I have not decided how I will vote on the $96 parcel tax
proposed to provide added funding to the Hollister School District.
My decision will hinge on the actions the district has taken since
it became aware of its problems and whether the proposals going
forward are likely to be efficient and effective.
I have not decided how I will vote on the $96 parcel tax proposed to provide added funding to the Hollister School District. My decision will hinge on the actions the district has taken since it became aware of its problems and whether the proposals going forward are likely to be efficient and effective.
Some of the district’s difficulties, such as the size and distribution of California’s state budget, are completely beyond district control. But many others, such as fiscal planning, securing added state and federal funding and keeping costs under control, are among its primary responsibilities.
Once a parcel tax is approved, the voters will have very little leverage. School districts follow the public agency battle plan of picking election cycles that favor approval and making commitments to process, not results. Process promises may have little relationship to efficient or effective performance. My advice is, do not sell your vote or your children’s future too cheaply. This is a negotiation; if the voters want real change, now is the time to get it – in writing.
Voters should carefully study the Hollister School District Financial Report issued January 20, 2010 by FCMAT, the state’s Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team to start. Much of the following came from that report, which is available on line at wwwstatic.kern.org.
FCMAT did a comprehensive examination of HSD’s financial condition including fiscal management, multiyear financial projections and a comparative salary/benefit analyses in late 2009. The report contained 29 specific recommendations including this dire warning, “The district should begin preparing immediately for a period of fiscal instability.”
It compared HSD’s data with 12 other elementary school districts of similar type, size and funding and to the statewide average for all elementary school districts.
Overall, HSD was underfunded. Total revenue per enrollment was $8,426, ranking 11 of the 13 selected districts. This was $412 dollars lower than the average of both the 12 other districts and the statewide average. If HSD had attained either average, it would have added $2.4 million to that budget.
Some of the shortfall, $1 million, was due to lower local revenue, probably taxes. However, a larger portion of the shortfall, up to $1.37 million, was due to lower revenue from state and federal sources. What were these funding opportunities? Has the district taken action to secure the maximum in both state and federal funding since?
In total, HSD over-spent on salaries and benefits per enrollment compared to the 12 district and the statewide averages, especially considering its lower-than-average funding. Salary and benefit costs were critical since they represented more than $38 million – 93.5 percent – of the 2009-10 unrestricted general fund budget and 86 percent of the total budget.
Certified salaries per enrollment were $4,581, second of 13 of districts, classified salaries $1,098, ranking 10 of 13 districts while benefits were $1,778 ranking second in that group again. If HSD had maintained the average salary and benefit costs of the 12 comparable districts, it would have saved $1.7 million that year. If it had maintained the statewide average, it would have saved even more, $2.2 million.
The report did not contain personnel breakdowns by position or data such as student-teacher ratios, so one cannot identify exactly where the expenses applied. Perhaps HSD has more certified employees per student than other districts.
The combination of lower than average revenues and high than average costs generates red ink. The forecast for Base Year 2009-10 was a $3.1 million deficit, for 2010-11 a $4.7 million deficit and for 2011-12 a $5.7 million deficit. How are those forecasts panning out?
All the financial issues that existed more than a year ago must be evaluated again to determine if we’ve made progress worthy of taxpayer support. Additionally, voters should be evaluating the district’s primary function – providing a quality education to its students. It looks as if we have our work cut out for us.
Marty Richman is a Hollister resident.
