Whether or not you decide to increase your property taxes by $118 a year to support the employees of the Pacifica School
District (PSD) and their pensions by voting for the up coming parcel
tax renewal November 8 there are a few other numbers you may want to
ponder. These numbers are readily available in the District’s most
recent audit and can be verified by visiting the Districts offices on
Reina Del Mar. The company that prepared the audit admittedly did not
fact check the financial information contained in the audit but relied
on staff’s assurances that the information provided was correct.
PSD
has a combined enrollment of 3226 students and an operating budget last
year of $29,584,810 or $9170.74 per student. By comparison a popular
local private grammar school on the north end of town charges $6,421 a
year tuition pre student which is $2749.74 cheaper than what we
collectively provide for PSD students.
The District also has outstanding financial liabilities of $44,589,611
that include a $36 million
bond obligation and $8,057,645 in accounts payable or in lay terms
unpaid bills. It is surprising since so much public property has been
sold to private developers by the District it published a $13,000,000
surplus after the last ten acre school property was sold a few years
ago. Currently the District is going through the motions of selling off
two more public properties but that has nothing to do with renewing the
up coming parcel tax.
I've
requested PSD salary information three times now in the last few weeks.
The info I'm asking for is identical to that found on State Controller
John Chiang's web site that shows what employees from the City of
Pacifica and the North Coast County
Water District earned last year which was so helpful last spring with
the fire tax. Compensation sheets list positions only (no names) and the
amounts shown in Box 5 on annual W2's the District must provide each
employee. PSD has no such info I am told which
is in my opinion stone walling as W2's are an IRS requirement. I'm sure
the District could easily pull this information together from their
accounting software. If PSD would make public the compensation paid to
it's administrators, facilities department, grounds keeps and the like
we would have a better idea of why the District is spending $9170.74 per
student. Since the District so often boasts of how little it pays it's
teaching staff the money must me going somewhere.
Clearly
PSD which is it’s own government body needs to be more transparent to
show it deserves more of our tax dollars especially in understanding its
obligation of openness to the public at large not just motivated
parents who want us to further fund their children’s education. At
$9170.74 per student PSD needs to own up and publish a full compensation
sheet that includes non classroom staff like administrators, facilities
and grounds keepers among others in a timely fashion well before
Novembers vote.
You
may support the parcel tax renewal or you may not but please vote on
this item either way come November 8. It is an off year election so
voter participation is expected to be low. Millions of dollars of our
property taxes will be voted on and whether or not you want to tax your
neighbors to further fund PSD salaries, pensions and other expenses it
is important that this parcel tax measure gets a large turnout so win or
lose it will have gotten a fair shake.
Todd McCune Bray
27 comments:
I see on Riptide that Todd Bray is taking NIMBYism to a new level and complaining about the operation of the new restaurant before it even opens.
I already gave.
Todd, I mean no disrespect. I can understand your frustration and utter disgust at government and their answer of "let's just increase the taxes" as a solution to every problem. So, maybe the parcel tax ain't the way to go.
But, I've been working closely with the schools since my kids (now in 1st and 3rd grade) have been attending. Federal funding is increasingly scarce and, yet, the requirements to receive it are increasingly more costly. Last year, my kids had whole weeks where they were at home, on "furlough", while other schools in San Mateo county were in session. The schools in Pacifica are at the barest of bones. We're not talking luxury items, we're talking affording text books in the basics - reading, for example. The schools are already raising a vast majority of their own operating costs - and PTOs are being asked to fund core curriculum that the state/feds have always provided in the past. Parents even provide supplies for the classrooms.
At my kids' school, parents pitch in 100s of hours per year to make sure the kids have things like physical education, science and music on a regular basis. These are all volunteer hours.
We, too, share in your frustration. I don't know what the solution is. I just know that in this battle, I'm not willing to sacrifice the future of Pacifica's kids because of something that is unfair to the adults. I don't believe I can trust the politicians to come up with any other solutions - - I believe they will shrug their shoulders, say "the voters have spoken," and decrease funding to the schools. Ultimately, the community will foot the bill one way or the other - - look at how much we already are doing.
Private schools, by the way, do not have the same requirements as public schools unless they are also accepting federal funding. So, comparing the operating budgets is very different. Tuition may only be a small factor in their budget. They may also have deals with other businesses that net them funds - - which public schools are not allowed to do except in rare cases.
I am talking from the things I see and live as a parent of two kids in Pacifica schools. Anyone who is interested in what is going on from the school level should check out Saving Pacifica Schools, an organization founded by an incredible single mom with kids in Pacifica's schools - Kalimah Salahudin (she also ran for the school board).
I share in your frustration, but I also don't want to see our kids suffer any more. I am tired of the poor, elderly, and children being the casualties of politics. I know it is not fair to you, either, particularly if you don't have kids in the schools. Communities do that for each other, though. We pay taxes for the good of the community (ostensibly...), even for things that don't directly benefit us.
Just like Todd, I urge everyone to really look into the issues and decide what you believe is right. Obviously, we have different thoughts on which side to be on - - but, your vote does matter on this.
People who eat from the government trough should not condemn any form of government.
Thus you are also part of the bigger problem
Heather,
Please understand I'm not frustrated with government any way shape or form. Through our property taxes we all on average contribute 20% to education already which in my cases is approx. $800 a year. By contrast our local city government receives only 11% of our property taxes which for me is about $480 a year.
PSD is spending $9170 per student today. 10 million comes from property taxes (40% of annual budget) and 14 million (60%) comes from other government agencies which are also publicly funded. The extended tax will generate and additional $460 per student.
That isn't a lot and I see no reason why the 2302 households that are served by the District could pay that sum themselves. At $460 it seems a steal of a deal to me.
I;m sorry heather. I respect your opinions as always but feel the families being serviced by PSD could easily come up with the equivalent of the extended tax increases on their own. And of course if there is hardship a family can and should be exempt.
Very well said, Heather.
Government Trough said...
"People who eat from the government trough should not condemn any form of government."
That's a really dumb comment. We ALL "eat from the government trough."
Explain to me how I eat from the gov't trough??
I pay more property taxes then you make per year then you made in your life time?
If you don't believe it I will be glad to sit down with you and show you
Todd,
I get your point. Let me throw this out there - at our (public) school, we are each already asked to contribute $300 per student for the "free" public education. That is in addition to the taxes we also pay that is supposed to be going to the schools. Many of us are homeowners, and yet are still asked to pay that amount.
Many, many, many of the families in Pacifica cannot even afford the $300 - - and that is to keep it at status quo for right now. I do not know the exact percentages, but I do know the amount of children on free or reduced lunches has grown exponentially in the past two years.
Todd, neither solution seems fair to me. It really isn't fair to ask homeowners to foot the bill for the schools if they don't have students in them. It isn't fair to have students receiving subpar educations because our district is broke (and, that does effect you because it makes our homes less attractive and further drives down home values...).
My point is, though, we all pay for things through taxes that are good for the county that we don't benefit from. I *never* go to the beach, for example, but my tax dollars go to help maintain it. I don't have need for senior services (yet!), but I don't mind doing my fair share in taxes.
I guess what I'm asking is for people to consider the schools as part of their community, even if they don't have a student in them.
"Explain to me how I eat from the gov't trough??" If it isn't obvious how you benefit from government and from the taxes you pay, there isn't any explanation that will help you understand.
Heather,
Lets wait and see what the non teaching staff and employees of PSD earn, perhaps that will give us all pause to ponder.
As for community Heather please acknowledge the taxes we currently pay for education. Taxes I gladly pay because education is important as you know. Your passion is admirable and I wouldn't change that for a thing but PSD already spends over 29 million a year. Over 9 grand per student. Even you must admit that is a lot of money.
Public revenues are down because private sector revenues are down. PSD, you and SPS needs to publicly acknowledge this fact. Maybe 9 grand a student really is enough.
Todd, I more than admire anyone who contributes to my kids' well-being. Of course, I will acknowledge that you already pay taxes to support the schools. Thank you for doing your part.
I also know what I see at the school level - and losing a revenue stream right now will not play out well for the schools or the kids. We don't have a lot of power in politics to chose what government does with our taxes. If we did, a lot of the things we are lamenting over would be funded. But, here, we do have a choice - - albeit a terrible one. On the one hand, we're asking property owners to bear the onus. On the other, the schools. Like it or not, if the tax does not pass, the schools will suffer. I've seen too much already to know that to be the truth.
I'd love to see a breakdown of how the $9,000 per student is spent - how much of it is spent on federal mandates, for example, that would cause lost funding if they weren't spent that way. As for non-teaching staff, I'd like to see that, too. I do know that the current superintendent gave up part of the funded staff when she was brought in.
I should also say that I have worked closely with her and am friendly with many of the school board members because they are parents of students at the school. I believe in full disclosure - because I am saying this as a parent, but some of my knowledge comes from my work on behalf of our school.
I hope you didn't think I believed you didn't think education was important... I am so worried about the state of the schools that I feel the need to speak out about what's going on. I'm sorry if I made you feel that I don't see what you're being asked to do, and what you have already contributed. I guess I liken it to losing the fire department in a neighborhood or a senior center or library - something you might not personally need, but which benefits the community as a whole. I guess this could even apply to what is going on with PCT.
Anyhow, yes - thank you, and everyone in Pacifica for what has already been done - - and, yes, ask whatever questions and get whatever information will satisfy your qualms about the tax. After running for City Council I can say that the issues are complex and I have so much respect for people who care enough to understand them and vote informed than to just blindly vote.
Heather (8/22, 8:11pm), I think most of us on this blog "get it", and will be voting for the parcel tax funding supplemental elementary education. $118 per month is less than $10 per month, which probably won't cause parcel owners to lose their property or become homeless. Plus there is a senior citizen opt-out. The School District has been responsible with this money in the past, and we will be assured of the same in the future.
It is not unusual for cities to supplement education programs through a parcel tax. And, volunteers, such as yourself, have supplemented the financial shortfall in this city. Good luck with the campaign!
An excellent overview by Todd Bray. I completely agree. This whole Measure L does not pass the smell test for a number of reasons. The most important is the false word used in the description of the measure. That word is "Temporary." This tax will never be temporary and every few years it will continue to go up. I am voting NO on measure L.
Good work Todd! I hope you put your article in the Pacifica Tribune before November 8.
enough is enough. Besides a few people like Todd Bray, who stick there thumb up in the air and see what the public is saying, and go along with it, the city and the city council deserve no new tax money!
The dug the hole during one of the biggest economic booms in our lifetimes and still had no money to pay for basic city services.
Ditto! The well is just about dry. Get the job done with the available and adequate funds.
In the zeal to bash Bray let's not forget that Measure L is about the PSD and the funds don't go to the city or council but to the Pacifica School District. And, the well is indeed dry. BTW, Todd Bray gets my vote for 'Least Likely to Follow the Crowd' and more power to him!
Following my recent comments here on Riptide and in the Tribune about the new Pacifica School District (PSD) parcel tax increase, Measure L supporter and Saving Pacifica Schools president Kalimah Salahuddin and PSD board member Joan Weideman contacted me for a sit-down to discuss the disparity between what I feel the district spends per student per year ($9,170.76), based on total overall expenses of the district, and what they feel the district spends per student per year ($7,253), based on an accounting procedure that separates overall expenses into two categories, one for staff and staff-related expenses that comes directly from the district’s general fund, and the other for infrastructure improvements, which are restricted funds. The rationale in splitting the two categories is that neither students nor teaching staff receive a direct benefit from building maintenance and capital outlays.
By separating the two categories, it appears the cost per student is indeed $7,253 a year, but if, like me, you choose to combine the two categories because without buildings or capital improvements there are no structures to house teaching staff and students, it equally appears the district spends $9,170 per student a year. The difference between these two sums is $1,917 per student per year. That is a big difference and it highlights the magic of governmental accounting.
Speaking of governmental accounting and its Magical Mystery Tour logic, Weideman went over another figure I mentioned recently, an accounts-payable liability of more than $8 million. It doesn’t represent unpaid bills, as I had suggested. No, it’s much more entertaining than that. Half of that amount ($4 million) represents an accounting error by the State of California that requires the district to repay $4 million, but at the same time the state is refunding the $4 million through a different governmental accounting maneuver. In essence, no money is changing hands, but an accounting practice required by the state, so it doesn’t look like it made a $4 million mistake, is being satisfied.
In stark contrast to the accounting games of the State of California, most of the remaining $4 million represents straightforward payroll deferments by teaching staff so they will receive summertime paychecks while on hiatus. I always wondered how that worked.
I’d like to personally thank Joan and Kalimah for their offer and subsequent meeting. Joan came well prepared to discuss the district’s expenses and explain the staffing positions that Measure L will fund, and Kalimah provided extra support through her Blackberry and a mystery contact when questions could not be answered.
I wish the district luck with Measure L but strongly feel the district and Measure L supporters must include information on the district’s split accounting practice in any political literature published for their parcel tax campaign to be honest, open, and informative to the voting public. The difference of $1,917 annually per student equals a whopping $6,184,242. And make no mistake about it, the district does spend that extra $6 million annually whether it accounts for it separately or not.
Whether you choose to support Measure L, which will raise our property taxes by $118 a year for the next seven years to fund PSD staffing positions, or choose not to support Measure L, please do go to the polls November 8. It would be a shame if a small turnout swayed this parcel tax ballot measure one way or the other. The sums of public money at stake are huge, and real people will feel their impact for the next seven years.
If you vote YES on Measure N you will only see a $22 difference from what you're paying now.
Measure L is intended to replace 2008's Measure N funding ($96 per year) which is about to expire.
Todd, why re-post your ramblings which basically boil down to you picking an arbitrary number (spend per student in this case) and then saying it's too much? This is just like the last time you picked an arbitrary number (government salaries) and said it was too much.
What you think is too much is irrelevant, and what the market thinks is too much is much more important. Without comparing PSD to other districts your analysis is meaningless, just like when you failed to compare Pacifica government salaries to other communities.
Compare all you want. It's just too much and it's time to dial it all down. The party is over and the hangover is going to be long and painful in this country. And it's not over. The situation in Greece could trigger an EU meltdown that would globally make the failure of Lehmann Brothers in 2008 (beginning of our little meltdown)look like a vacation. We need to learn and practice austerity before we can again be secure.
For those interested, the PDS budget.
If we want to maintain a quality elementary school system, being funded by the State in the bottom 11%, and in total #19 at the bottom our 20 San Mateo County cities-- even with lower paid employees and volunteer assistance, we have to pay for it.
Based upon Todd's snapshot view, annual/ (monthly cost):
1. Grand total building, grounds, administration, teachers, materials overhead): $9,170 ($764).
2. Separated per student student cost: $7,253 ($604); separate buildings and grounds cost $1,917 ($160).
3. From the separate $7,253 student cost, State per student in daily in-attendance per diem reimbursement: $4,982 ($415), funding down from $5,531 in 2007 ($461), difference $549 ($46).
4. Other sources of income, including property taxes are not defined, namely the $2,271 (189) per student funding. And, there is the building and grounds cost: $1,917 ($160). Total $4,188 (349).
5. A generalized public vs. private school cost comparison has unknown variables.
Still the information presented is good, because there is a realization of true elementary education cost brought to our attention, and that is the result of Todd's inquiry in conjunction with stellar elementary school volunteers Joan Weidman and Kalimah Salahuddin.
Anon (905), personally I don't consider Todd's research "meaningless" or "irrelevant" (that's your hiding behind Anonymous coward's judgement), but then I'm just "rambling".
I agree with Anon 1:05pm. We need to start practicing - living without. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Anon @ 9:05, I don't understand your issue. How does comparing the annual twenty nine million dollar budget of PSD against the budgets of other school districts help the PSD budget?
Of course that doesn't make sense, Captain Strawman. Spend per student does, though.
Keeping up with the Joneses got plenty of Americans in financial trouble. Works the same way with school districts. Spend less than you can afford and get real value from every dollar. Are we doing that? Not convinced.
If the teachers don't like the pay they could go find another job.
Or get another job. Teachers could easily work two jobs. They have short days and summers off. Please, don't tell me sob stories. Teachers are no better then the next tax paying worker.
Post a Comment