LTCC, LTUSD officials relieved Prop. 30 passes


By Kathryn Reed

California lawmakers have a handful of years to figure out a more sustainable way to fund K-14 education. That is because the tax measure approved Nov. 6 by voters will expire.

“I’ve been dealing with finances in community colleges for the last 12, 13 year and it’s been unstable the whole time,” Kindred Murillo, Lake Tahoe Community College president, told Lake Tahoe News.

Jim Tarwater, superintendent of Lake Tahoe Unified School District, said it is long overdue for Sacramento to get its act together.

“What they have got to have is stability. There is not an organization or company around that doesn’t know how much money it has to function,” Tarwater said. He doesn’t understand how lawmakers ever rationalized taking money away from K-12 midyear when those dollars had been allocated.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s efforts paid off on election night. Photo/Los Angeles Times

LTCC and LTUSD, respectively, would have faced $632,000 and $1.6 million in cuts this fiscal year had Proposition 30 failed. With contracts in place, cutting people midyear is not a possibility.

For now though, both institutions can breath a sigh of relief. And both can put a few dollars back into reserves that were designated to cover the potential state take-away.

The anticipated revenue to be gained via Proposition 30 is estimate at $6 billion annually for education, with 89 percent for K-12 and 11 percent for community colleges. This will come from starting this tax year by increasing taxes on those who make more than $250,000, as well as upping the sales tax one-quarter cent to 7½ percent beginning Jan. 1. The income tax is for seven years and the sales tax for four.

While the money will go for several things, the bulk is allocated toward education.

People in all capacities of education are hailing the approval of Proposition 30 as a victory for schoolchildren. The measure passed with 53.9 percent of the voters saying yes.

“This is a great win for our schools and public safety. Our local schools will not face more cuts this school year and in the near future. The voters of California have stood up to support our schools and we are all grateful,” Mike Patterson, a past president of the local teachers’ union and member of the state union, told Lake Tahoe News.

For LTUSD, it means programs will not have to be cut. Nor will the school year be shortened by 12 days.

When it comes to people, in the last four years about two dozen teachers have been let go, mostly through attrition; that many classified employees have received pink slips; and the administration has cut nine jobs.

“For California community colleges it will finally allow us to begin adding back some of the thousands of classes we have been forced to cut since we began this nightmare of educational rationing in 2008,” Brice Harris, California Community Colleges chancellor, said in a statement. “With this vote of support from California’s citizens, community colleges will receive $210 million in additional funding this year. This should allow us to serve an additional 20,000 students statewide and to begin erasing the financial deferrals that have plagued our budgets in recent years.”

Since 2008, the 112-college system has endured $809 million in cuts. It has meant cutting nearly a quarter of the classes that were once offered and losing about 500,000 students.

But according to Murillo, the next few years will be tough for community colleges because of how the state reimburses institutions. Core classes and sticking to the mission of providing transfer-remedial-career/tech courses will alter what is in the class schedule.

LTCC is reviewing all of its classes with the goal of by early next year to have a firm grasp of what people will be able to repeat, what the state will pay for, what must stay in a certificated program and everything in between.

Plus, in two years the college will have to deal with the priority registration mandate coming down from Sacramento.

Here is how all the California propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot did:

Proposition Title





Yes 30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education 4,959,206 53.9% 4,241,246 46.1%
No 31 State Budget, State and Local Government 3,369,175 39.2% 5,220,193 60.8%
No 32 Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction 3,973,720 43.9% 5,086,590 56.1%
No 33 Auto Insurance Prices Based on Driver History 4,046,275 45.4% 4,872,423 54.6%
No 34 Death Penalty 4,269,535 47.2% 4,776,815 52.8%
Yes 35 Human Trafficking 7,309,737 81.1% 1,698,939 18.9%
Yes 36 Three Strikes Law 6,181,771 68.6% 2,826,624 31.4%
No 37 Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling 4,277,985 46.9% 4,835,045 53.1%
No 38 Tax for Education. Early Childhood Programs 2,489,028 27.7% 6,495,745 72.3%
Yes 39 Business Tax for Energy Funding 5,295,968 60.1% 3,522,579 39.9%
Yes 40 Redistricting State Senate 6,068,518 71.4% 2,427,514 28.6%

Source: California Secretary of State


About author

This article was written by admin


Comments (38)
  1. Bob says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    I wonder if I could collect on a tax to pay my bills? Seems I’m paying for everyone else’s food stamps, unemployment, laziness and now loss of students.

  2. Parker says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    How much does someone want to wager that in 2yrs., they’ll cry again about being underfunded?

  3. David Kelly says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    It’s time to stop TAXES us!

  4. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    David Kelly, let’s see the cost to middle class is nill. If you spent $10,000 on taxable items next year you would pay an extra $25 (increase in sales tax of a quarter of 1%), almost nothing. If you are single, you will pay 1% more on taxable income over $250,000 and a married couple making $500,000 (that is you pay the amount on taxable income over $500,000). It goes up to a max of 3% of incomes much higher. So if you are blessed to make over $500,0000 (assuming you are married) that you will pay the extra tax on taxable income above that. If you make less, you will not be affected. Enjoy Rick

  5. David Kelly says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    How about sales tax for the poor

  6. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    If a poor person spends $5000 on taxable items during the year it would cost them about a $1/month more than they pay now or 25 cents a week.

    Dam facts are such a bummer for ideologues.

    Enjoy Rick

  7. Parker says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    The issue isn’t whether people can afford the new taxes. But keep in mind these seemingly small amounts are on top of already high taxes. It’s what this does to our struggling private sector economy. Does this tax incease in and of itself destroy it? No! But it’s another prick in it’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’!

    I predicted our schools will be clamoring for more funds in two years. That’s partially because, watch, you’ll see, our economy will still be in the doldrums and tax receipts will not be what’s projected!

  8. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    I’m sure you are aware that California is 35th on the list in per student $$. Less than $10,000/year/student. For a reality check – private schools run $15,000 plus a year and require/request parents donate another couple plus thousand a year on top of their tuition. $$$ is one of the key reasons that private schools do better; of course when those of us are fortunate enough to afford this type of education for our kids, we stay involved. So if I have to invest in education to ensure a competitive work force, than as a business owner who employs scientist, I want students to be given the best opportunity to compete.

    Enjoy, Rick

  9. John says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    Rick you have that a little backwards. The type of parent that sends their kid to private school is probably going to have high performing kids anyway. The private school is pretty irrelevent. Beyond procreation, the parent has very little to do with it other than having really good genes. Now that is a bit of an oversimplification, but twin studies have shown near equal performance in school even when separated and raised in very different environments. Now of course there are things like drinking alcohol, smoking or being abusive that can short circuit all of that. But by in large, my kids are probably going to do just fine, and really, I will have very little to do with it.

  10. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    John, you are relying on old studies and misinterpreting things to fit your preconceived notion. A 5 minute google search of scholarly articles found this. More effort would provide considerably more info to demonstrate your conclusions are suspect and simply wrong. And I quote

    “While disagreeing about the relative influence of the environment
    and genetics in the expression of certain traits, most
    social scientists probably agree that human traits and behaviors
    are influenced to some degree by both. However, until very
    recently, empirical work by social scientists has rarely recognized
    this, perhaps because we lacked DNA measures and perhaps
    because of the weaknesses of twin studies discussed earlier. The
    situation is beginning to change. As noted, molecular genetics
    has had remarkable success over the past twenty years in identifying
    the genes for simple, or Mendelian, traits. The human traits
    and behaviors that interest social scientists are almost always
    non-Mendelian and complex. For complex traits, twin studies
    remain important as an exploratory tool, and social science is
    indispensable to understanding environmental factors.”

    Twin studies will continue to inform us about the relative
    importance of genes and environment on traits in ways that no
    molecular genetic breakthrough can completely elucidate.
    Moreover, twin studies may help shed light on specific environmental
    factors that moderate a genetic predisposition toward a
    trait or behavior. Although molecular genetics now occupies
    center stage, twin studies will continue to make noteworthy
    contributions to understanding how environmental factors and
    genetics combine to create human traits and behaviors, a fundamental
    scientific enterprise for the 21st century.

    In short, the environment in conjunction with genetics (wow, it is not a dichotomy but a synergy) with enviornment determine a child’s advancement in education.

    And numerous studies provide amble evidence, money in education (to a point of course) matters.

    Enjoy Rick

  11. Dick Fox says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    The kind of parent that assumes that being born into money and being able to afford private schools signifies some genetic superiority and guaranteed success in academia is really an offensive personality type.

  12. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    You assume to much Dick. Having sufficient capacity to maximize a child’s opportunity does not guarantee success. But opportunity of going to good schools (in many cases by being lucky of ones parents economic status), living in a caring environment, and parent involvement does increase one’s odds.

    Enjoy, Rick

  13. Parker says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    With our state having high taxes, but yet low spending per student, it’s thus illustrated that more taxes aren’t a solution!

  14. Rick says - Posted: November 7, 2012

    Parker, you have a simplistic view of the world. Without the tax, education would be cut dramatically, further eroding our ability to compete. Solutions are several fold and will take time to right the ship. We need to reduce the size of the prison population, reduce pension obligations of public workers (which is occurring and more will probably happen) rethink the funding structure of education,etc. California is in the same boat as most states including Texas in terms of debt. The recession greatly reduced all state’s revenue, which is taking states a few years to solve.

    Enjoy, Rick

  15. Careaaboutthecommunity says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    Smarter kids don’t go to private school, kids that go to private school become smarter, usually smaller class size, so more 1:1 attention.

    They just have parents that can afford it, and want there kids to have the very best education. Not to say that all public schools are subpar, or all private schools are the best, but on average they are.

  16. Parker says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    Actually Rick, your view, the view that increased govt. spending equates to increased results, is the simplistic one. Let’s see where we are in two years: Are schools back to clamoring for more funding? Is our economy back to growing at a healthy pace? And has our state put true structural reforms in place?

    While I’m sure we’ll communicate on here before then, see you on this blog/article on 11/14! And here’s hoping that I’m wrong about the future!!

  17. Dogula says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    Care, just a note about your premise: I went to private school. We had 45 kids per class with one nun in the front of the room. No aids. Everyone in my graduating class was accepted to the college of their choice.
    It’s not about smaller class size. It’s about discipline and parental involvment.

  18. John says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    Dogula, yes that is partially true, but that doesnt mean we should give up on the kids without active and engaged parents. The fact is those kids exist in our society and they deserve a shot. Like I said before, my kids are going to be fine. The issue is how we treat kids from less fortunate backgrounds. And no I am not rich, just middle class. But my kids have a two parents and a loving household.

  19. Dogula says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    It’s not partially true. It IS true. Kids with discipline and parental involvement will do better. I didn’t say to give up on kids who don’t have those things. But you can’t keep throwing money at problems without a little evidence that it will work! And our current system is failing more people than it’s helping. In trying to benefit the ones who can’t or won’t succeed, are we hurting the ones who could? It seems to be that way too often.
    The ones who appear to benefit the most are the beuraucrats who are running the failing system. Not the kids.

  20. dan wilvers says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    dogula some heavy truth in what you wrote.

    particularly the first and last lines.

  21. TeaTotal says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    I think we should tax All the Churches to help pay for public education.

  22. fromform says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    entirely agree with you on this one item, tea total

  23. Carole says - Posted: November 8, 2012

    My taxes just went up and the money has to come from somewhere. My restaurant tips are now down to 15% from my usual 22%. Hairdresser and manicurist are out. I’ll do my own hair and nails. No more flowers for the house. Hope the vendor makes out ok. But Jerry Brown needs the money!

  24. Bob says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    I demand a recount. No one in their right mind would vote for a tax increase.

  25. Dick Fox says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    If you buy something for $1000 now that has sales tax your cost will increase from $1072.50 to $1075.00. Then again if your income is $250,000- millions or more you may have to kick in the same % as during the Clinton administration when the Dems balanced the budget to hand off to GW. You are foxinformed.

  26. Carole says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    Dick Fox – The Clinton administration was able to balance the budget because the boom generated a lot of tax dollars to the government. It had nothing to do with individual tax RATES, but the number of people with jobs that were paying taxes. Bill Clinton was one lucky man – the economy was fantastic IN SPITE OF his bad economic policies.

  27. Dick Fox says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    Geez Carole, I’m stumped.. or maybe I might as well be arguing with one. I’m out.

  28. Rick says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    Carole, your assessment is pure fantasy and is consistent with the talking heads on Fox trying to make up reasons why Romney lost. The GAO has noted that the Bush tax cuts (the bulk of it went to those making over $1 million) has cost this country $1.3 Trillion over the last decade. Not enough to balance the budget, but a big chunk of change we did not have to give out. In fact, the Congressional Research Service conducted a study commissioned by the Republicans that showed there was no relationship with cutting taxes on the wealthy and stimulating the economy – the republicans response, kill the report (but it came out against their wishes anyway). Something I might point out has been argued by a few Nobel Prize winning economists for some time. Milton Friedman’s “trickle down economics are pure fantasy. Warren Buffet has recently noted the concept is a joke.

    Enjoy, Rick

  29. John says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    Carole does have a point that Clinton’s surplus was due to taxes paid on capital gains due on the sale of inflated stocks priced with “irrational exuberance.” The capital gains rate was only 20%. It had nothing to do with tax rates. It wasnt that Clinton was lucky as much as it had to do with him being irrelevent. Just like every other President. Presidents do have a lot of power, but very little power over the economy. Bush on the other hand did have the power to start two wars and then Congress ignored their responsibility to pay for them.

  30. John says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    The last election was funny in that Romney and Obama were out there talking about creating jobs. They have absolutely no ability to do anything about that. Nothing without the full consent of both houses of Congress anyway. What was Romney going to do, or Obama now; be really grumpy if Congress doesnt do something? Presidents can start wars, appoint justices, enter into treaties; all real important stuff, but hardly earth shattering for the economy. Not unless Congress agrees.

  31. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    I will not be affected at all on the $250K tax, wish I was ;)

    I don’t spend that much in non-food purchases, maybe 5k the whole year, so this will be very little for me $10+/year is worth it to me.

    I do hope we can get to the point where all the budget of California is spent wisely, with controls, but at this point I feel our whole country is behind in education compared to the world, and we can’t afford to lose anymore ground.

  32. thing fish says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    I don’t know much about the Clinton economy, surplus, and capital gains tax. So I just spent awhile looking into it.
    Budget in FY1999: $1.7T
    Surplus in FY1999: $124B
    Capital Gains revenue in FY1999: $119B (peak)
    Capital Gains accounts for 3% on average, 7% in FY1999 at the peak.

    It seems to add up, I don’t know what % of the 1999 gains can be attributed to the tech sticks. It is interesting. I learned something.
    I don’t think you can say that the only reason Clinton ran a surplus was the tech boom though, it was a big factor though.

  33. John says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    Thing fish, of course its not the only reason. The tech boom did create cash and that cash has a multiplier effect that resonates through the economy. So in general we think each dollar earned will cause between 3 and 4 dollars of additional spending. That in turn creates more ordinary income and income tax on that ordinary income. The entire point though, the President is really unimportant in all of this. So the surplus was not Clinton’s, and the great recession is not Bush’s. However Bush can squarely be blamed for increasing his deficit by exercising the one power he did have. He had the power to cause war.

  34. Dogula says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    So, Care, since the tax increase does not directly affect you personally, that makes it okay?
    And people here keep accusing ME of being selfish.

  35. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: November 9, 2012

    It does affect me, I just feel it’s so small, and the benefit outweighs the pain.

  36. thing fish says - Posted: November 10, 2012

    Thanks for the info John. I like to break up my usual learning with something completely different.

  37. Parker says - Posted: November 10, 2012

    One thing that was also going on for 6 out of 8 of Clinton’s years was-divided govt! Neither party got to treat govt. revenue as its own piggy bank to blow as it saw fit!