INTEROF ICE CORRESPONDENCE
Los Angeles Uni?ed School District


TO: Members, Board of Education DATE: July 2, 2018

Austin Beutner, Swrintendent
FROM: Amanda Wherritt, rogram and Policy Development Adviser

SUBJECT: FULFILLING OUR COMMITMENT TO RAISE REVENUE FOR INCREASED
SCHOOL FUNDING 

The purpose of this Informative is to provide an overview of the requirements, issues, and
considerations regarding the possible placement of a parcel tax on the November 6, 2018 ballot.

PARCEL TAX OVERVIEW, REQUIREMENTS AND TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION

Highlights

.. A resolution to place a parcel tax on the ballot requires an af?rmative vote of two-thirds of all
Board Members (?ve out of seven members) per the rules of the Board of Education (Board).

The adapted resolution and ballot text must be submitted to the Registrar of Voters 88 days prior to
an election, which would establish August 10, 2018 as the deadline for the November 2018 ballot.

A school parcel tax, considered a ?qualified special tax?, requires that two-thirds (66.66%) of the votes
cast in an Election be in support of the measure. It must apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real
preperty within the District. Revenues generated may be used for the purposes andfor services listed in
the measure and the types of uses are not restricted. Exemptions may be included for a few speci?c
classes of persons, which are generally related to age and disability bene?ts. Following notice and a
public hearing, the Board may consider a resolution to place a parcel tax measure before voters,
including the full text of the ballot measure.

GETTING TO ELECTION DAY
Highlights

- Placing a parcel tax before voters takes a great deal of time, energy and money.

.. District costs, not including external campaign costs, are anticipated to be $6 million. If the
measure fails, these funds are lost to the District. If the measure passes, the proceeds may be
used to reimburse these costs. This cost has not been accounted for in the current budget.

The external ?vote yes? campaign would require the assistance of individual Board Members
and the Superintendent to raise approximately $3 million.

- The internal initiative will require a dedicated team of District staff with signi?cant support
from senior District leadership. Fact sheets, a document and various presentations will
need to be created. Presentations will need to be made to the dozens of community, business
and stakeholder groups throughout the District. Questions and requests from interested parties,
including the media and elected of?cials will need to be responded to and with a quick
turnaround.

The anticipated $6 million in District costs consist of election fees and activities to support an internal
informational initiative. The Registrar of Voters has provided an estimated cost of approximately $4.1
million. An internal, non-advocacy initiative to inform and educate employees, parents/guardians, and
interested stakeholders about the parcel tax measure is estimated at approximately $1.5 to $2 million.
This effort will include direct mail, social media, and field organizing components. If a parcel tax is
placed on the November 2018 ballot, funding for the internal initiative will need to be identi?ed
shortly after the Board?s vote.

 Hoard ol Ilclucnlion
Austin llcutncr, Superintendent
Page 2

.iuly 2, 2018

An external campaign committee will need to be established to run a ?vote yes? campaign. Individual
Board Members and the Superintendent will need to dedicate signi?cant time to the external campaign
to fundraise, seek endorsements, etc. A signi?cant focus of the committee?s work will be ?mdraising
to support voter outreach. Approximately $1.2 to $2 million has previously been raised to support
each of the District's successful bond measure campaigns. However, with a 66.66% approval required
for a parcel tax measure (as compared to a 55% requirement for a bond measure), at least $3 million
will need to be raised.

POLLING
Highlights

There is not suf?cient support in November 2018 for ?a parcel tax of suf?cient size to
eliminate the projected 2020 de?cit? (per the Fulfilling Our Commitment to Raise Revenue for
Increased School Funding Board Resolution 

A $500 parcel tax was tested in February 2018 and a $610 parcel tax (based on updated budget
?gures) was tested in June 2018. Neither of them reached the two-thirds threshold, even after
hearing positive messages.

A $330 parcel tax was tested in June 2018, which does not suf?ciently eliminate the projected
de?cit. At the initial vote, it gets 65%, but 6% of that was ?lean yes?, so we should only
consider 59% as a ?solid yes?. After hearing positive and opposition messages, the yes vote
settles at 68%, but 3% of that was ?lean yes?, so we should only consider 65% as a ?solid yes.

Approximately 20% to 25% believe the District is doing an excellent or good job.

- The February 2018 and June 2018 surveys of likely November voters are attached for your

 

 

 

 

 

 

review.
If" .1
{mam
grins-acme I S??lg?hngg?gv rags
We. 10inch ?a 1., 1 Tuna Just: sots- sued. Rupdid'feiti
?gamma cougar; Wait?: Mod Jine I?l?I-G?Menu . .. . 
I AfterPostive
?ner Push?: I ?er pos'r?te and os't'm
Positive ?d Opposition After ?d Opposition Initial Vote A Message; lifespan;
Initial Vote Messages Manges . Initial Vote Messages Message: I
I
5m 71%
. 
Tout Yes ?53Total No 28% 13*!
24:"Md10mm mam Mimi Mien min-unrummrd-mwm
?(Ilium

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ltonrd ol'l (locatio I
Austin licutncr. Super 
Page 1

July 2. 2018

 

 

Overall Do you Feel LAUSD is Doing an Excellent John Fair I
Job. or a Poor-lob?

 

 

.- 

'eii?imarr

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

L.A. UNIFIED PRIOR PARCEL TAX EFFORTS OVER THE LAST DECADE

Since at least 1997, the District has been unable to pass a parcel tax measure. In June 2010, the
District was facing a severe ?scal emergency and placed a $100, four-year parcel tax, Measure E,
before voters in order to maintain services for its students. The initial polling results indicated a @ssible
63% approval, however the measure only received a 52.95% approval. Two years later, on March 13,
2012, the Board authorized the placement of a ?ve-year, $298 parcel tax, on the November 6, 2012
ballot in order to protect student programs and off-set severe state budget cuts. However, in June
2012, at the request of the Superintendent, the Board adopted a Resolution that the parcel tax, entitled
?Student Program Protection and Instructional Improvement Compact? not be submitted for inclusion
on the November 6, 2012 ballot. For context, many school districts focused on Proposition 30 and 38
that were on the November ballot. In advance of the March vote by the Board, polling was conducted
which indicated a possible 55% approval.

Analysis of Measure (2010) Election Results

To better understand the role voters within each Board District played in the Measure election, staff
recently analyzed a Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters? report of the June 8, 2010 election. The
report provides the election results of Measure B, broken down by each LA. City Council District (based
on 2010 boundaries) and the individual cities and communities outside of the LA. City boundaries. Since
data was not available by Board District, assumptions were made to distribute the votes to each Board
District. For purposes of this analysis, if the boundaries of one Board District overlapped with the majority
of a City Council District or city/community, all votes were attributed to that one Board District regardless
of whether another Board District(s) had a slight overlap. However, where the overlap between Board
Districts was similar, the votes were split evenly between the two Board Districts. Based on the analysis
and assumptions we can generally glean how voters in each Board District played into the
approval/disapproval of Measure B.

Members, Board of Education
Austin Beutner, Superintendent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
July 2, 2013
Percent Voted 511012018 Voter
BD on Measure Registration
Yes No (H)
30-1 71% 29% 12.43% 372.193
BD-2 63% 37% 10.03% 251,440
BD-3 39% 61% 24.33% 389.554
BD-4 52% 43% 29.50% 436.947
BD-5 65% 35% 4.90% 303.095
1313-6 49% 51% 6.67% 294.807
313-7 54% 46% 1 1.53% 315,490

 

Of the total voters ?lling out a ballot in the June 2010 election, this is the percentage who voted
either way on Measure B. For instance, Board District 1 had strong support for the measure, but a
lower percentage of the overall voting universe, whereas Board District 3 and 4 had lower support with
a larger share of the total votes cast.

2018 voter registration information provided for context purposes. 2010 voter registration by
Board District not readily available.

OTHER EXAMPLES OF LOCAL REVENUE 

Generally speaking, parcel taxes are proposed by a local government agency and require two?thirds
approval of votes cast, and are structured as a ?at fee per parcel to conform with the uniformity
requirement. Recently, however, we have seen changes in this approach. These new approaches are
intriguing, however ?trther legal analysis is needed to determine viability.

San Francisco City Schools

In June 2018, San Francisco City voters considered a $298/20-year parcel tax, Proposition G, to fund
San Francisco Uni?ed School District educators' salaries, staf?ng, professional development,
technology, and charter schools. The parcel tax was developed via the voter-led initiative process,
which involves gathering signatures from a certain percentage of voters in the District to qualify (10%
of the registered voters for a district with a total registration of less than 500,000, or 5% of the
registered voters for a district with a total registration of 500,000 or more). As we understand it, since
the measure was proposed via the voter-initiative process, those who developed Proposition took the
position that the parcel tax required only a majority to pass. The parcel tax received 60.35% of
the votes cast.

Los Angeles County Parks
In November 2016, Los Angeles County voters considered a 1.5 cent per square foot parcel tax,
Measure A, titled ?safe, clean neighborhood parks, open space, beaches, rivers protection, and water
conservation measure?. The parcel tax received 74.9% of the votes cast. (Some question whether a
per-square-foot tax (as opposed to a ?at per-parcel tax) satis?es Government Code?s ?uniformity?

requirement for parcel taxes.)

Members, Board cl :-clucnliun
Austin Bt?utncr. 
Page 5

July 2, 20l8

2020 ELECTIONS

If the Board elects not to place a parcel tax before voters in November 2018, it will have two
opportunities in 2020 to consider. The California Presidential Primary Election is scheduled for March
3, 2020, and the Presidential General Election is scheduled for November 3, 2020. A resolution to
place a measure on the March Primary must be submitted to the Registrar of Voters by December 6,
2019, and materials for the November General Election must be submitted by August 7, 2020. The
schedule of elections for the March Primary also includes Board Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7. Voters will
consider any runoIT as part of the November ballot. The current term for the four elected of?ces
expires on December 13, 2020.

I hope you ?nd this information helpful. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please let me know. You may reach me by phone at 213.241.4582 or via email at
amanda.wherritt@lausd.net.

Attachments

Cc: David Holmquist
Scott Price
Pedro Salcido
Alex Molina
Vivian Ekchian
Mark Miller
Shannon Haber
Nicole Elam?Ellis
Jeff Dunn
Diane Pappas
Jefferson Crain