SUBMITTED BY TIM FAHLEN - email exchange with City Council Member Don Saylor in response to Fahlen's ideas submitted to the BOE

3/16/08 email:

Tim --

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I know you will send your comments directly to Board members.

As a City Council Member, I have no authority or specific role in the school finance issues. I have to tell you that this is the most critical current issue on the minds of most Davis residents today. I am very concerned about the level of funding cuts the DJUSD is facing and the impacts those cuts are likely to have on the programs we have all worked so hard over so many years to nurture. Schools are the center of our community and my service to the community will be to come to the support of DJUSD at every turn.

My direct knowledge of DJUSD financing is out of date, since I have been away from the Board for almost five years. My comments here are based on watching the televised Board meetings and reading the news accounts as well as my recollection of school finance structures.

The DJUSD funding challenge is the result of a "perfect storm" of district specific enrollment declines coupled with state wide budget cuts. Declining enrollment is hitting many districts throughout the state. According to DJUSD Business Office, DJUSD has lost some 350 students over the past couple of years. The impact of such a decline in enrollment is tough to handle, because the district loses the Average Revenue for each student, but cannot reduce the Average Cost -- the kids are scattered across grade levels and geographically.

If class size were 35 students, we couldn't simply reduce ten classrooms and be done -- we still need the schools, the classrooms, the teachers etc.

I think your suggestions for revenue enhancements are all reasonable for consideration and I expect that the Board is thinking about each of them. A couple of thoughts regarding the specifics you mention:

1. Dollar a day -- I have been working with the Davis Education Foundation on getting this campaign underway. I think it has great potential for generating sufficient revenue to mitigate SOME of the needed cuts the first year. This is important to do -- we should all get behind it. We must be realistic that this will not solve the whole problem and that we need to do something to sustain whatever "soft landing" we are able to achieve doing this.

2. Major Contributions -- DSEF Board and others are working on major contributions and a host of fundraising ideas. To the degree we can, I think that working within the umbrella of that effort is going to be the most successful approach.

3. Improve attendance -- Absolutely. However, this must have some specific steps and some measurable progress to matter. In regard to the comments about small schools -- programmatically your points are on target; operationally and fiscally the cost of operating several smaller schools exceeds that of operating one larger school – the DJUSD must examine these costs and balance them in relation to all other programmatic/transportation/community issues. I don't know the answer to this puzzle, but it is certainly an important issue for the Board to grapple with.

4. Existing parcel tax -- This funding is committed to specific purposes as I understand it. The potential state cuts and declining enrollment revenue losses total about $4.4 million or so. This number will fluctuate as the budget deliberation continues to unfold in the state capitol.

5. New parcel tax -- Some Board members have been advocating for such a measure for the November ballot. One of the challenges in putting a measure forward is that the amount of the need is not yet known and may not be until August or so. The 2/3 vote requirement is always tough to achieve and benefits most from having very specific issues. It is possible that the local fundraising may allow some softer landing and a new measure can be considered at an appropriate time. This is an active discussion item as I understand it.

6. Sale of real estate -- These steps are probably wise for the DJUSD to consider in concert with some long range asset management planning. However, it is my understanding that revenue generated from the sale of real estate cannot be used for operational purposes. It is possible that some General Fund supported facilities costs could be supported by these facilities generated revenues, but I do not have a sense of whether there are any such appropriate costs.

See you at the carnival!

Don

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3/16/08 email:

Tim --

I want to add one more item. Today I attended a presentation by a group of Da Vinci students. These students did a marvelous job of background research and have a good grasp of the technical issues. Their motivation is to somehow lessen the imnpact on Da Vinci that they perceive will come from the loss of about 75% of their current faculty. Like many concerned people they are speaking first from their own experience. However, they have recently reached beyond their own program and are now talking to people throughout the district with
similar concerns. Their energy and focus are awesome.

We talked about the need to support the whole range of education experience for all students. The priorities have to be 1) continue to support good decision making at the Board level in responsible and respectful ways knowing that no decision is going to be easy; 2) work hard on the short term fundraising efforts; 3) consider ways to build a sustainable fund base; and 4) seek ways to engage effectively at the state budget level.

I am so sad that this is happening. There are many community wide issues that come to mind. But now, we must follow the model of the Da Vinci students and systematically address the issue with the interest of all students in mind.

Don