ON THE NET School board opts not to seek larger bond
SMMUSD HDQTRS. — Citing the need to repair leaky roofs, improve computer technology and remove asbestos and mold from classrooms and other facilities, the school board Thursday voted to place a $268 million bond on the November ballot.
The bond, which is expected to be issued in installments over an eight-to 11-year span, also would fund the construction of more classrooms to ease overcrowding, as well as replace deteriorating, 30-year-old bathrooms at several schools.
None of the bond money would be used to pay salaries or other administrative costs, school district officials said.
The bond must be approved by 55 percent of voters in Santa Monica and Malibu before any money is issued. If approved, property owners can expect to pay an additional $30 for every $100,000 of assessed value when their property taxes are due.
The measure comes as the district completes an extensive community outreach process to develop a facilities master plan, which will drive land use within the district for the next 20 years.
During the process, which began in January, residents were asked to identify priorities, which included the construction of new schools to handle an anticipated increase in enrollment. The bond is expected to help fund priorities identified by the community. A final facilities meeting will be held in the fall.
“This bond fits pretty seamlessly with the facilities master plan process, which is really the first time that I am aware of when the district has been proactive about … systematically looking at all of the campuses and really identifying which ones do not come up to what we would think to be basic standards for good schools,” said school board member Emily Bloomfield.
Some board members, including Bloomfield, called for a $298 million bond, however, the majority decided to go for the lower amount recommended by district staff. Those school board members felt that amount would more likely be spent in the time frame identified. If there is a surplus in bond money issued, the district could be exposed to a higher tax burden, district advisors said.
The board’s approval ends months of speculation as to whether or not a bond measure would be placed on the ballot given the departure of former schools superintendent John Deasy and other key members of the district’s leadership.
There were those who felt the issue should be placed on hold until a new superintendent arrived. Some also feared a bond would be hard to pass in light of a Nov. 7 ballot that is already bursting at the seams with more than 13 statewide and local bond proposals and initiatives, including City Hall’s request for $40 million over the next 10 years to fund a watershed management plan that will protect the Santa Monica Bay from urban runoff.
But school board members felt momentum created by the facilities master plan process could be lost if a bond was not put before voters in November.
There also was concern that if a bond was not proposed this year, it would be hard to pass later on, particularly if the board seeks the renewal of two parcel taxes, Measures S and Y, which contribute roughly $10 million a year to help support services for students in the wake of budget uncertainty in Sacramento, said Winston Braham, the district’s chief financial officer.
Measures S and Y expire at the end of June in 2009 and 2011,respectively.The district can ask voters to renew them both in June 2008.
THINK QUICK To place the bond on the ballot, the board had to act quickly. In less than two months, the board formed a committee to study the feasibility of placing a bond measure before voters.
In addition to the committee, which is comprised of residents, the board hired the firm of Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates (FMMA) to conduct an in-depth, 25-minute telephone survey of 500 likely voters, which resulted in a most favorable rating, according to a district staff report. The survey also found residents would support a $400 million bond if the tax level stayed at or below $30.
The survey results, along with recommendations from the committee, were presented to the school board on June 29. The committee met on July 20 and recommended authorizing the ballot measure.
Gleam Davis, co-chair of the committee, said she was “very happy” to see the board move forward with the recommendation, however, an aggressive construction and renovation schedule must be implemented to show residents their money is being spent wisely and in a timely manner.
“People want to see real changes, not just a fresh coat of paint and new doors (if the board expects to issue more bonds in the future),” said Davis, who is running for City Council this election. “We have to make meaningful changes.”
Committee co-chair Craig Hamilton said an extensive education campaign also must be waged to get voters to support the bond, particularly since there is a perception in the community that the district is suffering from a “crisis of confidence.” Hamilton pointed to the departure of Deasy, racial tension at Santa Monica High School and the departure of three principals throughout the district. He also added the residents perceive the school board as lacking leadership and action. There’s also been many changes in the school district’s office, with a few senior administrators quitting.
“While we may only need 55 percent of voters to support this, it is important that we have the entire community on board,” Hamilton said. “With all the other bond measures on the ballot, we can’t afford to lose (support from) anyone.
“We need to see implicit leadership on behalf of the board,” Hamilton added.“I fear the lack of support will hurt us.”
School board members said they will rise to the challenge posed by Hamilton, directing district staff to immediately meet with committee members to identify those willing to sign arguments in support of the bond that will appear on the ballot, as well as join a committee to campaign for its passage.
Board members also asked staff to come back with suggestions on how the board can fund impartial conferences with the community to educate them about the facts of the bond.
“We are really excited about the collaboration,” said school board vice president Kathy Wisnicki.
Braham said he would deposit money with a treasurer as soon as Friday to “get the campaign rolling.”
ASSUMING THE POSITION The resolution creating the bond must be submitted by Aug. 11. Arguments in support of the bond are due Aug. 21, with rebuttals due by Aug. 31. All official documents need to be completed by Sept. 11.
The board can take a one-time formal position to support the bond and publicize that decision, said election law advisor Philip Recht, an attorney with Mayer, Brown, Rowe and Maw.
As a unit, the board can then engage only in a neutral education campaign, but can’t advocate for the bond’s passage. Only individual board members can do that.They also can raise money and serve on campaign committees.
“But be careful,” Recht said. “You have to make it clear that you are doing it as a private individual and not as a member of the board.”
While support for the bond is high, according to the district’s telephone survey, there are certain to be voters who will question the need for $268 million, given the district just completed roughly $100 million worth of renovations and construction of 160 classrooms in 2003. That money, which paid for a performing arts theater at Samohi and a pool at Lincoln Middle School, came from Proposition X, a school bond passed by voters in 1998. About $45 million of the construction costs were funded by Prop. X, with the remainder coming from state funding dedicated to school facility modernization projects.
Controversy surrounded that effort as the general contractor in charge of the projects, Jacobs International, cost the district millions in overruns and delays.
Bloomfield said Prop. X funds helped restore the district’s aging facilities, but they weren’t nearly enough to fully address the neglect brought on by Proposition 13, which capped property tax increases, draining state funding for schools.
“Prop. X helped us prepare facilities for class-size reduction because with that, we needed new classrooms to accommodate smaller class sizes,” Bloomfield said. “There are still a lot of projects that were left undone … The daily wear-and-tear on all of our schools, many of which are overcrowded, puts additional stress on the district’s infrastructure.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 5, 2006. Read the original PDF.