The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Board of Education will hear a report this week analyzing the potential financial viability of separating Santa Monica and Malibu’s school districts, which have formed a less than perfect union for several decades.
The SMMUSD’s Financial Oversight Committee (FOC), the group that spent the last year preparing the report, is expected to give a green light to the prospect of separation, officially called “unification,” of the two districts, citing only one potential so-called deal breaker.
“Deal breakers would have been any number of issues that might have caused one district or the other to potentially be at risk or create some risk for kids,” said Seth Jacobson. Jacobson serves as a leader in Advocates for Malibu Public Schools (AMPS) and a member of the FOC Unification Bond Subcommittee. “Essentially, there were no deal breakers.”
“It’s not ‘woohoo,’ cracking champagne bottles, but it’s better off, and that’s really what we’re going for. It’s kind of the perfect result,” said SMMUSD Board Member and former AMPS President Craig Foster. Foster is also a board liaison to the FOC Unification Bond Subcommittee.
The one issue is that of the ongoing and potential future lawsuits surrounding toxic substances in Malibu schools.
Since high PCB levels at Malibu High School came to light in October 2013, a heated debate has erupted as to the safest way to proceed with testing and cleanup. In March, America Unites (formerly Malibu Unites), an activist group mostly made up of current and former Malibu parents, filed a lawsuit against the SMMUSD.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were a common building material in the mid-20th century, but were later discovered to be hazardous substances and were broadly banned.
“Based on research and analysis carried out by this subcommittee and discussions by the full FOC, the FOC identified the existing claim and potential future claims against the District and certain of its officials arising from alleged toxic substances and remediation practices at certain Malibu schools as the only potential ‘deal breaker’ within the context of the allocation of assets and liabilities,” reads the text of the memorandum.
This issue is resolvable, according to Foster.
“What the Malibu folks have said is that they would be happy to indemnify Santa Monica,” Foster said, with the exception of hypothetical personal injury lawsuits stemming from exposure to toxic substances.
“What Malibu has not agreed to — explicitly not agreed to — is to take responsibility for personal injury lawsuits. [None] exist [at this time], but if they do, the Malibu people have said they’re not going to take responsibility for that,” Foster said.
The FOC’s 11-page study goes over both the operating budget and the capital budget, sharing information that AMPS’s previous independent studies could not.
“What we didn’t know, because [AMPS] didn’t have access to the budgeting numbers of the district, is what the costs would be in an independent district,” Foster said.
“The sum of the two operating budgets would be more favorable than the current budget,” Foster described. In other words, not only would each district stand to make more money in its day-to-day operations, but even with the increased costs accrued by going through a separation, including hiring new staff and holding an election for a new board, each district would benefit.
“We always knew there was more revenue for both districts on their own. Malibu becomes a basic aid district, it lives off its existing property taxes. That would be significantly more money than we currently get as [part of] our Santa Monica School District,” Foster said. “At the same time… Santa Monica would get a couple of million dollars back.” Currently, a large portion of Santa Monica’s budgetary contributions to the district go to Malibu.
The findings are scheduled to be presented to the SMMUSD Board of Education on Wednesday, July 15. District spokespeople stated they will not comment until after the presentation.