LTUSD deficit may swell to $2.6 mil.; depends on state
By Kathryn Reed
It’s a bit of hoping for the best, planning for worst when it comes to forecasting what the Lake Tahoe Unified School District budgets will look like for the next two years.
Educators have their fingers crossed the proposed June ballot initiative by Gov. Jerry Brown passes. But the reality is it may never see the light of day. That will be determined by the Legislature in March.
The best-case scenario as presented to the board Jan. 25 is the continued running deficit of $1.2 million. The worst-case option is another $1.4 million will be added to that systemic problem to bring the district’s ledgers showing $2.6 million in red.
CFO Deb Yates and Human Resources Director Jim Watson delivered the sobering news Tuesday to a packed house at the district office. Watson went over possible elimination of positions for the next two years. His job is one that could be cut in 2011-12.
This would mean Superintendent Jim Tarwater would spend all of his time at the district office. He currently divides his day as principal of the Environmental Magnet School. Someone would have to take over those duties.
Watson said during a recent webinar a leading economist said what makes this different from previous budgets is “this really is a sky is falling budget to go with the sky is falling rhetoric.”
California is grappling with a $25 billion deficit. For the past several years lawmakers have put a Band-Aid on the issue and deferred some of the more painful decisions. Brown has said he wants to stop that practice and begin making the hard decisions.
He wants voters to continue on with tax hikes that were put into effect two years ago. The Republican Legislature is resisting the Democrat’s idea.
Even if the proposal makes it on the June ballot, that does not give this or most districts much time to figure out what they are doing because most fiscal years begin July 1. This is why LTUSD is essentially working on parallel budgets based on funding possibilities.
The LTUSD board took no action this week. (Sue Novasel was absent.) But action will have to be taken soon even if it means revising things when the state figures out its mess.
Teachers have another week to let the district know if they will be taking the golden handshake retirement option. If enough people pursue early retirement, pink slips will likely not have to be issued for the coming school year.
A slew of ideas were outlined at the meeting as possible ways to maintain solvency. When it comes to positions, reduction in the number of school days or the furlough day, those would have to be negotiated with the unions.
The state allowed districts to go from maintaining a 3 percent reserve to 1 percent for this school year. The proposed budget from Brown says districts will be allowed to maintain a 0.33 percent reserve.
“I’m hearing if this is not the time for reserves, I’m not sure when is. No one I’ve crossed paths with has seen it worse,” Yates told the board.
How the heck can the school district be in the hole?!? In addition to whatever they get from the state, they’re getting two separate parcel taxes from each homeowner in the valley too! What are they spending (or should I say overspending) all the money on? It certainly isn’t the kids’ educations.
Parcel tax is the common term in California for a “qualified special tax” imposed by a local unit of government. Special taxes are permitted by the California Constitution, requiring approval at an election of at least 2/3rds of those voting on the measure.
Parcel taxes can be used for any type of spending–construction costs, employee salaries, and other projects or spending needs. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Parcel_tax
LTUSD does not receive any money from parcel taxes.
School Bond Measure G was passed by voters in November 2008 for $64.5 million to improve school facilities, many of which are over 40 years old. The District also aggressively sought out matching funds to the tune of over $30 million (to date). The construction work that is ongoing with this money is helping the local economy. The money can only be used for the purposes that the voters intended and may not be used for salaries and other operational expenses. Visit http://www.ltusd.org/bond.php to read more about how this money is being used. A Citizens Bond Oversight Committee also oversees the spending of this money.
It might be helpful to read the recently released report “School Finance Highlights 2010-11” at http://www.EdSource.org
This report by the nonprofit research group EdSource details the political and economic developments that have led to three straight years of funding cuts to California’s beleaguered K-12 public school system and outlines the challenges ahead. Included in the budget brief is a description of new spending proposals by the state’s newly elected Gov. Jerry Brown, which include plans to ask voters to extend tax hikes scheduled to expire later this year. The report also points out that the governor has all but promised more fiscal hardship to come, even if revenue-raising strategies now under discussion in Sacramento are successful.
LTUSD has managed to retain many valuable programs for kids despite the unprecedented cuts, unlike many other districts across the state and the country. Check out http://www.fcmat.org to read some of the horror stories.
We know that times are hard but, as you can see from Kae’s article, we are continuing to meet the challenges head on and are planning more reductions in anticipation of further cuts to the budget.
I’m curious what the # of students enrolled is? Has it gone up or down? By how much?
The district started with 3,910 when the doors opened in August. Enrollment was at 3,867 in December.
Enrollment has steadily been declining in LTUSD, though not as dramatically in the past few years.
California funds education based on average daily attendance.
Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher
The street on which I live has 26 homes plus 1 commercial business. In those properties there is not 1 child of school age attending an SLT school. It would seem we should have plenty of property tax revenue from the number of homes without kids to more than fund our local school needs. Sounds like the State has decided they can take our money to pay for schools in other locations while underfunding ours.
How is Measure G helping the local economy? If by taxing South Lake Tahoe property owners and giving the money to Reno contractors is helping the local economy than I guess you are right.
For the school district to claim that LTUSD receives no money from parcel taxes appears to be grossly misleading. My El Dorado County 2010-2011 Secured Property Tax Statement specifically lists three (3) separate, designated LTUSD tax apportionments above and beyond the basic General Tax Levy: (1) LTUSD Bond-Election 1992, (2) LTUSD Bond-Election 1999, and (3) LTUSD Bond-Election 2008. All charged against my parcel and due and payable as part of the regular annual property tax assessment.
Steve, please see my post above explaining the difference between a parcel tax and a bond measure. You are totally correct about the three Bond Measures that were passed by voters in 1992, 1999 and 2008 for the purpose of modernizing and replacing aging school facilities.
http://www.ltusd.org/userfiles/file/FundamentalsDebtServiceGOBondFinal.pdf
That money can only be used on construction projects and it cannot be used for salaries or other operational expenses.
A parcel tax, on the other hand, can be used for salaries and operational expenses in running the school district. Back in 2003 or so, if memory serves me correctly, LTUSD put a parcel tax measure on the ballot @ $60 per parcel. The timeshare industry came out strongly against it since it would have hit each timeshare owner and they didn’t have a vote in the election. The measure failed and two schools closed. One has since reopened as the Lake Tahoe Environmental Science Magnet School and the other, Al Tahoe, now houses tenants such as the Boys & Girls Club, LTCC, etc.
Tahoe78 – To date, over $7,000,000 of construction work has been performed by locally-owned subcontractors and vendors. This does not include other local financial benefits such as local workers who have have been employed by subcontractors that are based in areas outside of South Lake Tahoe. Even with the out of town subcontractors, the local restaurants, motels, gas stations, stores, etc. have benefited from these workers staying in South Lake Tahoe mid-week and during shoulder seasons when regular tourist business is absent. One of SMC Contracting, Inc.’s owners is a 15-year South Lake Tahoe local and two of the four SMC project supervisors are South Lake Tahoe residents.
Doesn’t it just seem silly that our District can afford shiny new buildings, but not experienced teachers?! Say whatever you want about what fee or tax goes where, but we’re a heavily taxed community that’ll have new buildings but perhaps not qualified, or at least experienced, teachers to staff them?
And do all the other districts have to hit their communities with a tax every time their buildings get old?
In addition it’s nice we can pay for a PR rep for the District! Some clarification is always welcome. Seriously! But when our tax dollars are paying for justification? I don’t know about that? How do you know where the subcontractors are spending their money? FYI, a little economics, since the money the subcontractors are getting comes from the pockets of residents of the town in the first place, there can be no net gain!
As further evidence of local schools receiving ample share of each parcel’s property taxes, the pie chart on the reverse side of the tax bill indicates the largest portion of the General Levy goes to Schools, at 39.2%. One can reasonably surmise that this sizable distribution can be fully utilized for school salaries, administrators, and other operational expenses. And this does not even include the additional, separate, supplemental parcel assessments.
To assert that LTUSD does not receive any money from parcel taxes is ludicrous. The documentation indicates that schools receive far and away the largest share of the disbursements.
You’re right, Steve. But it won’t be enough until they bleed us dry and get it all. It’s for the children, you know. . .
Vouchers, competition…
Tarwater should return to the District office where he belongs, not at the choice school in the District. The District needs a leader not a superentendant with divided attention.