End Run on the School Playing Field : Fees Levied Without a Vote by Strapped Districts Are Creative but Hardly Fair

When Proposition 13 was passed by voters in 1978, it did much more than limit the rate of property tax increases and require a two-thirds vote on local tax measures. Its passage also gave rise to a new form of gamesmanship. Governing boards facing restricted revenue and expanding needs began searching for creative and untapped approaches to taxpayers’ pocketbooks.

Now, 13 years later, the dilemma of how to fund critical school needs seems to be getting worse as school districts search for all kinds of creative financing. That was evident in the Orange Unified School District on June 28, when a divided board became the first in Orange County, and one of the first in the state, to create a special maintenance assessment district to raise more revenue by levying a $30-a-year fee against property owners.

The fee will pay for maintaining school recreational facilities such as tennis courts, ball fields and swimming pools, a critical enough need to be sure. However, setting the fee didn’t sit well with residents. More than 250 people showed up at a board meeting and argued into the early morning hours opposing it. What seemed to rankle most opponents was that the fee could be added to their tax bill and, unlike a direct user fee, was an additional tax levy without benefit of a public vote.

The board’s action indicates how bad the financial situation has become. It has sent school districts scurrying to find obscure laws that enable them to raise more funds. Several other Orange County school districts are already considering a similar levy. Some, borrowing from the success churches have had, have turned to bingo to bring in more revenue. Others are considering different types of private fund-raising programs.

The efforts have been fueled out of necessity by the state budget problems and the rejection of school tax measures in several communities. The latest came last month in Irvine where a $35-per-parcel fee was approved by a majority of the voters, but failed to get the two-thirds needed for passage.

One danger in this scattered approach to school financing is what some parents are calling “ZIP code funding,” in which richer areas can provide more than poorer ones. Short-range fixes are likely to make the quality of education uneven, and people may well wonder where it all ends. Moreover, to ensure fairness, voters in a school district ought to have such levies put before them in a district-wide vote.