Home » Measure E, Special Reports

MEASURE E: A bit on the budget

Submitted by on 1, May 26, 2010 – 5:00 am11 Comments

Alameda voters are being asked to decide whether to replace the Island’s existing school parcel taxes with a replacement tax that is expected to generate $14 million for Alameda’s schools. If the Measure E parcel tax is approved by voters, homeowners and owners of multi-unit buildings up to four units will pay $659 a year for the next eight years to fund schools, while commercial property owners and owners of multi-unit buildings with five units or more will pay 13 cents per square foot of lot per parcel. The mail-only ballot for Measure E is set to go out this week, and ballots are due in by June 22. The Island has put together a series of articles intended to flesh out issues associated with the tax.

Third of four parts.

The Board of Education’s decision to put a new parcel tax on the ballot – Alameda Unified’s third parcel tax request in a decade – has prompted questions about how much money the school district has and how it is spent.

District leaders have said they are asking for the new tax, which would replace both existing parcel taxes and increase the amount the district would collect, because millions of dollars in state funding reductions would force them to make draconian cuts that would damage the quality of education they can provide. But opponents have questioned that assertion, saying they think the district has more room to make cuts than its leaders admit.

The Island took a look at five years’ worth of budget data in an effort to provide a clearer picture of Alameda Unified’s budget. Most of the numbers come from Ed-Data, the state’s online resource for school district financial, demographic and performance data, and are unaudited budget numbers the school district reported to the state. (I also checked the Alameda County Office of Education’s District Finance Reports to confirm the numbers.) The 2009-10 numbers come from the district’s interim budget reports.

The numbers show that the district’s revenues have ridden a roller coaster over the past half-decade that is now making a sharp drop, while expenses have continued to rise.

Like most school districts, Alameda Unified’s main source of funding is the State of California. Of the $92.3 million in revenues the district received in 2008-09 per Ed-Data, $68 million came from the state (the amount includes $19.2 million in property taxes and money from local redevelopment agencies, according to Ed-Data, though that number wasn’t available in the county’s report).

But the state’s finances, like the rest of the economy, have been in a tailspin. And that has meant less money for everything, including schools.

Alameda Unified is on track to receive $8.5 million less from the state for this school year than it did in 2008-09, based on figures reported to Ed-Data and Alameda County and the district’s most recent budget estimates, and $15.3 million less from the state than it did in 2005-06.

Much of the decline can be attributed to cuts to the state’s “revenue limit” funding, which is the amount of money the state allows the district to spend to cover each student’s general educational expenses. The district’s “revenue limit” includes the property taxes I mentioned earlier, and the state chips in the rest. This year, district is facing an estimated revenue limit cut of $7.5 million according to the district’s most recent budget estimates.

Federal funding, which more than doubled between 2007-08 and 2008-09, is estimated to come in at about $6.6 million for the 2009-10 school year, a $2.7 million decline from 2008-09. But local revenue sources – which include the Measures A and H parcel taxes – have grown, from $5 million in 2005-06 to $14.9 million in 2008-09 (though the district has budgeted $14.1 million for this year).

As revenues have declined, the district’s expenses have gone up.

Alameda Unified’s primary expense is people. The cost of salaries and benefits for teachers, administrators and support staff rose by $5.3 million between 2005-06 and 2008-09, and could increase by another $3.1 million this year, the district’s most recent budget estimates show. Salaries and benefits are on track to cost the district $71.4 million of the $91.2 million they estimate they will spend, and could account for around 78 percent of the district’s budget this year.

Ed-Data shows the district with the full-time equivalent of 514.2 teachers and administrators and 355 support staff in 2008-09 (the site said the district had 28 administrators, a number that includes principals). In the meantime, the number of K-12 students the state was paying Alameda Unified to educate was 9,550, a county finance report shows.

Books and supplies are on track to cost more than double than the $2.25 million they were budgeted for (the district spent $3.7 million on books and supplies last year, according to Ed-Data and the county office of ed).

Services and other expenses – a category that includes consulting and professional services, housekeeping, insurance, travel and other expenses – could cost more than $13 million this year, up from $11.5 million in 2008-09 and $5.6 million in 2005-06, though the category includes a line item for $2.2 million in grant-funded contracts that wasn’t listed there in Ed-Data in 2005-06.

It’s hard to say exactly where the district will end up because it budget estimates fluctuate through the course of the year. At this point, district officials say they are using more than $10 million in prior years’ savings to bridge the gap – money they’ll have a whole lot less of to rely on next year.

The school board has signed off on $2.5 million in cuts for next year if the parcel tax passes, and $7.3 million if it doesn’t. In the meantime, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing additional cuts that could cost the district another $2.4 million next year – though Democrats in the state Legislature have reportedly put forward a budget proposal that could provide more money for education.

Thursday: Who pays what?

Day one: Parents get political

Day two: Businesses and the bottom line


  • Jesse says:

    Thanks for the info. This is a tough one, but since I moved here in large part for the schools, an extra $650 a year is worth it. That’s not to say I know where it’s going to come from!

  • David Hart says:

    It’s an extra $350/year, not $650.

  • Allan Mann says:

    Very informative piece. The only thing missing is data on the decline in student enrollment over the same period and how that compares with decreases in revenue and increases in expenses.

    • Hey Allan,

      Thanks for your comment. If you go back to 2000-01, Alameda Unified had the full-time equivalent of about 535 teachers and 40 administrators, and was being paid to educate 10,209 kids (the former number comes from Ed-Data; the latter, from the Alameda County Office of Education). In 2008-09, Ed-Data says we had the full-time equivalent of 514.2 teachers and 28 administrators, and the number of kids the state paid us to educate – our P-2 ADA – was 9,550 kids, per the county.

      Next fall, the district will see lower enrollment as kids leave the district for the Chipman charter, and the district will also increase K-3 and grade 9 class sizes. And it’s not clear how much money they will have next year. With all those things in mind, the school board has approved layoff notices for 130 teachers and administrators.

      One thing I meant to add (and sorry for the late addition) – I had actually had a paragraph in the story addressing this bit originally, but as a caveat I wanted to mention that I was told that the Ed-Data numbers can be a bit squishy (like their P-2 numbers, which are different from what is contained in the county reports). Which is why I backstopped these numbers with the ones in the county finance reports (which the folks at the district said are better numbers) wherever possible.

  • Chrissy says:

    No, its an extra $530.

  • Chrissy says:

    I re-read the measure E–I am correcting myself–both parcel taxes would be replaced for the one–so yes extra $350.

  • James says:

    Can somebody clarify that AUSD employees are still getting raises? Specifically, does Vital’s contract include a 3% annual raise?

  • Mike says:

    “Services and other expenses – a category that includes consulting and professional services, housekeeping, insurance, travel and other expenses – could cost more than $13 million this year, up from $11.5 million in 2008-09 and $5.6 million in 2005-06, though the category includes a line item for $2.2 million in grant-funded contracts that wasn’t listed there in Ed-Data in 2005-06.”

    On the surface, the drop in administrators looks like a greater proportion of employees engaged in actually teaching. However, the increase in service costs may hide the fact it’s relatively easy to take administrative tasks and outsource them to companies providing services.

    For instance, a district could have an admin employee run the website. Or, it could outsource it and have fewer admin employees, but no savings in actual cost. Ergo, administration may or may not be any more efficient or lean as indicated by a drop in head count… just outsourced, a smaller admin employee count, and harder to track.

  • M. Carey says:

    Michelle: In your article, per Ed-Data, in 2008-09 AUSD received $92.3 million in revenues to educate 9,550 K-12 students. This equates to a tax payer cost of $9664.92 per Alameda K-12 student. Do you have more recent data? In conducting your research, were you able to analyze school capacity enrollment with actual student enrollment? I am not referring to teacher: student ratios. Each school is designed and built to accommodate X number of students. There’s a belief that actual Alameda school capacity outweighs actual Alameda K-12 student enrollment; and rather than consolidate to match capacity with Alameda’s K-12 student population, AUSD increases parcel taxes and imports off-island students in order to collect their per head subsidy from the state.


    • Hey M,

      Thanks for your comment. I don’t think we will have anything resembling a true picture of how the 2009-10 budget will shake out until the end of the summer at the earliest, unfortunately, so I’m reluctant to offer any numbers we have for this year as gospel.

      On questions of school capacity, I think your best source of info would be the facilities master plan the district conducted earlier in the year. It’s on the district’s website on the BOE documents page, and was discussed on January 12 (listed erroneously I think as January 12, 2009). I know the back and forth on the school board on this issue has been that Trish Spencer has basically asked whether schools could be closed and combined, and other members of the board have said that wasn’t their takeaway from the report (and I’d have to go back and look at the actual numbers). And board opponents of the closures have basically questioned whether a closure would save money – and specifically an elementary closure – because if they lose 60 students because their parents are not happy their school closed, it would cancel out the savings closing that school could generate. And folks here have said they really, really want small schools.

      The numbers I have on out of district students are from an October 2009 report, which says the district had 186 out of district kids at our high schools (including 118 at Encinal High and 61 at ASTI), 37 at our middle schools and 79 at our elementary schools, with 55 of those in the West End (and 30 at Washington). Some of those I believe are children whose parents teach here, but I don’t have that number at my fingertips.

  • Tony says:

    Don’t forget! The entire country is in a financial crisis.
    The solution is to think outside the box.
    1. No more raises for anyone in the district. People in the
    private sector are taking pay cuts to keep their jobs. Why
    can’t the district do the same?
    2. Have a salary cap of $100,000 for everyone in the district,
    including the superintentant and reduce the number of administrators.
    The highest expense in any business, or government agency is payroll. You Must Control Payroll.

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.