by Mark McDermott
The Manhattan Beach Unified School District Board of Education voted unanimously last week to place a $200 million school bond measure on the November election ballot.
The proposed school bond is intended to address the more than $400 million in needed upgrades identified in the recently completed Facilities Master Plan. The tax rate is estimated to average $32 per $100,000 in valuation for local property owners. But because bond measures passed two decades ago are now coming off the books, that tax does not represent an increase but a continuation of current tax rates.
The Board of Education approved the bond measure at its July 24 meeting.
Local resident Larry Zimbalist volunteered to head the citizens committee that will advocate for the bond measure.
“With previous facilities bonds maturing from the 1990s and early 2000s, we have an opportunity to secure $200 million for facility repairs without increasing taxes,” Zimbalist wrote in a letter to the school board. “Additionally, MBUSD stands to benefit from a potential $57 million matching grant from the State Educational Bond Funds. Why am I so supportive? It’s simple: $200 million in repairs without a tax increase and the potential for $257 million to benefit our school district. The time to act is now. Delaying means persisting issues like leaking roofs, outdated portable classrooms, and infrastructure problems will persist. Our students deserve upgraded lab rooms to excel in STEM disciplines. Postponing action only means higher costs and potentially increased taxes down the road.”
Zimbalist said that other local school districts are in a similar situation, with aging infrastructure needs.
“Our neighboring communities recognize this urgency,” he said. “Redondo Beach is launching a $278 million facilities bond that will raise taxes, and Palos Verdes is launching a $297.8 million initiative. Unlike them, we have the opportunity to tap into bond funding without increasing taxes.”
The bond election comes on the heels of the passage of a parcel tax in March, which caused some initial hesitation from the school board when the idea of pursuing a measure on the November ballot was first brought up in April. At the April 18 meeting, board member Jen Fenton expressed concern about “the optics” of pursuing a school bond so quickly after the parcel tax election. But she also warned that not tending to facility upkeep and upgrades would bleed from the district’s general fund, which is already under such duress that employee layoffs will occur in each of the next two school years.
“We have these looming budget issues from the state and we’re continuing to make cuts and continuing to see the impact on our general fund,” Fenton said. “Something like this could very much help our district, albeit it doesn’t go to salaries, to benefits, or to programming. It does go to our schools, where all of those things are housed.”
The board commissioned a survey in April and received its results in June. Board member Bruce Greenberg said the results of that survey would determine whether the district would pursue a bond measure.
“We’ll follow the data,” he said. “And we will follow the lead of the community in that regard.”
The survey showed initial approval of a bond at 54 percent, or 1 point shy of the 55 percent required by state law for passage. But when voters were also informed that the bond measure would not raise taxes, approval shot up to 61 percent. ER
