LTCC, LTUSD officials relieved Prop. 30 passes
By Kathryn Reed
California lawmakers have a handful of years to figure out a more sustainable way to fund K-14 education. That is because the tax measure approved Nov. 6 by voters will expire.
“I’ve been dealing with finances in community colleges for the last 12, 13 year and it’s been unstable the whole time,” Kindred Murillo, Lake Tahoe Community College president, told Lake Tahoe News.
Jim Tarwater, superintendent of Lake Tahoe Unified School District, said it is long overdue for Sacramento to get its act together.
“What they have got to have is stability. There is not an organization or company around that doesn’t know how much money it has to function,” Tarwater said. He doesn’t understand how lawmakers ever rationalized taking money away from K-12 midyear when those dollars had been allocated.
LTCC and LTUSD, respectively, would have faced $632,000 and $1.6 million in cuts this fiscal year had Proposition 30 failed. With contracts in place, cutting people midyear is not a possibility.
For now though, both institutions can breath a sigh of relief. And both can put a few dollars back into reserves that were designated to cover the potential state take-away.
The anticipated revenue to be gained via Proposition 30 is estimate at $6 billion annually for education, with 89 percent for K-12 and 11 percent for community colleges. This will come from starting this tax year by increasing taxes on those who make more than $250,000, as well as upping the sales tax one-quarter cent to 7½ percent beginning Jan. 1. The income tax is for seven years and the sales tax for four.
While the money will go for several things, the bulk is allocated toward education.
People in all capacities of education are hailing the approval of Proposition 30 as a victory for schoolchildren. The measure passed with 53.9 percent of the voters saying yes.
“This is a great win for our schools and public safety. Our local schools will not face more cuts this school year and in the near future. The voters of California have stood up to support our schools and we are all grateful,” Mike Patterson, a past president of the local teachers’ union and member of the state union, told Lake Tahoe News.
For LTUSD, it means programs will not have to be cut. Nor will the school year be shortened by 12 days.
When it comes to people, in the last four years about two dozen teachers have been let go, mostly through attrition; that many classified employees have received pink slips; and the administration has cut nine jobs.
“For California community colleges it will finally allow us to begin adding back some of the thousands of classes we have been forced to cut since we began this nightmare of educational rationing in 2008,” Brice Harris, California Community Colleges chancellor, said in a statement. “With this vote of support from California’s citizens, community colleges will receive $210 million in additional funding this year. This should allow us to serve an additional 20,000 students statewide and to begin erasing the financial deferrals that have plagued our budgets in recent years.”
Since 2008, the 112-college system has endured $809 million in cuts. It has meant cutting nearly a quarter of the classes that were once offered and losing about 500,000 students.
But according to Murillo, the next few years will be tough for community colleges because of how the state reimburses institutions. Core classes and sticking to the mission of providing transfer-remedial-career/tech courses will alter what is in the class schedule.
LTCC is reviewing all of its classes with the goal of by early next year to have a firm grasp of what people will be able to repeat, what the state will pay for, what must stay in a certificated program and everything in between.
Plus, in two years the college will have to deal with the priority registration mandate coming down from Sacramento.
Here is how all the California propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot did:
Proposition Title |
Yes |
% |
No |
% |
||
Yes | 30 | Temporary Taxes to Fund Education | 4,959,206 | 53.9% | 4,241,246 | 46.1% |
No | 31 | State Budget, State and Local Government | 3,369,175 | 39.2% | 5,220,193 | 60.8% |
No | 32 | Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction | 3,973,720 | 43.9% | 5,086,590 | 56.1% |
No | 33 | Auto Insurance Prices Based on Driver History | 4,046,275 | 45.4% | 4,872,423 | 54.6% |
No | 34 | Death Penalty | 4,269,535 | 47.2% | 4,776,815 | 52.8% |
Yes | 35 | Human Trafficking | 7,309,737 | 81.1% | 1,698,939 | 18.9% |
Yes | 36 | Three Strikes Law | 6,181,771 | 68.6% | 2,826,624 | 31.4% |
No | 37 | Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling | 4,277,985 | 46.9% | 4,835,045 | 53.1% |
No | 38 | Tax for Education. Early Childhood Programs | 2,489,028 | 27.7% | 6,495,745 | 72.3% |
Yes | 39 | Business Tax for Energy Funding | 5,295,968 | 60.1% | 3,522,579 | 39.9% |
Yes | 40 | Redistricting State Senate | 6,068,518 | 71.4% | 2,427,514 | 28.6% |
Source: California Secretary of State