Does Prop 2 Affect My School District?


Alameda

Alameda County school districts will have to shed an estimated $90 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Alameda school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 10% now, to just 5%.  The two largest districts, Oakland Unified and Fremont Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry just 6%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with the California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers' Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Alameda schools will be allowed to carry just $94 million forward -- yet the State had not paid Alameda districts $320 million it owed them in June 2012, $150 million in June 2013 ... and $140 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Note that Oakland Unified is shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of the district's financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite its challenged financial state, OUSD would have to pay out $2 million of its ongoing operating funds were the PSSSA to receive any deposits.

Alameda data table


Contra Costa

Contra Coast County school districts will have to shed an estimated $140 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Contra Costa school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 16% now, to just 6%.  The largest district, Mount Diablo Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry just 6%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Contra Costa schools will be allowed to carry just $76 million forward -- yet the State had not paid Contra Costa districts $207 million it owed them in June 2012, $101 million in June 2013, and $89 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Note that John Swett Unified and Mount Diablo Unified are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite its challenged financial state, Mt. Diablo would have to pay out $31 million of its ongoing operating funds were the PSSSA to receive any deposits.

Contra Costa data table


San Francisco

San Francisco Unified School District will have to shed an estimated $10 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of SFUSD's local carryover funds from 6% down to 4%.   

Compare these allowed carryovers with CDE and GFOA recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  SFUSD will be allowed to carry just $23 million forward -- yet the State had not paid SFUSD $25 million that the state owed it in June 2012 or just this June 30th, a few months ago -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

San Francisco data table


San Mateo

San Mateo County school districts will have to shed an estimated $160 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  One chunk of this will be parcel and property tax collected by its basic aid districts.  These districts will not be receive any more property tax until December of the year, presumably forcing them to borrow.

The cap will force the reduction of San Mateo County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 24% now, to just 6%.  The smallest districts (under 1000 students) will be allowed to carry 8%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  San Mateo County schools will be allowed to carry just $53 million forward -- but most of this will be in community funded ('basic aid') districts.  The eight districts receiving state funding (in lieu of the property tax that the State has taken away from them since 2004) will be allowed to carry only $35 million forward, yet the state owed them $58 million at the end of 2012, $36 million at the end of 2013, and $29 million this June 30th.

Note that San Bruno Park Elementary is shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of San Bruno Park's financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite its questionable financial state, San Bruno Park would have to pay down $3 million of its ongoing operating funds were the PSSSA to receive any deposits.

San Mateo data table


Santa Clara

Santa Clara County school districts will have to shed an estimated $305 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  A chunk of this will be parcel and property tax collected by its basic aid districts.  These districts will not receive any more property tax until December of the year, presumably forcing them to borrow.

The cap will force the reduction of Santa Clara County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 20% now, to just 6%.  The two smallest districts (under 1000 students) will be allowed to carry 8-10%.  San Jose Unified will be capped at just 4%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Santa Clara County schools will be allowed to carry just $123 million forward.  

In the case of the community funded 'basic aid' districts, this means shedding property taxes from April's disbursement that won't be replenished until December.  Palo Alto Unified, for example, carried 24% forward -- about $40 million -- but that $40 million was needed to cover its August, September, October and November bills (Palo Alto expends about $170 million total each year to educate its students).

In the case of the state-funded districts, this will leave them extraordinarily vulnerable to state revenue or property tax swings.  They will be allowed only $86 million of the total, yet were owed $154 million at the end of 2012, $49 million at the end of 2013, and $103 million this June 30th.

Note that Alum Rock Union Elementary, Evergreen Elementary, Franklin-McKinley Elementary, and Gilroy Unified are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification their financial conditions during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, these four school districts would have to pay down $19 million of their total ongoing operating funds were the state 'school saving account' to receive any deposits.

Santa Clara data table


Los Angeles

Los Angeles County school districts will have to shed an estimated $1 billion when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. The cap will force the reduction of Los Angeles County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 12% now, to just 5%.  (Los Angeles Unified will be capped at 3%; Long Beach Unified at 4%; most smaller districts at 6%).

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education (CDE) and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Los Angeles County schools will be allowed to carry a cushion of just $575 million forward, yet the state owed them $2,500 million at the end of 2012 (yes, $2.5 billion), $1,500 million at the end of 2013, and $1,200 million just this June 30th.

As you can see from the downloadable table below, LA Unified, for example, would just get to hold $170 million -- yet the state owed it $1 billion when school let out in June 2012, and $600 million both last year and this June 30th.  LA Unified is also perennially in "qualified financial certification" (based on the CDE's current projections, it may not meet its financial obligations for the current or next two financial years), but would nevertheless be expected to spend down $360 million of its reserves before the end of the school year.

Note that many other districts are shown in red because the CDE "qualified" its certification of the districts' financial conditions during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, these districts would have to pay down millions of their total ongoing operating funds were the State's 'school savings account' to receive any deposits.

 Los Angeles data table


Orange

Orange County school districts will have to shed an estimated $395 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  Some of this will be parcel and property tax collected by its community funded basic aid districts in Irvine, Laguna Beach and Newport-Mesa.  These districts will not be receive any more property tax until December of the year, presumably forcing them to borrow.

The cap will force the reduction of Orange County's school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 16% now, to just 5%.  Anaheim Union High, Capistrano Unified, Garden Grove Unified, and Santa Ana Unified will be capped at 4%.  Other districts will be capped at 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Orange County schools will be allowed to carry just $193 million forward.  

In the case of the community funded 'basic aid' districts, this means shedding property taxes from April's disbursement that won't be replenished until December.  Irvine Unified, for example, carried 21% forward -- about $48 million -- but that $48 million was needed to cover its August, September, October and November bills (Irvine expends about $221 million total each year).

In the case of the state funded districts, this will leave them extraordinarily vulnerable to state revenue or property tax swings.  They will be allowed only $164 million of the total, yet were owed $568 million at the end of 2012, $137 million at the end of 2013, and $245 million this June 30th.

Note that many districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification their financial conditions during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, these school districts would have to pay down $119 million of their total ongoing operating funds were the PSSSA to receive any deposits.

Orange data table


Riverside

Riverside County school districts will have to shed an estimated $230 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Riverside school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 13% now, to just 5%.  The largest districts, Corona-Norco, Moreno Valley, and Riverside Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry just 6%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Riverside County schools will be allowed to carry just $155 million forward -- yet the State had not paid Riverside districts $643 million it owed them in June 2012, $303 million in June 2013, and $287 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Note that nine of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, they will have to spend $27 million of their ongoing operating funds when the State's 'School Savings Account' receives any deposits.  Note also that the average reserves carried by these districts is just 8%, while the healthier districts carry an average of 16%.  

Riverside data table


San Bernardino

San Bernardino County school districts will have to shed an estimated $400 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of San Bernardino school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 19% now, to just 6%.  The largest districts, San Bernardino City and Fontana Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry only 6%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  San Bernardino County schools will be allowed to carry just $160 million forward -- yet the State had not paid San Bernardino districts $288 million it owed them just this June 30th (two years after Prop 30 passed).  $160 million is peanuts compared with the $722 million the State owed them in June 2012 and the $427 million in June 2013.

Note that eight of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend over $20 million of their ongoing operating funds when the State's "school savings account" receives any deposits.  Note also that the average reserves carried by these districts is just 8%, while the healthier districts carry an average of 21%.

San Bernardino data table


Fresno

Fresno County school districts will have to shed an estimated $188 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Fresno County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 17% now, to just 5%.  The largest districts, Fresno and Clovis Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry only 6% and the smallest ones a bit more.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Fresno County schools will be allowed to carry just $75 million forward -- yet the State had not paid Fresno districts $139 million it owed them just this June 30th (two years after Prop 30 passed).  Worse yet, $75 million is peanuts compared with the $345 million the State owed them in June 2012 and the $223 million in June 2013.

Note that one of the districts shown is in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of this district's financial condition during 2013-2014 period.  Despite its challenged financial state, this tiny district would have to spend over $300K of its ongoing operating funds when the State "school savings account" receives any deposits. 

Fresno data table


Sacramento

Sacramento County school districts will have to shed an estimated $140 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Sacramento school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 13% now, to just 5%.  The largest districts, Sacramento City, San Juan and Elk Grove Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry only 6%.  

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Sacramento County schools will be allowed to carry just $81 million forward -- yet the State had not paid Sacramento districts $178 million it owed them just this June 30th (two years after Prop 30 passed).  $81 million is peanuts compared with the $377 million the State owed them in June 2012 and the $275 million in June 2013.

Note that six of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend over $50 million of their ongoing operating funds when the state's "school savings account" receives any deposits!  Note also that the average reserves carried by these districts is just 9%, while the healthier districts carry an average of 16%.

Sacramento data table


Ventura

Ventura County school districts will have to shed over $50 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Ventura school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 11% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Instead of being able to rebuild reserves, now that the worst of the State's wall-of-debt deferrals is supposed to be over, Ventura County schools will be forced to carry just $65 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Ventura County districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid Ventura districts $167 million it owed them in June 2012, $77 million in June 2013, and $78 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).  Districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that two of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Note also that the average reserves carried by these districts is just 6%, while the healthier districts carry an average of 12%.  

Ventura data table


Monterey

Monterey County school districts will have to shed an estimated $88 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Monterey school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 22% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. Monterey County schools will be allowed to carry just $34 million forward.

Even more irrationally, the two community-funded districts in the county, Carmel and Pacific Grove Unified, would be forced to spend down over $20 million of property taxes that they need for fall operations. Property and parcel taxes are disbursed in April and December (when the semi-annual installments are paid by taxpayers). So April's disbursement has to fund August, September, October and November expenditures. These funds would have to borrowed, substituting debt service costs for instructional investments.

And, when the next downturn hits, Monterey County districts will have almost no cushion -- $34 million wouldn't cover any of the State's recent deferrals.  The State had not paid Monterey County districts $95 million it owed them in June 2012, $50 million in June 2013, and $36 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that two of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of these districts' financial condition as Negative during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend $450,000 of their ongoing operating funds when the state's school 'savings' account receives any deposits.

Monterey data table


Kern

Kern County school districts will have to shed an estimated $200 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of Kern County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 20% now, to just 6%. The largest district, Kern Union High, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry only 6% and the smallest ones a bit more.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. Kern County schools will be allowed to carry just $81 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Kern County districts will have almost no local cushion. In this last downturn, note that the State had not paid Kern districts $289 million it owed them in June 2012, $171 million in June 2013, and $156 million just this June 30th -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

Districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that five of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend down over $4 million of their ongoing operating funds when the state school 'savings' account receives any deposits.

Kern data table


Santa Barbara

Santa Barbara County school districts will have to shed an estimated $85 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. Almost half of this will be parcel and property tax collected by its community-funded basic aid districts. These districts will not be receive any more property tax until December of the year, presumably forcing them to borrow.

The cap will force the reduction of Santa Barbara County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 23% now, to just 6%. The smallest districts (under 1000 students) will be allowed to carry 8-10%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. Santa Barbara County schools will be allowed to carry just $33 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Santa Barbara County districts will have almost no local cushion. In this last downturn, note that the State had not paid Santa Barbara districts $66 million it owed them in June 2012, $33 million in June 2013, and $37 million just this June 30th -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

Had the $33 million limit been in place, districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that Los Olivos Elementary is shown in red because the California Department of Education "qualified" its certification of Los Olivos Elementary's financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite questions about its financial state, Los Olivos would have to pay down almost $400,000 of its ongoing operating funds, were the school 'rainy day fund' to receive any deposits.

Santa Barbara data table


San Diego

San Diego County school districts will have to shed an estimated $320 million of local reserves and operating funds when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of San Diego County school districts' local funds from an average of 22% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. San Diego County schools will be allowed to carry just $194 million forward.

Even more irrationally, the eight community-funded basic-aid districts in the county would be forced to spend down over $70 million of property taxes that they need for fall operations. Property and parcel taxes are disbursed in April and December (when the semi-annual installments are paid by taxpayers). So April's disbursement has to fund August, September, October and November expenditures. These funds would have to borrowed, substituting debt service costs for instructional investments.

And, when the next downturn hits, San Diego County districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid San Diego County districts $480 million it owed them in June 2012, $181 million in June 2013, and $207 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that four of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of these districts' financial condition as Qualified or Negative during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend $16,600,000 of their ongoing operating funds when the state's school 'savings' account receives any deposits.

San Diego data table


Humboldt

Humboldt County school districts will have to shed an estimated $29 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of Humboldt County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 29% now, to just 8%. The largest districts, Eureka City, Fortuna Elementary, McKinleyville Union Elementary, and Northern Humboldt Union High, will be allowed just 6%, while most districts can carry 8% and the smallest ones a bit more.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. Humboldt County schools will be allowed to carry just $10 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Humboldt County districts will have almost no local cushion. In this last downturn, note that the State had not paid Humboldt districts $17 million it owed them in June 2012, $6 million in June 2013, and $6 million just this June 30th -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

Districts would have been hard pressed to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that two of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend down over $8 million of their ongoing operating funds when the state school 'savings' account receives any deposits!

Humboldt data table


San Joaquin

San Joaquin County school districts will have to shed an estimated $187 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of San Joaquin County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 25% now, to just 5%. The largest district, Stockton Unified, will be allowed just 4%, while most districts can carry only 6% and the smallest ones a bit more.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. San Joaquin County schools will be allowed to carry just $52 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, San Joaquin County districts will have no local cushion. In this last downturn, note that the State had not paid San Joaquin districts $223 million it owed them in June 2012, $143 million in June 2013, and $120 million just this June 30th -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

Districts would have been unable to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

San Joaquin County school boards have shown themselves to be financially prudent protectors of their districts' educational stability. Local control of local reserves makes the only sense for San Joaquin's children.

San Joaquin data table


Stanislaus

Stanislaus County school districts will have to shed an estimated $125 million when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of Stanislaus County school districts' local carryover funds from an average of 23% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.

Stanislaus County schools will be allowed to carry just $47 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Stanislaus County districts will have almost local cushion. In this last downturn, note that the State had not paid Stanislaus districts $151 million it owed them in June 2012, $91 million in June 2013, and $91 million just this June 30th -- two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed.

Districts would have been hard pressed to fund these internally; instead they would have had to borrow or slash instruction.

Note that three of the districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of these districts' financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial state, these financially challenged districts will have to spend down over $4 million of their ongoing operating funds when the state school 'savings' account receives any deposits!

Stanislaus data table


Placer

Placer County school districts will have to shed an estimated $80 million of local reserves and operating funds when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Placer County school districts' local funds from an average of 23% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Placer County schools will be allowed to carry just three weeks of operating expenses, $28 million, forward.  

Even more irrationally, the community-funded Tahoe-Truckee basic-aid district would be forced to spend down over $8 million of property taxes that it needs for fall operations.  Property and parcel taxes are disbursed in April and December (when the semi-annual installments are paid by taxpayers).  So April's disbursement has to fund August, September, October and November expenditures.  These funds would have to borrowed, substituting debt service costs for instructional investments.

And, when the next downturn hits, Placer County districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid Placer County districts $60 million it owed them in June 2012, $22 million in June 2013, and $15 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).  

Note that one district is shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of its financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite its challenged financial state, this district will have to spend down $900,000 of its ongoing operating funds when the state's school 'savings' account receives any deposits.  

Placer County school boards have shown themselves to be financially prudent protectors of their districts' educational stability.  Local control of local reserves makes the only sense for Placer County's children.


Marin

Marin County school districts will have to shed an estimated $68 million of local reserves and operating funds when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Marin County school districts' local funds from an average of 27% now, to just 6%.    

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Marin County schools will be allowed to carry just $21 million forward.

Even more irrationally, the dozen community-funded districts in Marin would be forced to spend down over $50 million of property taxes that they need for fall operations.  These districts educate half of Marin's students.  Property and parcel taxes are disbursed in April and December (when the semi-annual installments are paid by taxpayers).  So April's disbursement has to fund August, September, October and November expenditures.  These funds would have to borrowed, substituting debt service costs for instructional investments.

And, when the next downturn hits, Marin County's large state-funded districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid these Marin County districts $16 million it owed them in June 2012, $13 million in June 2013, and $8 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).  

Marin County school boards have shown themselves to be financially prudent protectors of their districts' educational stability.  Not one Marin district is listed as "negative" or "qualified" on the Department of Education's financial watch list.  Local control of local property tax funds and reserves makes the only sense for Marin County's children.

Marin data table


Sonoma

Sonoma County school districts will have to shed an estimated $83 million of local reserves and operating funds when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account.  This will force the reduction of Sonoma County school districts' local funds from an average of 22% now, to just 6%.    

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years.  Sonoma County schools will be allowed to carry just $35 million forward.

Even more irrationally, the 11 community-funded ('basic-aid') districts would be forced to spend down $22 million of property taxes that they need for fall operations.  Property and parcel taxes are disbursed in April and December (when the semi-annual installments are paid by taxpayers).  So April's disbursement has to fund August, September, October and November expenditures.  These funds would have to borrowed, substituting debt service costs for instructional investments.

And, when the next downturn hits, Sonoma County's state-funded districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid these Sonoma County districts $44 million it owed them in June 2012, $5 million in June 2013, and $6 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).  

Note that four districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of their financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period.  Despite their challenged financial states, these districts will have to spend down $3 million of their ongoing operating funds when the state's school 'savings' account receives any deposits.

Sonoma County, like Marin next door, has a large proportion of small rural districts.  Across the state, small districts have tried to hold higher proportional reserves than large urban districts to buffer their children from single large expenses (a new schoolbus, seismic retrofit, etc.) since they do not have the staff to lobby Sacramento in person or negotiate extensive financing.

Sonoma County school boards have shown themselves to be financially prudent protectors of their districts' educational stability.  Local control of local reserves makes the only sense for Sonoma County's children.

Sonoma data table


Tulare

Tulare County school districts will have to shed an estimated $157 million of local reserves and operating funds when the first dollar goes into Proposition 2's School Account. This will force the reduction of Tulare County school districts' local funds from an average of 28% now, to just 6%.

Compare these allowed carryovers with California Department of Education and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations of a MINIMUM of 15-17% in reserves -- and the state's late payments to schools in all recent fiscal years. Tulare County schools will be allowed to carry just $48 million forward.

When the next downturn hits, Tulare County's state-funded districts will have almost no cushion -- note that the State had not paid Tulare County districts $169 million it owed them in June 2012, $114 million in June 2013, and $95 million just this June 30th, a few months ago (incidentally, two fiscal years after Prop 30 passed).

Note that two districts are shown in red because the California Department of Education qualified its certification of their financial condition during some or all of the 2012-2014 period. Despite their challenged financial states, these districts will have to spend down $130,000 of their ongoing operating funds when the state's school 'savings' account receives any deposits.

Tulare County has a large proportion of small rural districts. Across the state, small districts have tried to hold higher proportional reserves than large urban districts to buffer their children from single large expenses (a new schoolbus, seismic retrofit, etc.) since they do not have the staff to lobby Sacramento in person or negotiate extensive financing.

Tulare County school boards have shown themselves to be financially prudent protectors of their districts' educational stability. Local control of local reserves makes the only sense for Tulare County's children.

Tulare data table


Was this helpful?

Stay Updated!

Sign up for updates on how you can stand with Educate Our State: