pinch for our community and our previous board discussions,” that the subcommittee will propose changes on Thursday at the next board meeting.

It is too soon to know how deep the anti-tax sentiment goes in Davis as the school district attempts to raise the parcel tax by 54%.  There are a lot of different issues and concerns floating around at this point.

Everything from the magnitude of the tax increase to the lack of accountability has been brought up.  Some of these concerns have merit, some do not.

The school district has some very important considerations to make in the next few weeks as they decide what do with a parcel tax proposal that they intend to put to Davis voters in May.

Upon hearing the school board’s proposed parcel tax, my initial thought was why not ask for what you need.

The school district has been able to get two parcel taxes approved, one in 2007 and one in 2008 with really not any organized opposition.  As a result, roughly 75% of the public supported the 2008 parcel tax.

However, the funding crisis has continued.  The district needs additional revenue to preserve what it considers core programs, as well as needing to extend existing measures into the future.

In the past week the Vanguard received a letter from a thankful individual in South San Francisco expressing appreciation for an article written in March of 2008 on former Waterford School District Superintendent Howard Cohen.

That article apparently helped tie together enough threads between Mr. Cohen’s conduct in Waterford and his conduct in South San Francisco to force his resignation on December 17, with allegations, amid among other things, that he tried to hire an old associate from Total School Solutions to a new position during a time when the school district was forced to lay off and cut salaries of teachers.

In a communication from former School Board Member and current president of the Yolo County Taxpayers Association, John Munn, he signaled that the taxpayers association may oppose the newly-proposed parcel tax.

“In October, the Yolo County Taxpayers Association advised the school board that it would not oppose a reasonable increase in the parcel tax to preserve core educational programs,” Mr. Munn writes, but explains that would be under under certain conditions.

There is no stronger advocate for government transparency than a watchdog reporter who wants to get his hands on as many government documents as possible.  In my view, open government acts, like the Brown Act and the Public Records Act, are far too weak, their disclosure requirements are  too weak, they have too many exemptions and are too difficult, for a citizen, to enforce.

I view both of these laws as minimum requirements, rather than being suitable for most governmental entities’ standard operating procedures.

On Thursday evening, school board member Tim Taylor generated a debate over whether or not the current state of affairs for the district, in terms of facing another 3.5 million to 7 million dollar deficit, constitutes an emergency.

As the Vanguard reported the following morning, Tim Taylor argued that calling it a “B” tax, or emergency tax, is not a bad thing.  He pointed out Bruce Colby’s disastrous numbers  which, depending upon the scenario, show the district being another $3.5 million to $7 million in the hole, on top of what has already been cut.

Help is not on the way for the beleaguered DJUSD school district, which is facing another 3.5 to 7.0 million budget deficit for the coming year. 

To make matters worse, things do not appear to be improving. Indeed, in some ways, the district is starting to crack at the seams, as we saw with the report on the district’s technology which is beginning to fail at an alarming rate.

It seems like every election revisionist claims are made defending the original Grande deal.  It was in November of 2007 when two former Davis Joint Unified School Board Members, Joan Sallee and Marty West, published on op-ed in the Davis Enterprise to purportedly respond “to the many accusations the 2006 and 2007 school board majority has made about financial mismanagement of the Davis Joint Unified School District.”

The Vanguard responded at the time with a four- part series on the corruption in the DJUSD Business Office, under former Chief Budget Officer Tahir Ahad (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).

Bruce Colby addressed the District Board Meeting Thursday night, October 21, 2010, on the 2010-11 State Budget Update. The question was whether the state budget and where the district had ended the fiscal year last year significantly changed the budget for this year.  The answer, simply put, was no. 

However, several risk factors may have a significant impact on the budget— ranging from accelerated withholding,  a total of eight million dollars in State IOUs, expenditure cuts, a non-improving economy, the veto of AB 3632, and the ending of five-year flexibility.

During a recent school board meeting, the Davis School board approved the Unaudited Actuals Report and the 2010-11 Budget Revisions.  One positive finding was that the actuals met or exceeded the district’s projection for all funds. 

The General Fund ending fund balance is also better than projected, by 1.5 million dollars.  This is all due to favorable updates in final funding allocations, shifts to exploit all of the federal stimulus funds, and focused under-spending and savings.

A poll conduct on March 13 and 14 by Ziegler Associates was presented Thursday night at the Davis School Board Meeting.  Jay Ziegler who conducted the poll told the school board that an amazing statistic was the 86% of those polled who agreed with the statement, “parcel tax is a small price to pay for our schools.” 

He believes that it is possible that the district could get the voters to approve a $600 parcel tax measure if they are convinced it is needed to maintain some of the existing school programs.

The Davis School District had been holding onto the 9-acre Nugget Fields, a parcel of land that was donated by the original developers of Wildhorse in the mid-1990s for use as a future elementary school.  However, the district never needed the additional school and it has been used as soccer fields.

In 2008, the school district formed a 7/11 Committee, an advisory committee pursuant to California Ed Code which governs the use and sale of surplus school district properties to advise the school district regarding an alternative use for District surplus or real property prior to its disposition by sale, lease, or rental.  According to Ed Code, this committee shall consist of not less than seven (7) nor more than eleven (11) members. The committee must represent a cross-section of the community.

On Thursday night, the Davis School Board established that the modernization of Emerson Junior High now ranks as the district’s highest facilities priority.  The most immediate priorities are updating the science classrooms, expanding the art and wood shop classrooms, and a new shade structure for the lunch area outside. 

The complete modernization of the Emerson campus would cost between 17 million and 19 million dollars, according to architect Steve Newsom who spoke on Thursday.  Unfortunately, the district lacks the money even for the highest of priorities.

We knew it was going to happen – does that make it any less painful?  That is perhaps the question of the night for the school board.  Not only that, but they have gone through this exercise the last three years, so they ought to be well steeped in the nuances of how to do it.

There will be time for Hail Mary passes later both in the context of a parcel tax and perhaps some voluntary fundraising by the Davis Schools Foundation.  But the bottom line for last night was this was simply inevitable and the part of their fiduciary duties that not one of the board members signed on to or particularly enjoys.

At tonight’s school board meeting, the board will vote on resolutions that will authorize layoff notices to around 103 school district employees including over 80 teachers in an effort to close a 5.6 million dollar budget shortfall, mainly resulting from cuts to public education by the state.

Included in the 80.45 FTE cuts to teachers will be: