LAUSD Proposes 'Parcel Tax'

Homeowners would be hit with a $150 annual "parcel tax" to help fund Los Angeles public schools -- on top of the hundreds of dollars they already pay annually for construction -- under a proposal introduced Tuesday.

Under the draft plan, the tax would be in effect for six years, and the funds would be intended for use to reduce class sizes, improve libraries, bolster campus safety and provide more nurses and counselors.

The proposal would be the first time the Los Angeles Unified School District would ask voters to approve such a fee and comes as the nation's second-largest district also is considering a fourth construction bond issue for the Nov. 8 special-election ballot to raise $3.85 billion.

The board, which met Tuesday, took no action on the item, but members said it could help meet the district's needs for additional revenue during difficult fiscal times.

"We're building schools, but where's the money for the equipment inside the schools? That doesn't come from the bond. It comes from the general fund, and we're thinning and stretching to the point of fiscal insolvency, like hundreds of districts in California," said board member David Tokofsky, who proposed the measure.

Tokofsky introduced the parcel tax to be discussed either as a replacement for the district's proposed $3.85 billion bond measure, or to be placed on the ballot in addition to the bond.

Board members noted that details of the proposal -- including specifics of the tax -- still are being worked out and could change when the board considers the final proposal, along with the bond issue, at its next meeting, July 12.

Under the draft plan, the tax would be in effect for six years and could be used to fund Measure A-G, the mandatory college-prep curriculum approved by the district this month.

The measure would need a two-thirds approval vote for passage. Bond issues need a 55 percent majority vote for passage.

Next year, district officials project, property owners will pay about $113 a year per $100,000 of assessed value for the district's three previous bond measures.

That is expected to increase to $138.80 in 2009. If passed, the November bond would add about $20 starting in 2008.

Overall, property owners in the LAUSD currently pay $88.84 per $100,000 of assessed property value for school bond measures and for state school loan repayments, Los Angeles County Assistant Auditor John Naimo said.

That translates into $444 a year for a home assessed at about the median price of $500,000; with the proposed parcel tax, it would reach nearly $600 a year.

Districts including Oakland Unified, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified and Santa Monica Malibu Unified have parcel taxes ranging from $123 to more than $300 per year per $100,000 assessed value of a home. Some board members said they supported the idea, but questioned whether it would be realistic.

"In concept, I am supportive of additional opportunities for funding to support our schools and not local or administrative positions," board member Mike Lansing said. "My only concern is timing -- both with the upcoming bond vote and the other initiatives by the governor."

Board President Jose Huizar said that, before he asks voters for more money, he would like the district to be more fiscally responsible.

"We made some drastic cuts, but before I ask voters for additional funding, the district needs to budget its money more wisely and efficiently," he said. "That puts us in a difficult position to ask for more local funding when the district has a long way to go to improve its budget process."

Outgoing United Teachers Los Angeles President John Perez said although he believes that the LAUSD has consistently demonstrated poor budgetary practices, given its financial constraints, a parcel tax and a bond could be the only avenues to support services.

"If the district were 100 percent efficient, there would not be enough money to build all the schools needed and to lower class size to be a teachable district," Perez said. "There's no doubt in my mind we need another bond for our building program, and we need a revenue source to pay for services for our kids."

The board also postponed taking action on the bond issue. Officials say the bond measure is needed in a district that has grown by 190,000 students over the past 20 years for facilities to eliminate mandatory busing and year-round schedules at elementary schools.

Also Tuesday, the board adopted its preliminary budget for 2005-06, with a reduction of $230.9 million to balance its $6.65 billion spending package.

>>Every time I read something like this it reaffirms my belief that I could run a school that would cost less and get better marks than the vast majority of school districts.<<

Which brings to mind an article written recently by California State Senator Tom McClintock:

A Modest Proposal for Saving Our Schools

By Senator Tom McClintock

The multi-million dollar campaign paid by starving teachers' unions has finally placed our sadly neglected schools at the center of the budget debate.

Across California, children are bringing home notes warning of dire consequences if Gov. Schwarzenegger's scorched earth budget is approved - a budget that slashes Proposition 98 public school spending from $42.2 billion this year all the way down to $44.7 billion next year. That should be proof enough that our math programs are suffering.

As a public school parent, I have given this crisis a great deal of thought and have a modest suggestion to help weather these dark days.

Maybe - as a temporary measure only - we should spend our school dollars on our schools. I realize that this is a radical departure from current practice, but desperate times require desperate measures.

The Governor proposed spending $10,084 per student from all sources. Devoting all of this money to the classroom would require turning tens of thousands of school bureaucrats, consultants, advisors and specialists onto the streets with no means of support or marketable job skills, something that no enlightened social democracy should allow.

So I will begin by excluding from this discussion the entire budget of the State Department of Education, as well as the pension system, debt service, special education, child care, nutrition programs and adult education. I also propose setting aside $3 billion to pay an additional 30,000 school bureaucrats $100,000-per-year (roughly the population of Monterey) with the proviso that they stay away from the classroom and pay their own hotel bills at conferences.

This leaves a mere $6,937 per student, which, for the duration of the funding crisis, I propose devoting to the classroom.

To illustrate how we might scrape by at this subsistence level, let's use a hypothetical school of 180 students with only $1.2 million to get through the year.

We have all seen the pictures of filthy bathrooms, leaky roofs, peeling paint and crumbling plaster to which our children have been condemned. I propose that we rescue them from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Our school will need 4,800 square feet for five classrooms (the sixth class is gym). At $33 per foot, an annual lease will cost $158,400.

This will provide executive washrooms, around-the-clock janitorial service, wall-to-wall carpeting, utilities and music in the elevators. We'll also need new desks to preserve the professional ambiance.

Next, we'll need to hire five teachers - but not just any teachers. I propose hiring only associate professors from the California State University at their level of pay. Since university professors generally assign more reading, we'll need 12 of the latest edition, hardcover books for each student at an average $75 per book, plus an extra $5 to have the student's name engraved in gold leaf on the cover.

Since our conventional gym classes haven't stemmed the childhood obesity epidemic, I propose replacing them with an annual membership at a private health club for $39.95 per month. This would provide our children with a trained and courteous staff of nutrition and fitness counselors, aerobics classes and the latest in cardiovascular training technology.

Finally, we'll hire an $80,000 administrator with a $40,000 secretary because - well, I don't know exactly why, but we always have.

Our bare-bones budget comes to this:

5 classrooms $158,400

150 Desks @ $130 $19,500

180 annual health club memberships @ $480 $86,400

2,160 textbooks @ $80 $172,800

5 C.S.U. Associate Professors @ $67,093 $335,465

1 Administrator $80,000

1 Secretary $40,000

24% faculty and staff benefits $109,312

Ofice, expenses and insurance $30,000

TOTAL $1,031,877

This budget leaves a razor-thin reserve of just $216,703 or $1,204 per pupil, which can pay for necessities like paper, pencils, personal computers and extra-curricular travel. After all, what's the point of taking four years of French if you can't see Paris in the spring?

The school I have just described is the school we're paying for. Maybe it's time to ask why it's not the school we're getting.

Other, wiser, governors have made the prudent decision not to ask such embarrassing questions of the education-industrial complex because it makes them very angry. Apparently the unions believe that with enough of a beating, Gov. Schwarzenegger will see things the same way.

Perhaps. But there's an old saying that you can't fill a broken bucket by pouring more water into it. Maybe it's time to fix the bucket.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419138/posts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.