Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Library Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates citizen‑led parcel tax option to reopen hours as city explores other revenue measures
Summary
Board members discussed pursuing a citizen’s initiative or parcel tax to restore library hours and fund security and services, referencing Pasadena’s model, estimated program needs of $2M–$4M, and the need for drafted language, signatures and possible legal/polling costs.
The Santa Monica Library Board discussed pursuing a citizen‑led funding measure to restore library hours and stabilize operations as the city weighs broader revenue options.
Board members summarized a recent meeting with a community group considering a citizens’ initiative to protect school facility use funding and noted the school‑city facility use agreement currently generates $12 million annually for schools and expires in 2027. The board’s ad hoc group said the library could pursue a separate parcel tax or similar dedicated funding to protect library services, but that the effort would require rapid organization, legal drafting and fundraising.
Speakers referenced Pasadena’s parcel tax model and said a library parcel tax could be framed to raise an estimated $2 million–$4 million a year to reopen branches and expand hours; one board member said rough modeling suggested a per‑parcel rate that would amount to under $150 per parcel per year in some scenarios. The board discussed advantages of a per‑parcel levy versus an assessed‑value approach and said parcel taxes are administratively simpler but can feel regressive in optics.
Board members noted steps and costs: draft and finalize ballot language before collecting signatures, form a campaign committee, underwrite attorney and signature‑gathering fees and consider (but not necessarily afford) polling to refine messaging. Estimates discussed in the meeting ranged widely: legal drafting costs could be modest (several thousand dollars) if pro bono help is available, while combined polling, signature drives and campaign costs could reach tens of thousands.
Board members agreed to discuss the idea with the city manager and individual council members, identify potential legal counsel to draft language, and seek underwriting for up‑front legal fees. They also acknowledged political complexity since the city is exploring bond measures and other revenue tools that could overlap with or complicate a library‑only initiative.
No final decision was made; board members asked staff and the ad hoc committee to pursue legal research and identify possible pro bono or low‑cost counsel and report back on timelines and costs so the group can determine next steps before agency deadlines for ballot placement.
