Loading...
CC SR 20200304 05 - School District Reorganization01203.0002/630876.7 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/04/2020 AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to receive a report for the possible Eastview community detachment from Los Angeles Unified School District and attachment of this community to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Receive and file a report from the City Attorney’s Office regarding protocols for the possible Eastview community detachment from Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and attachment of this community to the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD); and provide such direction as the City Council deems appropriate consistent with the requirements of law. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Elena Q. Gerli, Assistant City Attorney REVIEWED BY: William W. Wynder, City Attorney APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Section 868 of the Statutes of 1998 (uncodified) (page A-1) B. Section 153 of the Statutes of 1999, SB 544 (uncodified) (page B-1) C. Overview of the Eastview neighborhood (page C-1) D. Overview of the City (page D-1) BACKGROUND: I. Introduction On December 17, 2019, Councilmember Bradley asked Staff to place an item on a future City Council agenda to discuss the possibility of annexing the Eastview area into the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD). The City Attorney’s Office has been tasked with reviewing the historical record of prior City efforts and prior City Council actions to assist the residents of the Eastview neighborhood in Rancho 1 01203.0002/630876.7 Palos Verdes to detach themselves from the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and attach this community to PVPUSD. Our analysis has included the historical record provided to us by the City Clerk and our independent review of the applicable law that would govern such a “reorganization.” For the reasons that will follow, we are of the considered opinion that there is a pathway in the law to accomplish such a reorganization, but that without the support and cooperation of the Boards of Education of both LAUSD and PVPUSD the only way forward would be through a resident initiated petition for “reorganization” which will present challenges regarding bonded indebtedness of both districts and the re - allocation of a proportionate share of the same to the Eastview neighborhood. II. History of Prior City Consideration of Detachment/Attachment The Eastview neighborhood is located approximately in the northwest corner of the City. To the east, Eastview borders the San Pedro neighborhood of Los Angeles (attached hereto for your convenience are two overviews: one showing the boundaries of the Eastview neighborhood (Attachment C), and the other of the entire City (Attachment D). The annexation of the neighborhood into the City occurred following a special election in 1979, and was completed on January 5, 1983 (annexation). The Eastview community is within the boundaries of the LAUSD. The Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) serves the cities of Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills, and Rolling Hills Estates, and the unincorporated areas of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The City’s earliest efforts at reorganizing the Eastview community into PVPUSD date back to at least 1998, with a transfer of territory legislation, which had the support of the PVPUSD. Ultimately, Section 868 of the Statutes of 1998 (uncodified) was signed into law in September 1998, which allowed Eastview students to “opt into” PVPUSD beginning with the School Year 1999-2000 (Attachment A). The statute was amended in 1999 but not in ways that are relevant here (Attachment B). As a result of this uncodified legislation, middle school-aged students in the area may attend Miraleste Intermediate School and high school-aged students may attend both Palos Verdes Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes High School in Palos Verdes Estates. Two LAUSD-owned schools fall within the city of Rancho Palos Verdes: Dodson Middle School and Crestwood Elementary School. Currently, a portion of property taxes paid by residents of the Eastview community is allocated to LAUSD, irrespective of where their children attend school. In 2006, the City again addressed the possibility of reorganizing the districts so that the Eastview community would formally join PVPUSD (both from a taxing perspective and from a voting perspective). The City proposed legislation that would have formalized the “status quo” – 1,000 school-age Eastview community students were then attending schools in PVPUSD. Under the City’s proposed legislation: 2 01203.0002/630876.7  LAUSD would retain ownership and control of its properties in the Eastview community area of the City.  Eastview residents and students would be moved to PVPUSD as permanent rather than optional residents (adjusting school boundaries to match the city boundary excluding LAUSD-owned properties and buildings). On June 25, 2008, City representatives met with LAUSD representatives to discuss this proposal. Present at the meeting were then-Mayor Douglas Stern, then-City Manager Carolyn Lehr, then-Deputy City Manager Carolynn Petru, then-Rolling Hills City Manager Anton Dahlerbruch, LAUSD COO David Holmquist, and LAUSD Assistant General Counsel John Walsh. LAUSD Assistant General Counsel Walsh took the position that PVPUSD was the “beneficiary” of the current status and saw no reason why PVPUSD would want to change the then-existing arrangement, especially if PVPUSD would be required to purchase two school sites from LAUSD. City staff responded that, under the City’s proposal, LAUSD would retain ownership of the two school sites that are in the Eastview community geographic area. LAUSD representatives took the position that the then -current bonded indebtedness applied to properties in the LAUSD was $186 per $100,000 of assessed property value.The debt would remain applicable to Eastview property owners regardless of any boundary reorganization. LAUSD took the position that Eastview property owners would likely have to assume any bonded indebtedness of PVPUSD.1 At that time, the issues to a reorganization, from the perspective of LAUSD were these: • Remaining unpaid school bond amounts • CAP (mandatory bussing) • Magnet School (i.e. Dodson Middle School) • An existing Court Order that stipulates that LAUSD cannot allow more white students to leave the District (integration requirement) LAUSD’s then-COO indicated that LAUSD would need to evaluate the tax base loss that would occur with the transfer of territory and be compensated for that loss, as LAUSD would not be able to continue to collect revenue from the Eastview property owners since they would no longer be within the territory of LAUSD. 1 Though beyond the scope of this analysis, we note that, pursuant to Education Code § 35570, PVPUSD Measures K, R, & S for improvement of PVPUSD real property would likely become allocable, in their proportionate share, to Eastview community properties upon reorganization. The current status of the unpaid bonded debt from these measures is unknown as of the writing of this report. 3 01203.0002/630876.7 All parties to the meeting acknowledged that there was a high likelihood of a taxpayer lawsuit in the event Eastview community property owners found themselves with a “double” school tax levied against their real property. LAUSD’s then-COO felt that PVPUSD would be taking on the risk of a lawsuit and any resulting damages that may be awarded by a court if the decision is not made in PVPUSD’s favor. LAUSD representatives took the position that an administrative process would be required to modify the school district boundaries via a petition carried by the Eastview community property owners, which would need to include the details of the proposed boundary “reorganization.” Such a petition would need to be submitted to the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization , with an appeal right to the State Board of Education if the petition was rejected by the Committee. Once the administrative process was completed, the reorganization would then be put to a vote in the Eastview community in an election most likely administered by the Los Angeles County Clerk. The discussion then turned to how the existing PVPUSD bonds would be transferred to Eastview community property owners if they were to join this school district without reaching any conclusions. It was generally felt that this could be problematic since a portion of these funds were used to improve school facilities in the PVPUSD that are being used by Eastview students. LAUSD representatives noted the district may oppose reorganization because of: • The precedent it would set for other areas that may want to split from LAUSD • The possibility of United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) opposing the boundary change due to its adverse impacts on union membership. In the end, the City’s direct involvement in a possible reorganization of school district boundaries was abandoned in 2010, at the direction of the then-City Council. III. Applicable Law A. Summary of the Law Detaching the Eastview community from LAUSD and annexing the same into the PVPUSD would constitute an action to reorganize districts, which involves the transferring of “territory, including the transfer of all or part of an existing school district to another existing school district.”(Ed. Code § 35511(b).) The provisions that govern the reorganization of school districts are found in the Education Code, specifically in Title 2, Division 3, Division 3, Part 21, Chapters 3 and 4. Reorganization within the same county is initiated by a petition filed with the county superintendent of schools by a specified percentage of the electorate of the territory at issue, or by a majority of the school board members of both impacted school 4 01203.0002/630876.7 districts.2A petition by the electorate would have to be signed by “[a]t least 25 percent of the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized if the territory is inhabited.”(Ed. Code § 35700(a).) Once a petition is filed, the superintendent has 30 days to review it and if he/she finds it sufficient, he/she must forward it simultaneously to the county commit tee (county committee on school district organization plans) and the State Board of Education. Within 60 days of receipt, the county committee must set a public hearing regarding the petition. Within 120 days of the commencement of the hearing, the county committee must approve or disapprove of a petition for the transfer or territory. It should be noted, however, that in the case of a petition for the transfer of less than 10% of the territory of the district from which the territory is being transferred, the 120-day period to approve or disapprove the petition begins when the CEQA document is certified, or the project is determined to be exempt. B. Detailed Procedures for a Voter Initiative Petition of Reorganization 1. Initiation of Reorganization Action Initiation of an action to reorganize one or more districts is governed by Section 37500 of the Education Code, which provides, an action is initiated upon the filing, with the county superintendent of schools, a petition to reorganize one or more school districts. In relevant part, the petition must be signed by either:  at least 25% of the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized if the territory is inhabited, where the petition is to reorganize territory in two or more school districts, the petition shall be signed by at least 25% of the registered voters in that territory in each of those districts; or  a number of registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized, equal to at least 8% of the votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election in the territory proposed to be reorganized. 2. Powers of the County Superintendent The County Superintendent has certain powers with respect to the reorganization of school districts which depend upon what stage the action is in. Ed. Code § 35700.1. Before the initiation of action to reorganize a county superintendent of schools may: 2 Since it would appear, given the past history we have reviewed in this memorandum, that either or both of the impacted school districts may be unwilling to support a petition for reorganization (albeit, we are reading “tea leaves” here), the remainder of our analysis assumes that the process for reorganization would be initiated by a voter petition. We could, if desired, provide a more detailed analysis of a reorganization petition where both LAUSD and PVPUSD join in the same. 5 01203.0002/630876.7  Provide information, coordination, and guidance to potential petitioners for reorganization and to other parties inquiring about the petition process  Provide procedural advice and counseling  Provide information and assistance for community meetings, information sessions, and briefing sessions  Provide for coordination of media and community relations Once a petition has been filed with the county, the Superintendent may perform certain duties related to the processing and evaluation of the petition to reorganize including:  Ensure compliance with all requirements pertaining to the petitions  Ensure compliance with all required timelines or deadlines for petitions  Apply new and preexisting evaluation criteria to the petition  A county superintendent of schools may provide assistance to reorganized districts during the interim period  To ensure smooth transitions with minimum disruption to pupils and staff  To provide advisory and consulting expertise on: (i) Personnel policies (ii) Curriculum (iii) Instructional programs and services (iv) Financial and budgeting functions (v) Distribution of assets and liabilities The code also provides that funds which are appropriated in the annual Budget Act or otherwise allocated to the Los Angeles County Office of Education may be used to support any research necessary to review and make recommendations regarding reorganization plans that are submitted to the county office of education. 3. Additional Petition Requirements Before initiating proceedings to consider any reorganization plan, the county committee on school district organization shall provide written notice of the proposed action to the local agency formation commission for the affected area.(Ed. Code § 35700.5.) 6 01203.0002/630876.7 A petition filed under Section 35700 is required to reasonably identify the territory to be reorganized. Identification may include references to streets or prominent geographic features. The inclusion of legal descriptions or plat maps, or both, however, is not a prerequisite for the filing of a valid petition. (Ed. Code § 35700.5.) No more than three petitioners can be designated as chief petitioners for the purpose of receiving notice of any public hearings to be held on the petition.(Ed. Code § 35701.)The persons securing the signatures to a petition of electors to reorganize school districts are required to obtain a signed affidavit that all persons who signed the petition did so in the presence of the affiant and that each signature is a genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be.(Ed. Code § 35702.) 4. Post Signing Process and Requirements Within 30 days after the petition has been adequately signed and filed, the county superintendent is required to examine the petition and, if he or she finds it to be sufficient and signed as required by law, the superintendent must transmit the petition simultaneously to the county committee and to the State Board of Education.(Ed. Code § 35704.) Within 60 days after receipt of the petition, the county committee is required to hold one or more public hearings thereon at a regular or special meeting in each of the districts affected by the petition. Notice of the public hearing must be given at least 10 days in advance of the hearing to 1) not more than three persons designated in the petitio n as the chief petitioners, 2) to the governing board of all districts affected by the proposed reorganization, and 3) to all other persons requesting notice of the hearing. Ed. Code § 35705 Within 120 days of the commencement of the first public hearing o n the petition, the county committee shall recommend approval or disapproval of a petition to form one or more new districts or for the division of the entire territory of a school district into two or more new or acquiring districts, as the petition may be augmented, or shall approve or disapprove a petition for the transfer of territory, as the petition may be augmented. The county committee also shall approve or disapprove a petition to form one or more new districts if the conditions of subdivision (b) of Section 35710 are met. (Ed. Code § 35706.) Petitions for transfers of territory shall be transmitted pursuant to Section 35704, which provides, if the petition is determined to be sufficient, the superintendent transmits it to the committee and State Board of education and no recommendations are needed. 5. Approval/Disapproval of the Petition The county committee has the discretion to approve or disapprove the finalized petition.3 They may approve the petition and order that it be granted if either: 3 An action by the county committee either approving or disapproving a petition pursuant to Sections 35709, 35710, or 35710.1 may be appealed to the State Board of Education by the chief petitioners or one or more 7 01203.0002/630876.7  The petition is to transfer uninhabited territory from one school district to another and the owner of the territory, or a majority of the owners of the territory, and the governing board of each affected district consents to the transfer; or  The petition is to transfer inhabited territory of less than 10% of the assessed valuation of the school district from which the territory is being transferred, and the governing board of each affected district consents to the transfer. Additionally, the committee must find that the following conditions have been substantially met prior to approving the finalized petition. (a) The reorganized districts will be adequate in terms of number of pupils enrolled. (b) The school districts are each organized on the basis of a substantial community identity. (c) The proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district or districts. (d) The reorganization of the school districts will preserve each affected district's ability to educate pupils in an integrated environment and will not promote racial or ethnic discrimination or segregation. (e) Any increase in costs to the state as a result of the proposed reorganization will be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization. (f) The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound education performance and will not significantly disrupt the educational programs in the affected districts. (g) Any increase in school facilities costs as a result of the proposed reorganization will be insignificant and otherwise incidental to the reorganization. affected school districts. However, the appeal must be limited to issues of noncompliance with the provisions of sections 35705 (public hearing in each of the districts affected by the petition); 35706 (recommendation - doesn’t apply here); 35709 (approval conditions required to be met); 35710 (notification of approval). A person questioning the finding of the county committee pursuant to Section 35709 or 35710 that the action to transfer territory or form one or more new districts will not adversely affect the racial or ethnic integration of the schools of the districts affected, may appeal a decision based on that finding. The appeal shall be made to the state board within 30 days. The appeal shall be based upon factual and statistical evidence. If the State Board denies the appeal, the decision of the county committee shall stand. If the State Board approves the appeal, it shall review the findings of the county committee at a regular meeting of the State Board. The State Board is required to notify the county committee of its decision on the appeal. (Ed. Code § 35710.5.) 8 01203.0002/630876.7 (h) The proposed reorganization is primarily designed for purposes other than to significantly increase property values. (i) The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound fisc al management and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status of the affected district. (k) Any other criteria that the state board may, by regulation, prescribe . The state board may approve a proposal for the reorganization of school districts if the state board determines that it is not practical or possible to apply the criteria of this section literally, and that the circumstances with respect to the proposals provide an exceptional situation sufficient to justify approval of the pr oposals.(Ed. Code § 35753.) 6. State Board Notice of Approval The State Board of Education is required to establish minimum standards which it shall apply in approving or disapproving petitions and proposals for the formation or reorganization of school districts.(Ed. Code § 35750.) If the board approves the plans and recommendations for the unification or other reorganization of the school districts, including approval through affirmation or reversal of the action of a county committee, itis required to give notice of the approval to the county superintendent of schools, who has jurisdiction over any of the school districts whose boundaries or status would be affected by the reorganization as proposed.(Ed. Code § 35755.) 7. Adoption of Reorganization Plan The county superintendent of schools, within 35 days of receiving the notification of the State Board’s approval of the reorganization, shall call an election, to be conducted at the next election of any kind in the territory of districts as determined by the state board, in accordance with particularly enumerated Elections Code sections. 8. Eligibility to Vote Every qualified elector residing within the territory in which the election is called shall be eligible to vote at such election. (Ed. Code. § 3576.) 9. Campaign Literature The Education Code also provides guidelines related to the use of campaign literature designed to promote either the passage or defeat of a ballot measure proposing the reorganization of school districts. (Ed. Code § 35760.)The literature must show on its face, in a conspicuous place, either: (1) The names and residence addresses of the chairmen and secretary, or the names and residence addresses of at least two officers of the organization issuing it, if issued by an organization. 9 01203.0002/630876.7 (2) The name and residence address, with the street and number, if any, of any individual responsible for it, if issued by an individual or individuals. Additionally, If any person eligible to vote upon such ballot measure has reason to believe that such campaign literature contains false and misleading statements, he or she may bring an action in the superior court for injunctive relief against further circulation of the literature, and if the court finds that the literature does, in fact, contain false and misleading statements, it may enjoin any further circulation of the literature. 10. Ballot Language The wording of the ballots must be extremely specific under the code. The words to appear upon the ballots used for voting upon the adoption or rejection of the proposals for the reorganization of school districts shall be “Reorganization of school districts -- Yes,” and “Reorganization of school districts--No,” or words of similar import. If the plans and recommendations include a proposal for trustee areas in acc ordance with Section 35734, such proposal shall be considered a part of the reorganization proposition to be voted upon, and the ballot shall include wording to that effect. 11. Effect of Majority Vote When a majority of all the votes cast are cast in favor of the reorganization or other proposal, the proposal carries. (Ed. Code § 35764.) ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Receive and file this report and take no action on the same . 2. Receive and file this report and direct Staff to pursue the possible Eastview community detachment from LAUSD and attachment of this community to PVPUSD. 10 A-1 A-2 A-3 95 Senate Bill No. 544 CHAPTER 153 An act to amend Section 1 of Chapter 868 of the Statutes of 1998, relating to school district reorganization, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. [Approved by Governor July 22, 1999. Filed with Secretary of State July 22, 1999.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST SB 544, Karnette. School district reorganization: Palos Verdes Peninsula and Los Angeles Unified School Districts. Existing law requires each person subject to compulsory full-time education to attend the school in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located, subject to specified exceptions. Existing law, commencing with the 1999–2000 school year, makes the area of Eastview in Los Angeles County, which is currently part of the Los Angeles Unified School District, an optional attendance area by authorizing parents and legal guardians who reside in that area to make an election for each pupil when the pupil enters elementary school and middle school as to whether that pupil will attend schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or the Los Angeles Unified School District. The bill would clarify that those provisions are applicable to all pupils who reside in the area of Eastview in Los Angeles County regardless of whether the pupil previously attended a private school. It would revise the procedure for making an election as to which school district the pupil will attend. The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1 of Chapter 868 of the Statutes of 1998 is amended to read: Section 1. (a) Commencing with the 1999–2000 school year, the area of Eastview as delineated in subdivision (c) is an optional attendance area. Parents and legal guardians residing in the area of Eastview may make an election for each pupil as to whether that pupil will attend schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or the Los Angeles Unified School District. For the 1999–2000 school year, the parents or legal guardians of all pupils who reside in the area of Eastview may make an election by March 1, 1999, as to the school district their child or children will attend. For the 2000–01 B-1 Ch. 153 —2— 95 school year and each subsequent school year, the parents or legal guardians residing in the area of Eastview shall make their initial election as to the school district their child or children will attend by March 1 of the school year in which the pupil first enters elementary school, and shall make a second election by March 1 of the school year in which the pupil enters middle school. Parents and legal guardians residing in the area of Eastview may elect, for each of their children, whether to attend schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District or the Los Angeles Unified School District twice during the time that their child attends school. This election may be made once during any time the child attends kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and be made once during the time the child attends any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. Parents or legal guardians who newly move into the area of Eastview shall make their initial election as to the school district their child or children will attend when the parents or legal guardians first enroll their child or children in public school. This section is applicable to all pupils who reside within the area of Eastview of Los Angeles County regardless of whether the pupil previously attended a private school. (b) Any school facility belonging to the Los Angeles Unified School District that is located in the area delineated in subdivision (c) shall remain the property of the Los Angeles Unified School District. The status of an employee as an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District shall not be affected by this act. (c) For the purposes of this section, the following are the boundaries of the area in Eastview in Los Angeles County: begin at the southeast corner of Tract #19028 as shown on map filed in book 587, pages 83 and 84, of maps in the office of the Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, said corner being angle point in the boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as same existed on November 1, 1978; thence northerly along the boundary of the City of Rolling Hills Estates as same existed on said date to its first intersection with the boundary of the City of Lomita as same existed on said date; thence easterly along said less mentioned boundary and following the same in all its various courses to the intersection of the northerly line of Lot 1 of Tract #3192 as shown on map filed in book 44, pages 91 to 94, inclusive, of said maps and the centerline of Western Avenue as shown on map filed in book 77, page 88, of record of surveys, in the office of said recorder; thence southerly along said centerline and continuing southerly along the centerline of Western Avenue as shown on map of Tract #24436 filed in book 653, pages 96 to 100, inclusive, of said maps to the centerline of Westmont Drive as shown on map of parcel map #5375 filed in book 63, pages 92 and 93, of parcel maps in the office of said recorder; thence continuing southerly along the centerline of Western Avenue as shown on said last mentioned map a distance of 67 feet; thence easterly at right angles from said last mentioned centerline a distance of 50 feet to the B-2 Ch. 153—3— 95 northerly termimus of that certain course having a bearing and length of N1343 feet 42 inches East along that certain 27 foot radius curve in said last mentioned boundary of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, thence northerly along said last mentioned boundary to the point of beginning. SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to clarify as soon as possible provisions of law relating to the area of Eastview in Los Angeles County and school district reorganization, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. O B-3 Legend Eastview Neighborhood (Overview) Notes Detail of the boundary of the Eastview neighborhood The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please contact the City for more information. 0.600.6 Miles0.30 Street Centerlines (2015) Private Public City Boundary Parcel C-1 Legend 1:38,581 City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Overview) Overview of City showing location of Eastview neighborhood Notes6,430.13,215.04 © City of Rancho Palos Verdes 6,430.1 0 Feet NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_V_FIPS_0405_Feet The information on this map is for reference only and may not be up-to-date. Please contact the City for more information. Street Centerlines (2015) Private Public City Boundary D-1 D-2