Residents to be polled week of Jan. 6 on a new parcel tax measure.
By Carolanne Sudderth/Ocean Park Gazette
The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board approved additional monies towards the creation of a second parcel tax measure. In addition to finalizing the approval for a second poll, it also agreed to pay for second and third legal opinions on alternative, perhaps more palatable, types of assessments.
School district board members also voted on Dec. 19 to change the name of the Parcel Tax Committee to the committee to Save Our Schools, although board member Julia Brownley expressed concern that this was the name used by opponents of the previous measure during last month’s election campaign.
As behooves an educational body, the school board seems determined to take steps to learn from its mistakes-in this case the ballot measure that failed last November. In the face of additional budget cuts, the school board must decide whether a second go-round at a school tax is worth the cost of the campaign.
In addition to allocating $18,000 to Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin and Associates to poll some 400 residents during the week of Jan. 6, the board also approved additional funds for second and third opinions on the legal viability of whatever measure is concocted.
“Even though it does take public funds, I think that it’s the best thing to do in terms of bringing significant revenue into the district,” Brownley said.
Sounding a cautionary note, board member Shane McLoud recommended financial discretion.
“The most important thing is public credibility here,” he said.
Superintendent John Deasy said that groups are working to reimburse the district for the poll’s cost.
November’s measure would have placed a $300 flat tax on every property in the district. It would have supplied $9.6 million (plus cost of living increases) per annum for the next 12 years. Although it received a majority, total votes fell short of the 66 percent needed for passage.
Residents were polled prior to the first tax. At that time, the flat tax was the only option considered. The tax with the most chance of winning seemed to be $200. Parcel Tax Committee members adjudged that the difference between those willing to vote for $200 and those willing to vote for $300 was slight enough that a well-thought out campaign could turn the balance. They were wrong. The measure was defeated.
This time around the school board is looking to ensure something voters will find palatable.
Opponents to the last measure suggested that a flat tax was inequitable-Santa Monica’s huge Water Garden development would pay the same amount as the owner of a single-family home. There were no exemptions for hardship cases (“The seniors are going to choke,” Committee Member Louise Jaffee said at the time.) Opponents suggested that other options were available-in particular, the model used by Berkeley, California, where taxes are assessed per square foot rather than per parcel.
Previously, Deasy had claimed that anything other than a flat tax was illegal-despite the fact that the Berkeley tax has not been challenged.
An attorney himself, Committee Chair Neil Carrey suggested getting a second opinion could be good insurance.
“So that we have the opportunity of checking with another law firm that’s in the same bracket that may be more knowledgeable.”
Carrey said one firm might be substantially more conservative.
Brownley asserted the public needed assurance that every stone had been turned.
“I’m assuming staff is not going to go beyond what our budget is, but we’re on such a tight [time] frame.”
The final draft of the ballot must be in the hands of the Los Angeles County Registrar by Jan. 30 if an election is to take place in June.