Celebrity Endorsements Stack Up For School Parcel Taxes

Measures H and I draw backing from Jeff Bridges, Anthony Edwards and Glen Phillips as Santa Barbara School Districts seek makeup funding for music, theater and language programs.

By Rob Kuznia, Noozhawk Staff Writer | Published on 09.26.2008

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (14)
    • Share

Article Image
Goleta Valley Junior High’s concert band is a popular program, despite its lack of current funding. (Barbara Keyani / Santa Barbara School Districts photo)

Some celebrities with local connections are lending their support to the campaign for a pair of school parcel taxes that would bring, among other things, more music education into Santa Barbara’s public schools.

Former ER actor Anthony Edwards, a Santa Barbara Junior High alum, and San Marcos High alum Glen Phillips, a singer-songwriter made famous by the band Toad the Wet Sprocket, have agreed to cut radio spots to promote Measures H and I on the Nov. 4 ballot, said Lynn Rodriguez, a board member of the Santa Barbara Education Foundation, which is spearheading the campaign, and which has long been a leading fundraiser for local public schools.

Actor Jeff Bridges also has endorsed the two measures, she said.

“We are very, very thankful to them,” Rodriguez said Thursday.

The endorsements are a welcome boost to the advocates, in no small part because the threshold for passing the taxes is high: Two-thirds of local voters must cast a yes vote for the measures to succeed. Plus, voters this year are facing a higher-than-usual number of requests for their tax dollars. The city of Santa Barbara, for instance, is floating Measure G, which seeks permission to continue a decades-old practice of taxing residents on the use of their landlines and cell phones. And voters throughout Santa Barbara County are being asked to pass Measure A, which would continue the half-cent sales tax for transportation funding.

The Santa Barbara School Districts‘ parcel-tax requests come at a time when schools across California are struggling to pay for the basics, let alone some of the enrichment courses once considered mainstays of the public-education experience.

In April, the Santa Barbara school board, largely beset by a historic state budget crisis, cut $4 million, or about 4 percent, from its 2008-09 discretionary budget. The year before, it cut $2.5 million.

The parcel taxes would put money back into some of the local programs that have declined in recent years, such as music, theater and foreign language.

Across the elementary district, for instance, there is only one grade — fourth — in which all students are exposed to some sort of music education. (Fifth- and sixth-graders have the option to take an instrument.) The parcel tax for the elementary schools would bring music instruction and instruments to all students in grades K-3, Superintendent Brian Sarvis said.

And this year, due to budget cuts, ninth grades across the district lost the small class sizes in math instruction that had been in place for years. The parcel tax targeting the seventh-through-12th-grade district would restore that program, as well as enhance the spartan music and theater programs of the junior high schools. It also would bring more foreign language classes to the high schools. A year ago, for instance, students, parents and teachers lamented when Santa Barbara High cut its German class. Latin classes also have been shrinking, and students at some high schools have expressed interest in taking Mandarin.

The measures also would bring enhanced science and technology programs to students in grades K-12.

Officials stress that none of the money would pay for administrators’ salaries.

Article Image
Measure H would restore funding to programs like the Goleta Valley Junior High concert band. The parcel tax would cost $23 a year per affected parcel for four years. (Barbara Keyani / Santa Barbara School Districts photo)
Parcel taxes are flat taxes, in that they charge the same amount for every parcel. In most cases, a home is located on a single parcel. An entire apartment complex, too, usually is located on a single parcel. Typically, it is the property owners who are most affected by the tax, although the cost is sometimes partly distributed to tenants in the form of higher rents.

Because the local K-12 school system is divided into two school districts — elementary and secondary — the Santa Barbara school board decided in June to put two parcel taxes on the ballot.

Measure I pertains only to residents within the elementary district, which exists within the boundaries of the city of Santa Barbara. It would cost $27 annually per parcel.

Measure H affects those in the seventh-through-12th grade district, or secondary district, which stretches from Goleta to Montecito. It would cost $23 annually per parcel.

If passed, the taxes would be collected for four years. They would generate about $520,000 annually for the elementary district and about $1.1 million a year for the secondary district.

This all means that, should both initiatives pass, a homeowner in Santa Barbara would pay $50 a year — or a total of $200 over four years — while a homeowner in Montecito would pay $23 a year, or a total of $92 over four years.

For both measures, senior citizens age 65 and older can exempt themselves from being taxed. School officials would appoint local citizens to serve on an oversight committee, which will determine how to spend the money. In addition, the money would be audited annually, officials said.

The elementary district’s Measure I does not have any opposition on the ballot, but the secondary district’s Measure H does.

A group of five neighbors who live near Dos Pueblos High signed the ballot in opposition to Measure H.

Led by Goleta resident Rich Foster, they argue that the district was not a good steward of the tax dollars gathered for a facilities bond passed in 2000. For instance, he said, the district dedicated far less money than promised to building new classrooms, and, in Foster’s view, too much money into athletic facilities, such as new swimming pools at each of the three high schools.

“They didn’t build what they said they were going to build,” he said.

Foster also has said the district has operated on bad faith in regards to how the construction from the facility bond took place.

Over the past couple of years, he has attended many Santa Barbara school board meetings to publicly complain about the construction of football lighting and bleachers at Dos Pueblos. For instance, he said, crews on a regular basis began making noise as early as 6:15 a.m., even though the district had said it wouldn’t start work until 7:30 a.m. (The district eventually asked crews to start later.)

Rodriguez, a former Santa Barbara school board member, counters that Foster fails to mention that the district was blindsided by a lawsuit that exposed its deficiencies in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a result, she said, the district spent far more bond money than was anticipated on bringing the district into compliance.

She added that Foster’s perception of the district has been colored by his anger over the construction.

“I’m not going to say he didn’t have a good reason to be angry,” she said. “I did feel that his arguments were not enough to be able to make that connection.”

As for the celebrity endorsements, Bridges and Phillips have already made a TV ad with the Santa Barbara Education Foundation in support of music education, although it was not connected to the current campaign. Click here to watch the ad.

Over the years, the foundation has all but kept music alive in the elementary schools by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from organizations such as the Orfalea Foundation.

The celebrities’ endorsements add to a fairly broad base of support for the initiatives. Supporters include well-known Democrats like Santa Barbara Mayor Marty Blum and City Councilman Das Williams, as well as Republicans such as former school board member Bob Pohl. In fact, one of the first people to suggest that the district float a parcel tax was Lanny Ebenstein, also a Republican.

The Santa Barbara Taxpayers Association has yet to make public its position.

Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at rkuznia@noozhawk.com.

Comments (14)

Post a Comment

(Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.)

Name:

» No more Taxes wrote on 09.26.08 @ 10:12 AM

Government will just waste it.

Vote NO.........

» however wrote on 09.26.08 @ 10:58 AM

It is great to get celebrity endorsements.  But doesn’t Anthony Edwards live in New York now?  He isn’t local anymore.  And can’t we hear from DP or SB alumni celebrities instead of Edwards and Phillips from San Marcos?  There has to be others!!!

» sb wrote on 09.26.08 @ 04:56 PM

In response to However....If you know of any celebrities from DP or SBH that would be willing to do endorse these measures I’m sure the SB Ed Foundation would love to know.

» Richard Foster wrote on 09.26.08 @ 05:30 PM

The district has raised the superintendents salary by an average of seven percent every year since 2000.  It is now above $200,500 dollars.  At the same time the district cried poor to teachers and cut programs.  All tax payers must ask why?
Not one portable classroom was replaced as promised with Measure V funds, yet many lovely sport facilities were built.  Yet the district can no only maintain their lights and pumps and programs by cutting your childs educational opertunities.
Why do we have parcel tax for education but not for administrative pay increases?  How can the district create a $186,000 deputy superintendent position while they cut teachers and cut programs.
Why do we have a parcel tax for education instead of one to pay for maintaining athletic facilities?
Why do they have money for gang laisons but not money for your childs clasroom?
If the district was blindsided by ADA requirements one must wonder who does their planning.  It has long been clear policy that once a certain level of upgrades are commenced that public facilities fall liable to bringing the whole facility into compliance.  And having been blindsided why did they proceed to build new pools that weren’t even on the ballot measure?
The facts are the district’s priorities are skewed.  Before we grant them a parcel tax, they need to do what they say they are going to do.  They have an abysmal record for that.
Secondly, they need to exercise better judgment with how they spend your money.  Any one who has followed the circus of district bookkeeping is aware of this.  Thirdly they need to stop the musical chairs of leadership in administrative positions. 
But most importantly they need to put educational opportunities first and save parcel tax requests for non-academic needs.
To say this money will not fund administrators is misleading.  They have already funded administrators by cutting your childs programs.  They now want you to pay more.  Until there is fundamental change in the way the district does business the taxpayers should just say No to Measure H

» Full Disclosure wrote on 09.27.08 @ 09:05 AM

Noozhawk, has disclosed repeated acts of fiscal incompetence by the majority of the Board and the Superintendent. See one of many possible quotes below. 

Also, in May and before asking for the parcel tax, Supt. Sarvis adjusted upwards the titles and benefits for top management. With Turnbull moving for more money, again, those dollars and future dollars were snapped up by Sarvis, Smith and others with salary and benefit increases. Similar to how Washington/Wall Street does business, taxpayers are told to make up the amount needed for basic education--music, science, math-- after top management has guaranteed itself an increase.
Quoted from today’s article.
“In April, the Santa Barbara school board, largely beset by a historic state budget crisis, cut $4 million, or about 4 percent, from its 2008-09 discretionary budget. The year before, it cut $2.5 million.”

One of many earlier quotes:
“Pulley’s resignation was preceded last year by those of finance director Bob Wolf in July, Assistant Superintendent of Business Ed Diaz in October, and food director Frank Lihn, also in October.

Wolf and Diaz left after the embarrassing discovery of a $5 million surplus, several months after the board made deep cuts to programs. Lihn, who inherited a cafeteria budget with massive debt, stated as his reason for leaving a desire to return to his roots in the food service industry on the East Coast.”

» SB resident wrote on 09.27.08 @ 11:39 AM

And here’s another quote:
“Parcel taxes are flat taxes, in that they charge the same amount for every parcel. In most cases, a home is located on a single parcel. An entire apartment complex, too, usually is located on a single parcel. Typically, it is the property owners who are most affected by the tax, although the cost is sometimes partly distributed to tenants in the form of higher rents.”

Of course, it will go to higher rents!

And why should I in a small house on lower east side pay the same amount as a Mesa or Riviera property owner!  That a Montecito homeowner (Jeff Bridges, eg.) will pay $23/ year while I and my low-income, mostly hispanic, neighbors will pay $50/year is wrong.

I am sorry about the school “extras” (that should be part of the curriculum) but I’ll vote NO on this.

» boardwatcher wrote on 09.27.08 @ 01:10 PM

As a longtime follower of local education, I’d like to respond to the negative and irrelevant comments posted by Mr.Foster and Full Disclosure.

1. ALL salaries in the district have increased because of negotiated increases and cost of living.  The superintendent hasn’t recieved any merit pay, just the usual cost of living.

2. New business official, Eric Smith, created millions of dollars in savings, in addition to the budget reductions made by the board so that valued programs wouldn’t have to be cut. No cuts were made to junior high and high school elective programs or elementary music programs.  Measures H and I seek to augment and enhance those existing programs and to allocate funds for technology for students.

3. Measure V has delivered on its promises to voters.  Pools were always part of the original plans.  Many outdated portables were replaced. The original $67 million bond has been augmented by $43 million in state matching funds for a total of $110 million spent on new and modernized facilities.

4. Any money to be spent on gang outreach specialists will come from categorical funds that must be used on efforts to keep students in school and can’t be used for any other purpose.

5. Parcel taxes are an extremely appropriate mechanism to raise funds for educational purposes--and they’re different from school bonds which can only be used for facilities and capital improvements.  Districts all over California are using them as their budgets are being decimated by the State.  It only makes sense that local dollars be spent on local programs established by local priorities.  The amount for Measures H and I is small for a period of only 4 years.

Get the facts before voting on H and I--a modest investment of local funds for local programs to be overseen by a citizens’ oversight committee who will keep the public and the board informed.

» DP Parent wrote on 09.27.08 @ 03:51 PM

Richard Foster just has an ax to grind because he doesn’t like the football field lights at DP (he Rich, if you are that uptight and so sensitive to noise, don’t buy a house next to a public high school!).  Notice his use of the words “lights” and “pumps.”

Our athletic teams and performing arts programs get little to no financial support from the district (we fundraise to pay for almost everything - uniforms, buses, etc.). The only real funding is small coaching stipends and facilities. The pool and the performing arts theater will be community jewels for years and years to come. Sure, we had a lot more planned, but construction costs skyrocketed during construction (the price of steel more than doubled thanks to competition from China).

Don’t hurt the kids, just to spite the district. The new assistant superintendent is making a lot of progress in getting the district’s finances in order. We need these programs for our kids and this is a small price to pay. And with independent oversight, even the Richard Fosters of the world can rest easy that the money will go where it is intended.

» Send illegal aliens home wrote on 09.27.08 @ 05:11 PM

This will allow American children to receive more attention in the class room, and take the pressure the off tax payers for another tax increase. No on A. Time for everyone to step up and forget about pollitical correctness. Sorry Liberals but its time for the people breaking our countries laws to be arrested and deported.

» Teacher wrote on 09.28.08 @ 08:03 AM

“New business official, Eric Smith, created millions of dollars in savings, in addition to the budget reductions made by the board so that valued programs wouldn’t have to be cut. No cuts were made to junior high and high school elective programs or elementary music programs.  Measures H and I seek to augment and enhance those existing programs and to allocate funds for technology for students.”

Should he get a pay increase just because he is competent?

And cuts have been made to electives. Example being San Marcos High School.  The district significantly reduced their FTEs this past summer.  Those cuts effect electives.  They will not be reducing their classes in subjects that have test scores attached.

» Illegal aliens destroying wrote on 09.29.08 @ 07:18 AM

The infrastructure of our roads and schools- are being destroyed by the millions of illegal aliens. No on A--Send the illegals home

» H and I supporter wrote on 09.29.08 @ 08:42 AM

Lots of negativity in the opposition emails.  They lose fact of the purpose of the revenue, to create a better educational environment for our kids (all of the public school kids) for a very small annual amount.  Better education equals better children and a more balanced community which affects every resident of Santa Barbara, positively.  If you negative opposition people continue to let the State have control of our tax dollars, we will be in no better position in 12, 24, or 36 months.  It’s an easy decision.

» richard foster wrote on 09.30.08 @ 08:53 PM

It is funny how many people are ashamed to use thier own name on their posts.
If this is critical to education then why is it funded last?
Secondly the issue is not the lights it is the way the district lied to the community about their use.
It is how they lied aboutthe use of measure V funds.  According to their construction managment not a single portable was replaced with measure V.

» full Disclosure wrote on 10.05.08 @ 02:44 PM

Again, contrary to “Boardwatcher, “ Assistant Supt. Smith did not “create” millions of dollars unless he used the basement printing press to print money.  He merely found the obvious: millions were being spent year after year because of poor management and even worse efforts at budget review and over-sight by the Board Majority (AKA rubber-stamps).  It is a good feeling to see two of the rubber stamps leaving office after 8 years (former-president Harter) and 4 years (President Malakof) of messed up budgets; higher priced superintendents and their personal PR Staff; destruction of good educational programs; waste of Measure V and I-98 dollars; excessive spending on attorneys and public relations staff to hide and cover up; and biased and incompetent personnel management regarding hiring, transfers and employee insurance. Maybe as an apology, the rubber stamps have the nerve to request more money from the taxpayers to provide, finally, some music and math education for students deprived by the actions of the Board Majority and Superintendent. Personnel and priorities need to be adjusted before more money is handed to these handlers because they have skills at taking first for themselves. Also, it is noted that the Public Education Fund, the manager of the campaign, has deteriorated into having an Executive Director with a salary that creates a very high cost for the few dollars donated to PEF and which actually benefit students. May I suggest donating direct to the schools and programs and avoid the “handling” cost at PEF.  It has a Board dominated by ex-School Board members and the PR staff and with no over-sight or management. It is time for real change in the District(s).

 

More Local News »

Special Education Director Withdraws From Position

The Santa Barbara School District has readvertised for an executive director and two director positions

Santa Barbara Secondary Schools Plan for Basic Aid Funding

Amid the state budget deficit, the district becomes eligible to receive money from property taxes

School District Readvertises for Special-Ed Positions

Santa Barbara seeks an executive director and director after one candidate withdrew his selection

Cate School Hosts Sustainable Systems Institute

Science teachers spend a week learning about various environmental practices

Cesar Chavez Charter School a Finalist in State Fitness Competition

The Santa Barbara school is in the running for a new fitness center valued at $100,000

Weather: Fair 60.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2009 | ISSN No. 1947-6086