Councilmen Herb Katz and Michael Feinstein proposed a plan earlier this week wherein the city would buy or lease up to 22 properties from the Santa Monica/Malibu Unified School District.
They recommended a ballot measure to enable the city to buy or lease school properties under a Mello-Roos bond which, if approved by voters, might result in higher property taxes.
The proposal allows for a revenue stream for the schools while providing needed park land, open space and other public facilities.
The high school football athletic field and Madison School campus, now being leased to Santa Monica College, could be among the sites included.
But, wait! Another school funding proposal might be before voters in 2004. A ballot initiative is being floated by the Committee for Excellence in Public Schools and some local businessmen.
I’ve learned an initiative will be filed with the city clerk within a week or two that will call for a change in the city charter to require the city to set aside a percentage of its annual budget for the SMMUSD. A phone poll was conducted a couple of months ago to gauge public reaction to such a proposal.
The percentage would be somewhere between 3 to 6 percent of the city budget that, this year, is $353.7 million.
The initiative would be circulated to Santa Monica voters in the coming months. About 10,000 valid signatures are needed for it to qualify for the November 2004 ballot. I’ve not read the initiative but I’ve written many times in this space that the city could and should provide more support for schools in this manner. It could easily afford to give $8, $10 or $12 million to our schools on an annual basis without raising taxes. But city leaders must reprioritize the budget.
The city historically helps the SMMUSD with about $3 million in funding. However, in previous years, an extra million or two have been added to help the district deal with various budget shortfalls.
Last June, voters narrowly approved Measure S, a $225 parcel tax increase that should contribute about $6.5 million to our schools annually over the next six years.
I opposed the tax increase because I believed City Hall had the money and that our elected politicians needed to place our children ahead of the homeless, pet projects and other expensive services that seem to benefit mostly non-residents.
It appears this initiative, if approved by voters in the fall, could finally make that happen.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 19, 2003. Read the original PDF.