Board of Education continues Parcel Tax talks

The Culver City Unified School District Board of Education reviewed polling results on a potential parcel tax measure, which the District is likely obligated to put before voters this year to secure crucial funding. Passage of this measure is necessary for CCUSD to comply with an agreement involving the city of Culver City's $2.5 million contribution to help stabilize the District’s budget. Tuesday night’s discussion focused on whether to propose a sliding-scale parcel tax, a decision with significant financial implications for the District.

Municipalities usually test the viability of tax measures before committing significant resources to securing their passage. The District used the same consulting firm as previous ballot measures, Team CivX, to poll and assess community opinions on a potential parcel tax.

Before presenting the polling data, it is important to note the analysis's scope. An examination of parcels within CCUSD’s jurisdiction showed there is just under 41 million square feet of taxable land among the 13,247 taxable parcels in the district boundaries. Building on these findings, several revenue targets were pinpointed, and polling was done with those goals in mind. These potential rates are around six cents per square foot to hit a $2.5 million revenue target, 12 cents per square foot for a $5 million target, and just under 25 cents per square foot.

Along with the District’s consideration, there is also a citizens’ initiative working to place a sliding-scale parcel tax on the ballot this year, which would require less approval than a District-placed measure. Parcel taxes are “special taxes” in California, so a CCUSD measure would need a two-thirds majority to pass.

Board Vice President Brian Guerrero asked about differences between sliding-scale parcel taxes and the more traditional flat parcel taxes, which charge a set rate. This is the more common practice, in part because state legislation mandates that schools set taxes at a “uniform rate,” and sliding-scale parcel taxes have been the target of litigation over the caps they set.

These suits have mostly gone in favor of the District, provided the tax is applied uniformly to all property types. Alameda residents passed Measure H in 2008, which imposed a parcel tax where residential and small commercial property parcels paid a flat $120 per year, while larger commercial parcels paid on a sliding scale up to $9,500 per year. This was struck down in a California court as a non-uniform application of a school district tax.

However, the sliding scale has become increasingly popular. This is because it appears fair by levying heavier taxes on larger property owners, which appeals to voters.

“We tested it,” Jared Boigon with Team CivX said, “and the second most popular thing described to [residents] was that there was a fairness component.”

“People recognized the strong commercial presence and the commercial growth.”

Polling results do not show a clear path to passage should the district need to bring the parcel tax measure forward. 63% of the 543 voters polled indicated they would vote for a parcel tax at 12 cents per square foot, which averages out to roughly $175 per year for the average Culver City homeowner. That number was scaled up to gauge the impact of a roughly 38-cent-per-square-foot cost increase, which causes sticker shock for about half of the yes voters.

Despite not reaching the required two-thirds yes votes in initial polling, Board Members emphasized the necessity of putting the parcel tax on the ballot this year, both due to the city agreement and to address looming financial shortfalls. Without this measure, the District faces serious funding gaps, exacerbated by the anticipated $4 million loss in property tax revenue from the former Redevelopment Agency program, as Board Member Lindsay Carlson noted.

“That funding is going away by the ‘27-’28 school year,” Carlson said. “We are going to need to find dollars to replace that at some point in time, or we are going to have to engage in some serious cuts in the District.”

Carlson, one of the 543 who responded to the poll, was more optimistic about its results. She noted that the election results for Measure O showed a significant increase in support compared to the initial polling. Additionally, she stated that the poll questions were not intended to guide people towards a ‘yes’ vote.

“This is a poll that simply asked the respondents if they wanted to tax themselves more without any color on what the money is spent on,” Carlson said.

Board Member Andrew Lachman argued that those who want good services have to be willing to pay for them. He pointed out that, given how the state funds public schools, the District has few avenues to address its financial issues.

“The state is not going to give us more money,” Lachman said. “We can hope that they are going to change things, but [the parcel tax] is something we can control.”

Several Board Members, including Board President Stephanie Loredo, questioned the possibility of including a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) in the parcel tax, which would allow the tax to adjust with inflation.

Any change to the tax rate creates obstacles for passage. Boigon argued that the reason 2024’s Measure O — a renewal of a flat $189 parcel tax — received such strong support was due to the lack of a tangible tax increase. This allowed the message presented to voters on their ballots to say that there would be no tax increase with Measure O, which he says played a factor in the Measure’s resounding 82.5% yes vote.

“Anything we propose is a tax increase, so it is going to look different,” Boigom said. “If you review the Measure O polling, anything that was not a ‘no tax rate increase’ held around where these polls do in the high 50s and low 60s.”

Board Members on Tuesday underscored the urgency of passing the parcel tax to safeguard school quality, stressing that immediate action is required to prevent negative impacts on students and educational programs.

“As a parent who wants to see our kids in the system now and in the future continue to have the great schools this District is known for,” Lachman said, “we need to make the investment.”