May Results

Santa Clara voters approved a $84 five year parcel tax with a 72% Yes vote.

Voters in Saratoga Union School District approved a $68 eight year parcel tax with a 69% Yes vote.

Moraga voters did not meet the 2/3 super-majority threshold needed to pass the $225 parcel tax that did not have a sunset date. Initial results showed a 64.5% Yes vote.

For 2012, five out of six parcel taxes have passed.

Upcoming June Parcel Tax Measures

Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified – $89/parcel 5 years – new
Jefferson Union High School – $48/parcel 4 years – third try in last two years
Hayward Unified – $58/parcel 5 years – new
New Haven Unified – $180/parcel 4 years – failed in 2011
Redwood City Elementary – $67/parcel 5 years – failed in 2009
Ross Valley School District – $458/parcel 8 years – replaces $309/parcel expiring in 2014
Santa Barbara Unified – $54/parcel 4 years – replaces $50/parcel expiring in 2013
Santa Cruz City Schools – $123/parcel 8 years – replaces $98/parcel expiring in 2013
Scotts Valley School Districts – $48/parcel 3 years – new
West Contra Costa Unified – 10.2 cents sq ft 5 years – replaces 7.2 cents sq ft expiring in 2014

May Parcel Tax Results is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

Related posts:

1. 2012 School Parcel Tax Preview
2. November Parcel Tax Results
3. June 7 School Taxes Election Results

Last Year

With new legislation preventing legislators from receiving a salary if they failed to pass a budget, the Legislature actually passed a budget on time. However, the State Controller challenged the whether the budget was balanced. As a result, the Legislature had to change their budget assumptions and passed a new budget that assumed $4 billion of revenue growth. By December it was clear those assumptions were too optimistic and schools experienced mid-year trigger cuts.

2012/13 Budget Roller Coaster

The January Governor’s budget proposal contained a number of assumptions. First, the Governor’s had optimistic revenue projections for 18 months through June 2013. Second, funding for schools would be tied to passage of a proposed tax initiative. Finally, he assumed the Legislature would pass a significant package of budget cuts affecting social services, prisons and schools.

On May 1, the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) issued its report on revenue collections that indicated revenues are running $3 billion below the Governor’s budget projections.

Since January, the Governor had to adjust his tax initiative strategy. A rival tax measure, the Millionaire’s Tax was merged with the Governor’s tax proposal to create a hybrid tax initiative with lower sales taxes and greater taxes for high income earners. In addition, another rival tax initiative from Molly Munger appears poised to qualify for the November ballot.

Finally, the Legislature has been slow to adopt the cuts the Governor has proposed.

2012 May Revise – The Next Turn

In the coming week, the Governor will release his new budget proposal that deals with the events detailed above. Overall, the news has not been positive so school districts will be wise to continue to plan for the worse. The LAO issued a report this week that shows school districts have been conservative in reaction to State budget uncertainty.

Budget Roller Coaster is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

No related posts.

Background

In 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) committed to developing a set of standards that would help prepare students for success in career and college. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative is a voluntary, state-led effort coordinated by the CCSSO and NGA to establish clear and consistent education standards.

On August 2, 2010, the California State Board of Education (SBE) voted unanimously to adopt the CCSS. More information about the standards may be found on the CDE’s CCSS Resources Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cc.

Implementation Timeline

In March 2012, the SBE approved the Common Core State Standards Systems Implementation Plan for California. The extensive 62 page document provides a framework for the intended implementation. Local education agencies are encouraged to do the following in 2012:

• Support professional learning to promote awareness of and familiarity with the CCSs
• Compare and contrast the CCSS with the 1997 content standards
• Conduct local needs assessment to identify needs and set priorities for professional learning and develop local professional learning plan based on identified needs and full implementation in 2014-15
• Review current instructional materials and identify material which aligns to CCSS
• Identify CCSS that current materials do not support (use supplemental instructional materials review evaluation criteria for grades K-8) and develop lessons using resources from the library, Internet, and primary source documents
• Compare/contrast CCSS with current content standards and begin to incorporate new skills in the CCSS into instructional planning
• Utilize online technology readiness tool to evaluate current technology and infrastructure
• Utilize parent communication structures to share resources on the CDE’s Web site with parents, families, and the local educational community to promote awareness and understanding of the CCSS and new developments regarding CCSS systems implementation
• Identify state and federal funds currently available for use in CCSS systems implementation
• Establish fiscal boundaries and timelines for the development of specific programmatic resources
• Seek funding from the United States Department of Education and private educational foundations to support CCSS implementation efforts
• Seek funding from state government to support implementation efforts
• Identify existing stakeholder communication structures
• Identify local stakeholders who will receive communications regarding implementation of CCSS systems

Common Core Standards Coming Soon is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

Related posts:

1. Common Core Standards California – Happy Birthday

History

In preparing the 2011/12 budget, the Governor and Legislature needed to fund the shift of State services for public safety services (i.e. prisons) to counties. To cover the projected costs of $5 billion plus, revenues from an existing 1.0625 percent state sales tax rate would be transferred to counties. The net effect of this transfer was to reduce Prop 98 guarantee by $2 billion for 2011/12 and every year thereafter. The California School Boards Association and the Association of California School Administrators filed a lawsuit.

Looking Forward

With two competing education initiatives circulating to get on the November ballot and the uncertainty of how the Legislature will fund the 2012/13 K-12 budget, school boards will approach their June 30 budget passing duties with caution.

Game Changer is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

No related posts.

History

After the passage of Prop 13 in 1978 there was a concern that state spending would increase faster than population or CPI growth. So in 1979 voters approved Proposition 4 (Gann Limit), a constitutional limit on government spending at every level in the state, including school districts. In addition, a requirement to the California Constitution that school districts be reimbursed for new programs or higher levels of
service the state imposes (i.e. mandates) on them. As a result there is an expensive, elaborate legal process for determining whether new requirements constitute mandates. As of 2010, there were 36 mandates that school districts could apply for reimbursement.

With the decade long state budget crisis, Governors and the Legislature used various tactics to delay/ignore funding mandates required by the Constitution. By 2010, the Legislative Analyst Office projected the outstanding school district mandates obligations to be approximately $3 billion dollars.

Governor’s Proposal

After a number of legal setbacks, Governor Brown allocated $90 million for funding of mandates in the 2011/2012 budget. In his 2012/13, the Governor proposes mandate reform package asks for one-time incentive block-grant funding ($200 million) for compliance to certain mandates. To implement the Governor’s reform proposal, the Legislature is only using budget trailer bills instead of having the Legislative policy committees the impacts of suspension/elimination of the mandates.

Buyer Beware

School districts need to contact their state legislators to insure that mandate reform includes a full review of the policy implications. The Governor’s current proposal with its promise of one-time $200 million payment maybe appealing but it has hidden problems. There is no guarantee the Legislature will find the $200 million needed and there is no protection from new mandates being passed.

Clap On, Clap Off is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

No related posts.

Tax Me Now

Some school districts have decided not to wait for the November election results and have decided to go to their local voters for support. Fifteen school districts have placed a parcel tax on the ballot, which if successful, will generate additional revenue starting in the 2012/13 school years. From a budgeting standpoint this is significant because those successful school districts can pass a June budget with 2012/13 revenues from the parcel tax.

Tax Me Later

This week the Governor and the California Federation of Teachers agreed on a hybrid tax initiative that melds their competing two initiative into one new tax initiative. Timing to get this new initiative qualified will be tricky, so the Millionaire’s tax initiative will continue its work on its original initiative.

The challenge with all of the tax initiative is the election will take place in November so school districts can not plan on the potential new revenue until 2013/14.

Tax Me Now, Tax Me Later is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

Related posts:

1. The Carrot and Stick Approach
2. Three Education Tax Initiatives – Quick Facts

In 2012, there are 15 school district parcel tax elections to be held through the June 2012 primary.   School districts will have until early August to place a parcel tax on a November ballot.

March Elections (2)

Davis voters to replace two existing parcel taxes set to expire in June with a $320 new parcel tax that expires in five years. On March 13, Aracadia voters approved a $228 per parcel tax for five years. This was Aracadia Unified first attempt at passing a parcel tax.

April Election (1)

Brisbane voters will be asked to approve an additional $156 annual parcel tax which would last for six years. In March, 2011 Brisbane voters approved a $119/parcel. The total parcel tax, then, if approved, will be $275/parcel.

May Elections (3)

Santa Clara Unified is seeking $48/parcel for five years. Saratoga Union School District is looking for $68/parcel for eight years. Moraga School District is seeking a $225 annual parcel tax. This will be in addition to an existing parcel tax of $325/year. The new tax will last indefinitely; that is, it does not have a built-in sunset.

June Elections (9)

• Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified – $89/parcel 5 years – new
• Jefferson Union High School – $48/parcel 4 years – third try in last two years
• Hayward Unified – $58/parcel 5 years – new
• New Haven Unified – $180/parcel 4 years – failed in 2011
• Redwood City Elementary – $67/parcel 5 years – failed in 2009
• Ross Valley School District – $458/parcel 8 years – replaces $309/parcel expiring in 2014
• Santa Barbara Unified – $54/parcel 4 years – replaces $50/parcel expiring in 2013
• Santa Cruz City Schools – $123/parcel 8 years – replaces $98/parcel expiring in 2013
• Scotts Valley School Districts – $48/parcel 3 years – new
• West Contra Costa Unified – 10.2 cents sq ft 5 years – replaces 7.2 cents sq ft expiring in 2014

  Your email:
  

   

2012 School Parcel Tax Preview is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

Related posts:

1. November Parcel Tax Results
2. Tilting Left, Moving Right – Election Day Recap

Education Initiatives 2012

For more information for each initiative you can go here:

Millionaire’s Tax website full text

Our Children, Our Future website full text

Governor’s Proposal full text

For a more detailed analysis of the three intiatives, the K-12 Network News posted a story titled: Three CA Education Revenues for November, 2012.

Three Education Tax Initiatives – Quick Facts is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

Related posts:

1. Battle of the Clipboards

Prior to 1979, state law set a base rate of property taxation to support public education. Voters in local school districts could increase the rate if they wished to provide additional funding for their schools. These revenues were far from equal on a per-pupil basis. In 1968, John Serrano, the parent of a child in a low-property-wealth district, pursued a legal claim that resulted in the Serrano decision.

However the passage of Prop 13 complicated the implementation to equaliize the distribution of property taxes. Prop 13 resulted in a dramatic increase in the amount of education funding provided by the state’s general fund and an equally dramatic reduction in the amount provided by local property taxes to meet that same revenue limit.

In 1980s, school districts got vey creative to take advantage rules that allow them to merge and increase their base revenue limit. By paying with salary schedules and benefits, school districts were able to merge with higher revenue limits. For example, Dublin Unified was formed that has resulted in a $900 higher base revenue limit per student compared to other Alameda county school districts.

In addition, with most of the monies flowing to school districts coming from Sacramento, the Legislature began to decide how monies would be spent through mandates. By the 2005 over 40 mandated programs direct over 30% of monies sent to school districts, typically referred to as caterogicals.

In his January budget proposal, Governor Brown has proposed to combine base revenue limits and categorical spending into one weighted student formula. The idea is after a five year phase in, school districts would more local control on how to spend their money. When you compare the district by district impact you can see dramatic shifts can occur. For example, in Alameda county where Dublin Unified would start with $877 more per student compared to Alameda Unified in 2012/13, by 2017/18 Alameda Unified would be receiving $626 more per student compared to Dublin Unified.

Given the dramatic swings in funding for school districts, I expect the Legislature will not adopt a weighted student formula in 2012. Given the uncertainity of November tax initiatives, I would expect the weighted student formula legislation be examined in 2013.

Tetonic Shift Proposed in School Funding is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

No related posts.

Tale of the Tape – Round One

Governor’s Initiative

With the backing of the Governor and having accumulated over $2 million in contributions it is clear this initiative will survive round one.

Molly Munger’s Proposal

With support from the California State PTA and a personal commitment of her wealth, Molly Munger can get an initiative on the November ballot. Right now she is deciding which one of her submitted initiatives is the one she wants to bring forward for signature gathering.

Millionaire’s Tax

With backing of the California Nurses Association and California Federation of Teachers, this initiative is generating a lot of populist interest. By avoiding taxing individuals under one millionaire dollars of income, progressives (read politically active individuals who will do something) like this initiative. The challenge will be generating the million dollars plus that is needed to gather signatures in such a short time frame.

Round One Winners Prediction

While the Governor would have preferred to be the only tax initiative on the November ballot, it is clear at least one more initiative will advance to round two.

There was an interesting rumor circulating that Molly Munger was having talks with the Tax the Millionaires folks. Perhaps the activity at the California Democratic convention this weekend will provide clues of what is to come.

Three Team Death Match is a post from: Effective Governance Teams

No related posts.