State's May Revise Gives more Money to Schools Schools & Kids, posted by parent, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 12:55 pm
The May Review from Brown came out today.
State income is up which means that schools will receive more next year based on their assumptions.
Because of California's Proposition 98 guarantee, the state would owe K-12 schools and community colleges about half of those revenues. Brown's plan envisions schools getting about $3 billion more next year than it is getting this year.
This will now show how well the school board works. If the income for next year is more than this year, and they still eliminate programs and fire teachers, you know they are doing something wrong.
Posted by optimistic mom, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on May 16, 2011 at 1:54 pm
The May Revision is of the governor's proposed budget proposal. It has not yet been enacted into law. It includes a key assumption that the legislature will approve of extending the sales and vehicle tax rates at their current level (which would require a 2/3rds vote in favor of doing so.)
Until the budget is enacted, we do not know that schools will receive more revenue. It is possible that they may receive more revenue than Pleasanton's school board has been planning for (which I think is good, because it means that the school board is budgeting conservatively). It is also possible that the state legislature might still vote to suspend Proposition 98 (which I think they did last year), in which case, additional income tax revenue will not flow through to school funding.
The May Revise is not the end of the story. It's only act 2, and there are at least 3 acts in this play.
Posted by Start Afresh, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Gov. Brown punted. He doesn't have the courage to publish an all-cuts budget to let the voters know what his priorities are if he doesn't get the tax extensions/increases he wants. That.....is not leadership. It is cowardly politics. And makes the 1000 school districts put budgets in place that are based on the hope that taxes are extended. What a waste of time he has caused.
Posted by Smart 'n Fresh, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I, for one, am outraged. Like Start Afresh, my mentor, I am appalled that the governor wants to pour billions of dollars into the educational system. And who do we have to thank for this recklessness? The UNIONS!!
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a member of the Vintage Hills Elementary School community, on May 16, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Clearly you missed the point Start was making Smart. Districts in CA will, as usual, have to produce final budgets by June 30 before the state legislature will have adopted their budget. Most districts will be forced to be conservative. That would mean teacher layoffs, cuts to program, increased class sizes, and all that will hurt not only the unions, but more importantly, students.
Posted by optimistic mom, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on May 16, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I know that recent history suggests it's unlikely, but it is possible that we could pass a state budget before June 30. There's a whole month before June 15, which should be the legislature's deadline (since none of them will get paid after that until they get the budget done.)
The Republican plan calls for a 10% pay cut for all state employees. Perhaps the governor could agree to drop the request for extending the sales tax in exchange for a Republican agreement to settle for a 5% pay cut? Perhaps Republicans could settle for a slightly higher spending cap, if the governor will agree to put one in place?
Posted by Elitist, a resident of the Birdland neighborhood, on May 16, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Way to go Jerry! Not even a year in office and the deficit is reduced from 15 to 10 billion. Not bad fella! And to think so many of the yokels on these sites supported that walking catastrophe, meg whitman.
Posted by Brian, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 11:04 am
I tell you what Joker. Let's make a deal. I'll pay your portion of any parcel tax Pleasanton may enact if you let me keep the difference between the average increase/decrease in house values in the bay area and the average increase/decrease in Pleasanton house values between now and when you sell your house.
For example, say you want to sell your house 4 years from now. If bay area houses values decline 10% in the next 4 years, but Pleasanton only declines 5%, you'll owe me 5% of your house value when you sell. That's fair isn't it? After all, your house value would have dropped 10% if it wasn't for the schools that I'll be paying to maintain.
Posted by Nomad, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 11:05 am
I suggest everyone read the School Services of California (SSC) analysis of the governor's May budget revise. (Web Link)
This is a consulting/lobbying company that PUSD pays and where several PUSD leaders go to get advice on how to budget (note reference to upcoming 5/19 conference).
Contrary to the original poster's belief that schools will be getting increased spending capacity of $3B, SSC says:
"However, this rise in Proposition 98 will not translate into additional expenditures at the local level. Instead, the Governor proposes to use the increase to (1) reverse $2.5 billion in K-12 apportionment deferrals, (2) reverse $350 million in community college apportionment deferrals, and (3) provide $222 million to fund mental health and out-of-home care for special education students, an expense that was previously borne by counties. With these proposed expenditures, state expenditures under Proposition 98 will increase compared to the January Budget proposal, but school districts will not experience a net increase in expenditure authority. Therefore, overall expenditures for schools will be roughly flat under the May Revision, rather than what was initially perceived to be a significant boost."
If enacted, funding for AB 3632 may save PUSD $1M in the 11-12 budget and there may be lower borrowing costs. Again, this is all contingent on whether the tax extensions happen.
There are only two more scheduled school board meetings before PUSD needs to put their 11-12 budget into place. I encourage everyone to attend or watch.
Posted by Start Afresh, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Silicon Valley Education Foundation contributes this analysis (Web Link)
"Though pressed by reporters, Brown and his finance director, Ana Matosantos, were vague ... in explaining how districts should go about building next year’s budgets now without knowing for sure there will be more revenue."
The hope is people begin to see the state's 'gimmick' of deferrals and Prop 98 maintenance factors are hurting the schools. PUSD and the union's inflate the budget drama by keeping the 3-year contracts in place and using one-year agreements as band-aids while the underlying structural deficits persist. All the while, the kids are hurt and school employees from the top to the bottom protect their salaries.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 1:24 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
That's good that they will start paying the deferrals. The State started the deferrals back after the dotcom bust, found it was a convenient, though irresponsible, way to balance the budget, and has been doing it ever since. In the meantime, districts have been forced to borrow, which meant taxpayer money being paid for debt service rather than to the classrooms.
Posted by Joe, a resident of the Ruby Hill neighborhood, on May 17, 2011 at 1:42 pm
If you want some intelligent analysis of CA's problems, go look at The Economist and their Special Report on California, how it got to this point and what it will take to get out. Expectations that these problems are going to be solved with a wave of the magic wand are unrealistic, ie. criticism that they were "vague" in their guidance. My recollection was we had a similar situation in early 2010, revenues came in higher than expected and then came in lower than expected. For all of the anti-union contributors, please go start your own blog and grind your ax there. CORE -yes, putting money where my mouth is, and am happily paying extra...