Battle to separate Malibu from Santa Monica school district reignites

first_imgHomeNewsEducationBattle to separate Malibu from Santa Monica school district reignites Oct. 29, 2020 at 6:03 amEducationFeaturedNewsBattle to separate Malibu from Santa Monica school district reignitesClara Harter7 months agoMalibu City CouncilsmmusdSanta Monica-Malibu Unified School District offices (File photo) Following two and a half years of negotiations between Malibu City Council and SMMUSD, Malibu decided on Oct. 12 to reinstate its petition to L.A. County Office of Education to form a separate school district. On Wednesday Oct. 28, SMMUSD Superintendent Dr. Ben Drati sent a letter to the City of Malibu expressing disapproval of the petition and urging Malibu to return to the negotiating table for the sake of preserving educational equity.The District letter cited financial concerns saying that a separation following the plan shared at Malibu’s Oct. 12 City Council meeting would create two very unequal school districts.“Their consultants’ projections show Malibu starting at $16,494 per student, while students in Santa Monica would be funded at $13,592. Based on the Malibu formula for revenue growth, in year five, Malibu students will receive $25,998 per student, while Santa Monica per student funding will be $14,264: a five year growth rate of 58% in Malibu vs 5% in Santa Monica,” said Dr. Drati.The City of Malibu is pursuing its petition to create a Malibu Unified School District on account of inequalities between educational opportunities offered in Santa Monica vs Malibu and a strong desire for local control over Malibu schools. Currently, Malibu has approximately 15 percent of the District’s population, which hinders its ability to elect local representatives to the seven member School Board and precludes an ability to form a majority Malibu vote on school issues.Malibu first sent its unification petition to LACOE on Aug 31. 2017, but suspended it on April 9. 2018 in order to negotiate with SMMUSD. Malibu City Council members are unsatisfied by the pace and direction of negotiations and oppose SMMUSD’s financial proposals that would require a portion of Malibu’s property tax base be permanently redistributed to the proposed Santa Monica District.“Having sent our children to local Malibu schools, this issue could not be more dear to our hearts. We are disappointed in the SMMUSD negotiations but are encouraged by the work that has been done and are very excited to be moving the City’s petition for unification of a Malibu Unified School District forward,” said Councilmember Karen Farrer and Councilmember Rick Mullen, members of the City’s School District Separation Ad Hoc Committee.Malibu City Council established school district separation as one of the Council’s top three priorities in addition to public safety and Woolsey Fire rebuild for the last two years.Dr. Drati’s letter expressed disappointment that negotiations were abandoned and that the petition was reinstated without consultation of the District. The District is preparing a response to the petition in preparation for the public hearing that will be scheduled by LACOE.“If the Malibu City Council chooses to return to the negotiating table and embraces a genuine effort to address equity concerns seriously, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District delegation is committed to continuing to work together to find an equitable solution that ensures fairness to both of what will be newly created districts,” said Dr. Drati. “We are firmly focused on the future.”[email protected] :Malibu City Councilsmmusdshare on Facebookshare on Twitteradd a commentNoteworthy – The Flash In The BasementYour Column Here – Returning home to Santa MonicaYou Might Also LikeFeaturedNewsBobadilla rejects Santa Monica City Manager positionMatthew Hall5 hours agoNewsCouncil picks new City ManagerBrennon Dixson16 hours agoFeaturedNewsProtesting parents and Snapchat remain in disagreement over child protection policiesClara Harter16 hours agoFeaturedNewsDowntown grocery to become mixed use developmenteditor16 hours agoNewsBruised but unbowed, meme stock investors are back for moreAssociated Press16 hours agoNewsWedding boom is on in the US as vendors scramble to keep upAssociated Press16 hours agolast_img read more

AT&T tower deal bears fruit

first_img AT&T pushes cybersecurity to public sector Diana is Mobile World Live’s US Editor, reporting on infrastructure and spectrum rollouts, regulatory issues, and other carrier news from the US market. Diana came to GSMA from her former role as Editor of Wireless Week and CED Magazine, digital-only… Read more Related Amazon reels in MGM AT&T touted the construction of hundreds of new wireless towers with partner Tillman Infrastructure over the past year, which the operator said will give it leeway to relocate equipment and buck overpriced leases.An AT&T representative said the macro sites were built as part of a deal between the operator and Tillman Infrastructure which is separate from a co-location deal the pair signed alongside Verizon.The operator declined to specify the number of towers being built as part of its individual agreement with Tillman Infrastructure, saying only hundreds of sites have already been built and more are being completed on a monthly basis.However, the representative noted “there is no time limit on our agreement with Tillman,” adding the infrastructure provider is “scaling operations for the capacity to build many hundreds of new towers.”The first batch of towers from the co-location deal are expected to be launched by the close of this year, with additional towers being built in 2019, the representative added.AT&T said it is using the new towers to speed deployment of both its 5G and FirstNet networks, along with filling in and expanding coverage where necessary.But the operator’s alliance with Tillman Infrastructure is also part of its effort to gain the upper hand in lease negotiations and reward vendors which offer a “sustainable cost model”. AT&T also signed tower deals with CitySwitch and Crown Castle in its quest for better terms.Tillman Infrastructure CEO William Hague hinted the company is hoping the cost-conscious fever will catch with others providers, noting it is “bringing a real alternative to the tower infrastructure space for all mobile operators”. Subscribe to our daily newsletter Back Author Tags Diana Goovaerts US chip funding tipped to top $150B AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 18 DEC 2018 Home AT&T tower deal bears fruit Previous ArticleIndia pushes spectrum auction dates backNext ArticleT-Mobile, Sprint clear key merger hurdles AT&Tcell towersinfrastructurelast_img read more

News / Check the terminal choices before you pick your carrier, shippers advised

first_imgBy Gavin van Marle 09/03/2017 As the new alliance route networks finally begin to take shape – less than a month before they launch – a major US shipper urged his peers to check carriers’ terminal selection as an important criteria when choosing liner services for the next year.At last week’s TPM event in Long Beach, Chris Corrado, vice president of supply chain at medical supplies manufacturer Ansell, told delegates the firm had just completed its annual tender process and had been scoring carriers on their terminal selection.“We have just finished our annual bid process. A lot of our cargo comes from Asia and we ended up awarding some contracts to carriers which avoided certain relay ports, because in some cases transhipment at these took two days and meant we missed the next sailing, delaying the containers by a further two weeks.Philip Damas, director of Drewry Supply Chain Advisors, which helped Ansell design its tender, said: “Traditionally, BCOs select carriers on the port call rather than the terminal and look at metrics such as container dwell times (as measured by ship-arrival-to-gate out time); truck turn times; how congestion-free it is; its rail connections; whether there are intermodal container transfer facilities; and what customs are like.” But he said that even within ports there could be huge differences between terminals, as well as between different ports in the same region. On the US east coast, according to Drewry, Charleston offers shippers the shortest dwell time, of 1.5 days, followed by Halifax, where it is two days, and at two unnamed east coast hubs it is 2.5 days-plus.“But if you look at the slowest terminal on the east coast, the dwell time is five days; the question is, do you know which terminal your carrier is calling at when you select it? And if you do, is a $100 reduction in freight rates worth waiting an extra 2.5 days to receive your container?Mr Corrado added: “We also found that it was more cost-effective to pay a niche carrier $75 per container more and go through their US west coast terminal, than have a three-hour wait at a different terminal and take a cheaper ocean rate,” he added.Mr Damas added that trends driving the liner industry would mean the issue of terminal efficiency was likely to move an increasingly towards centre stage this year.“The big issue this and next year is what the bigger ships coming to the US trades mean for terminal efficiency. In the days when the Asia-US west coast trade was operated by 5,000 teu ships, containers could get through ports within a day.“As the trade has moved to operating 10,000 teu ships, it will now take one-to-three days because the vessels have much larger container exchanges.“On the US west coast, it is two-to-four days now, and it will be longer than four when the ULCVs come here. So the new 13,000 teu ships, due to begin operating at the US east coast, means that dwell times of two-to-four days there are likely to happen – we expect port times to get longer all round.”last_img read more