Supporters of a school repair bond will soon begin the most important part of their campaign- convincing Culver City voters to pass a $106 million general obligations bond that would rehabilitate the school district’s infrastructure.
Lost in the energy and emotion of getting the bond initiative on the June ballot is a parcel tax measure that voters overwhelmingly approved in 2009 during the heart of the national recession. Measure EE had widespread support, even among local political leaders who disagreed on practically everything else.
Through the addition of $96 per parcel, the measure gave the Culver City United School District a much need infusion of $1.2 million during five years. It was used for instructional purposesto enhance school libraries and maintain science, technology and art programs, among other things.
The parcel tax, which passed with nearly 75 percent of the vote, will sunset, or expire in November, unless it is renewed this year.
“The school bond measure is very important and we need it,”said Scott Zeidman, who was a member of the board in 2009 and the co-chair of the parcel tax initiative.
Zeidman remembers a time when state funding for schools was negligible and Culver City schools were facing a financial crisis, like many other districts. “We wouldn’t have survived with Measure EE,” he recalled. Even though the fiscal situation appears to have improved, “couldn’t we use $1.2 million to help our schools?” he asked.
Madeline Ehrlich, who was a co-sponsor of the parcel measure, thinks that it has served its purpose.
“It is not in the best interest to renew Measure EE because we need more monies now than what Measure EE could provide,” Ehrlich, a former CCUSD board member, said.
Board member Katherine Paspalis, one of the most avid supporters of the bond initiative, says she has one single-minded purpose regarding ballot measures this year.
“My focus is entirely on the bond. [Measure] EE will sunset later this year,” she said. “Any further consideration of a parcel tax will be after much deliberation by the administration and board, and is not even on my radar right now.
“It may never be,” she added. Ehrlich says perhaps the only good reason to renew Measure EE would be for preventive maintenance. “And right now the school district does have [the] funds and reserves to do so,” she said.
The former school boar member thinks asking voters to pass both initiatives in the same year would place a large financial burden on the public, especially those older than 55 and could potentially hamper passage of the facilities bond.
“Having two tax measures, parcel and bond, placed on the ballot at or near the same time, would double typical senior citizen’s taxes,” Ehrlich asserted. “This would jeopardize the passage of the bond. This idea was wisely and soundly rejected by the school board.”
Zeidman acknowledged that it would be “very, very challenging” to get a parcel tax passed during the same year the board is asking voters to tax themselves in order to fix school facilities. But there is an argument for being proactive regarding a measure that voters have already shown they support by a wide margin, he said.
“You never want to give back what you already have,” Zeidman noted, referring to the funds that Measure EE brought into the school district.
In 2012, the Culver City electorate passed two tax measures: Measure X in April and Measure Y in November.
The former raised the city’s transient occupancy tax by 2 percent to bring it on par with the rate that surrounding cities charge. Also known as the hotel bed tax, the levy is charged in California when occupying a room or rooms or other living space in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel or other lodging, for a period of 30 days or more.
Measure Y increased the city’s sales tax by a half cent in order to financially buttress municipal services.
Zeidman, who like Paspalis has two children who attend school in the district, believes the idea of renewing Measure EE merits consideration.
“I think we have great people on our board and I think they are going to do really well,” Zeidman said. “But I would hope that we would not walk away from $1.2 million without seeing what the public mood is.”