Upkeep Fee for Schools Draws Vocal Foes

A Claremont Unified School District proposal to charge property owners about $97 a year for upkeep of school recreational facilities met with fierce opposition this week.

The school board’s small classroom-style meeting room overflowed Monday. About 200 residents, many of them senior citizens, stood in the entrance, the hallways and spilled onto the patio.

Opponents labeled the fee an end-run around Proposition 13 and jeered at school officials and a handful of parents who defended the fee as the only way to overcome a $3 million loss in state revenue.

Board members voted in April to establish a recreation assessment district under the 1972 Landscape and Lighting Act.

Cities have used such fees to pay for street lights, but recently the assessment district idea has gained popularity with cash-strapped school districts. A similar fee imposed by the Bonita Unified School District, which serves San Dimas and La Verne, was upheld last month by the state Court of Appeals.

Unless those owning more than 50% of the property within Claremont Unified’s boundaries file written objections at district headquarters by June 28, the tax will go into effect July 1.

“I believe it is not an assessment district, but it is a taxation,” said Cerini Bess of the Patio Homeowners Assn.

She said the fee is not based on a specific public benefit such as sidewalks and lighting. Many property owners don’t use school facilities, she said.

Board of Education President Paul Held said the fee would raise $1.2 million to cover recreation area maintenance and free up money for classroom supplies. And parent Susan Edwards said opponents have selfishly forgotten that taxpayers paid for their children’s schooling years ago.

But residents of Foothill Village Mobile Home Park, a senior citizens park, said they could not afford the $97 a year.

“I dare you to get one penny from me,” screamed an unidentified resident of the mobile home park.

Resident Ed Crooks said the district should cut administrative costs instead. “As we spend more money, the SAT scores are going down and facilities are becoming more grandiose,” he said.