History and Timeline – Malibu’s Path to Unification

1990s–2010

Malibu parents and civic leaders express increasing concern that the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) structure isn’t meeting Malibu’s needs. Ideas of splitting from SMMUSD circulate for years, largely informally.
2011

 Formation of Advocates for Malibu Public Schools (AMPS), a grassroots group devoted to exploring an independent Malibu district (source). AMPS rallies community support and begins researching the feasibility of separation.
2013

AMPS commissions a comprehensive WestEd Feasibility Study, funded by community donations, to analyze whether a Malibu-only district could work. Thousands of Malibu residents sign petitions supporting the concept (source).
July 2015

WestEd report is released, concluding that a Malibu USD is both feasible and desirable, and that Malibu’s separation can satisfy the nine criteria required by state law (source). It notes potential benefits for both communities if done with a fair financial plan.
September 2015

 Malibu City Council unanimously passes Resolution 15-60: formally declaring the intent to unify Malibu’s schools into a separate district and authorizing submission of a petition to Los Angeles County (Source). This resolution becomes the foundation of Malibu’s case.
2016

 In response to Malibu’s resolution, SMMUSD and Malibu set up the Malibu Unification Negotiations Committee (MUNC) – 3 representatives from Malibu (appointed by the City) and 3 from Santa Monica (appointed by SMMUSD) (source). Over 18 months, MUNC meets regularly to hash out financial terms for a potential split. They achieve consensus on many issues, and their work later informs the revenue-sharing formulas.
Late 2016

SMMUSD Board indicates conceptual support for Malibu’s self-determination, if an equitable formula can be found. Both sides agree that “separation would only happen with no financial harm to either district" (Source) – a principle that guides all negotiations henceforth.
November 2016

Voters in Santa Monica and Malibu pass separate school bond measures (SMS for Santa Monica, M for Malibu) – an early sign of moving toward independent funding streams for each community’s schools.

2017 

September 1, 2017 The City of Malibu submits its petition to LACOE’s County Committee on School District Organization, using the 2015 Council resolution as the basis (source). This officially starts the county-level review process. The County Committee schedules an introductory item for November.
Nov 1, 2017 LACOE County Committee meeting – Malibu’s petition is introduced (source). However, Malibu’s City attorney requests a pause on moving to a hearing, as Malibu and SMMUSD decide to try one more time to negotiate a deal without litigation (source).
Dec 2017: Malibu agrees to “pause” the county process pending a fresh financial analysis by School Services of California (SSC), jointly commissioned by SMMUSD, to propose a fair revenue-sharing plan (this was the result of Malibu’s request and SMMUSD’s willingness to explore a deal). Santa Monica’s local news notes Malibu’s “campaign to split” is on hold awaiting this report (source).

2018
March 20, 2018: Breakthrough – SMMUSD Board Special Meeting. SSC presents its report. After a marathon 3-hour session, the SMMUSD Board votes 6–1 to approve a framework for Malibu unification (source). The framework includes a 50-year revenue-sharing plan where Malibu would send significant ongoing funds to Santa Monica. The Board’s approval comes with a condition: Malibu must put its LACOE petition on hold during final negotiations (source). Key moment: Board Member (and Malibu resident) Craig Foster calls the decision “a first step toward Malibu’s goal… acknowledging local control for both communities" (source).
Feb 26, 2018 & Apr 9, 2018:

Reflecting the progress, Malibu City Council on 2/26 directs staff to re-engage LACOE (which had been paused) (source) and on 4/9 formally asks LACOE to accept the petition but suspend action while talks continue (source). Council also “accepts in principle” the SMMUSD Board’s March 20 framework (source), signaling Malibu’s agreement to the broad terms. Negotiation teams (Malibu’s City Manager/Attorney and SMMUSD reps) begin meeting, supervised by an Ad Hoc committee of Malibu council members.

2019
2018–2019: Negotiations Phase. Malibu and Santa Monica officials hold numerous meetings to fill in the details of the separation agreement. Updates are periodically given at LACOE Committee meetings (Sept 2018, Mar 2019, etc.) – both sides report some progress but request more time (source). In May 2019, Malibu reaffirms school district separation as a top City priority (City Council Work Plan) (source). 
Late 2019: Negotiations hit complex issues (how to handle the permanent division of assets, Malibu’s rapidly rising property values, etc.). LACOE sets a tentative preliminary hearing for early 2020, but parties ask for delay as talks are ongoing (source) The County Committee gets regular reports in fall 2019 and agrees to wait a bit longer (source). 
2020

The COVID-19 pandemic and other factors stall talks. In August 2020, SMMUSD’s attorney informs LACOE that COVID disruptions have paused negotiations (source). By fall 2020, with talks still stalled, Malibu decides it cannot wait indefinitely:
-October 12, 2020: Malibu City Council holds a public meeting where the Ad Hoc committee reports negotiations are at an impasse. That night, Council unanimously votes to reactivate the LACOE petition and proceed with or without SMMUSD’s agreement (source). Malibu also hires additional consultants to update the financial feasibility study given new data (property tax growth, etc.).
- October 28, 2020: Malibu hosts a virtual Town Hall on School Separation, sharing details of the draft revenue plan with the public and answering questions (source). SMMUSD’s Superintendent Dr. Ben Drati responds two days later with a letter expressing skepticism (he was “deeply skeptical” of Malibu’s unilateral plan, per media reports), but both sides continue communicating through LACOE channels (source).

2021 
April 17, 2021: LACOE Preliminary Public Hearing (virtual) – after years of delay, the County Committee convenes a massive Zoom hearing to consider Malibu’s petition on the 9 state criteria. Over 300 attendees log in (source). Malibu’s team (Mayor, lawyers, consultants) presents the case for separation, emphasizing local control and the guiding principle that "both districts will have similar services as before" (source). SMMUSD’s team argues the original petition (from 2017) is outdated and doesn’t meet criteria, citing concerns about Malibu’s small size and financial impact on Santa Monica. Hundreds of public comments are heard across multiple sessions (the hearing spanned April to September in segments).

Sept 18, 2021: The County Committee closes the preliminary hearing, and in a split vote agrees the petition can advance to full review (essentially not killing it in preliminary stage) (source).  They note, however, that LACOE staff’s analysis found Malibu’s current petition likely fails 8 of 9 criteria** (e.g., enrollment, equitable division, no harm to state etc.) (source). Despite these red flags, the Committee opts to give space for the ongoing mediation between Malibu and SMMUSD.
2022

A year of intense mediation and negotiation. With the petition alive but on hold, Malibu and SMMUSD enter a formal mediation process facilitated by LACOE. Key developments:
- February 2022: Malibu asks LACOE to delay any further action because “we’re making progress in talks.” County Committee agrees to hold off, month by month (source). 
- By mid-2022: Both sides craft a “Term Sheet” – essentially a high-level deal outline.

On November 1, 2022, Malibu’s and Santa Monica’s negotiating subcommittees jointly present this Term Sheet to the County Committee (source). It includes the Per-Pupil Funding Formula we’ve described (Malibu property tax transfers to ensure Santa Monica a 4% annual increase) and the plan for two other agreements (Operations Transfer and a Joint Powers Authority for certain shared services).

2023
- Throughout 2023: Each monthly LACOE meeting features Malibu’s attorney (Christine Wood) and SMMUSD’s attorney (David Soldani) giving polite status updates – “We’re 95% there on the revenue formula,” “We are negotiating contingencies and details,” etc. (source). County Committee members grow impatient but continue to grant extensions, recognizing that a negotiated deal would be ideal. Notably, in June 2023, SMMUSD Board Member Laurie Lieberman reads a statement into the LACOE record reaffirming Santa Monica’s commitment to seeing it through, albeit with concerns about the complexity (source). 

2024
Early 2024: Hopes are high that an agreement will be finalized. Both Malibu and Santa Monica indicate a target of spring 2024 for public outreach and board approvals:
- April 2024: Malibu’s City Council and SMMUSD plan parallel community meetings to explain the draft separation package. Malibu hosts sessions on April 10 and April 20; SMMUSD holds a meeting at the end of May for its community (source). Feedback is generally positive among Malibu stakeholders, while Santa Monica stakeholders have more questions – but engagement is happening.
- June 5, 2024 (LACOE Meeting): The two sides report they’re almost done. They schedule June and July mediation sessions to tie up loose ends, aiming to share the full agreement publicly by August (source). LACOE staff note this would be “the most complicated unification ever attempted in California" (source) but commend both sides for avoiding litigation through cooperation (source). 
July 2024 – Breakdown and Petition Resumed: By July, cracks reappear. Malibu perceives delay tactics as the agreed timeline slips; SMMUSD worries Malibu might walk if pressured too much.
- July 13, 2024: Malibu’s City Council announces it is **suspending mediation** and reactivating the County petition. In a letter to LACOE on July 19, Malibu cites deadlock and missed deadlines, stating the November 2024 target for a deal is no longer feasible (source). Mayor Pro Tem Marianne Riggins’ open letter asserts Malibu is still willing to mediate, but won’t withdraw the petition to satisfy SMMUSD’s ultimatum (source) She famously wrote, “Malibu residents and students have waited many years… We can no longer accept delays. Both parties have publicly agreed separation is in the best interest of all students. These efforts must proceed promptly." (source). 
- July 17, 2024: In response, SMMUSD’s attorney Soldani asks LACOE not to schedule hearings until at least November 2024, arguing that if Malibu abandons the agreed timeline it jeopardizes the nearly complete deal (source). Tensions rise publicly.
August 7, 2024: LACOE’s County Committee, tired of delays, unanimously votes to set public hearing dates for Malibu’s petition in November 2024 (source). They plan two hearings (one in each community) before Thanksgiving. During this meeting, it’s revealed SMMUSD still hoped to approve the agreements on October 24, 2024 (source)– but LACOE essentially says, “We’ll believe it when we see it; meanwhile, we’ll proceed with the formal process.”

October 2024 – The Final Hours of Negotiation:
- Oct 15, 2024: SMMUSD Board holds a special meeting to review the finalized separation agreements (Revenue Sharing, Operations, JPA). It’s a public walkthrough of what had been negotiated. **No vote is taken**, but board members express concerns and ask for more time. For instance, Board Member Lieberman raises a hypothetical worry: if Santa Monica’s local revenue (like city funding measures) declines in the future, the deal’s stability could be at risk (source). Malibu observers fear the board is getting cold feet.
- Oct 23, 2024: Malibu City Council meets (largely in closed session) and emerges to announce that Malibu will proceed with its original 2017 petition and a new feasibility study, without SMMUSD’s sign-off (source). This effectively means Malibu is saying, “We have a deal on paper, but if Santa Monica won’t approve it now, we’re going to the County with our own plan.” Mayor Doug Stewart’s statement sums it up: “Due to the Board’s failure to meet the agreed-upon deadlines, Malibu will now proceed independently." (source). The updated feasibility study Malibu submits removes some concessions Malibu had offered during talks (since those were not accepted in time) (source)– notably, it presumably does not include things Malibu only offered if Santa Monica agreed (the details are complex, but Malibu basically reverts to a slightly more Malibu-favorable stance, while still honoring the core revenue neutrality).
- Oct 24, 2024: At SMMUSD’s regular board meeting, the separation package is on the agenda for a vote. However, the Board opts not to vote; instead, they discuss needing more community input and more time to digest the details (source). Board President Jennifer Smith emphasizes the importance of thoroughness over speed, effectively missing Malibu’s deadline. Santa Monica’s side later frames this not as rejection, but as a “short delay for due diligence" (source). Malibu’s side sees it as a breach of a mutually agreed timeline. The trust between the two teams, painstakingly built, is badly strained.
November 2024: Public Hearings and County Consideration
- Nov 6, 2024: LACOE County Committee meeting – Malibu’s attorney urges the Committee to move forward with deciding the petition on its merits, since Santa Monica failed to act in time (source). Santa Monica’s reps (including Board VP Jon Kean) implore the Committee to postpone a final decision, arguing they just need a bit more time to ratify the agreements and that Malibu shouldn’t “bail out” now (source). The Committee, however, sticks to its plan: the public hearings will proceed.
- Nov 8, 2024 (Santa Monica) & Nov 13, 2024 (Malibu): LACOE holds two public hearings in the respective communities. These are well-attended and emotional. In Santa Monica, many speakers (parents, former board members, even students) voice opposition to the split – citing concerns like reduced diversity and financial uncertainties if the deal isn’t inked. In Malibu, a large turnout of residents speaks in favor – highlighting decades of feeling like “poor relations” in the district and the promise of local control to fix longstanding issues (like facilities improvements at Malibu High that took years under SMMUSD). Both hearings together last many hours and generate a voluminous record of public comment for the Committee’s consideration.

2025 
April 2, 2025: The County Committee’s Decision – A Setback for Malibu
After some months (the Committee delayed the decision from the original Dec 2024 target, partly to digest the public input and also because one committee member’s status was under question), the County Committee finally votes on Malibu’s petition:
- LACOE staff present an updated Feasibility Analysis (this might incorporate Malibu’s November 2024 study but it comes to grim conclusions). The report says Malibu’s standalone district would only have ~1,060 students (below the 1,501 threshold) (source), that splitting would impose a “tremendous deficit” on what would remain of Santa Monica’s district without Malibu’s money (source) and raises alarms about fiscal stability and possible increased racial/ethnic isolation (source) they basically recommend denial of the petition (source).

- The County Committee votes 6–5 to deny Malibu’s petition (source). This was a narrow outcome – one vote could have swung it to approval. Among those voting “no” (denial) is Committee Member Estefany Castaneda, who says allowing Malibu to “take its wealth and walk away” without an absolutely firm plan for equity “violates… fiscal justice" (source). Her quote resonates in local media. Those voting in favor of Malibu (to approve) are in the minority; they don’t have a chance to fully articulate in media coverage, but presumably they believed the revenue-sharing concept could satisfy the concerns.
- However, due to a procedural hiccup (there was confusion in how the motion was handled during the meeting), the Committee’s counsel advises that the vote must be redone to ensure legality (source). Thus, a revote is scheduled for May 7, 2025. 

May 7, 2025: The County Committee convenes to revote. After reaffirming the procedure properly, they vote again – this time the tally is reportedly the same (6–5 against Malibu) or possibly slightly more against (some sources say 7–4, but 6–5 is often cited) (source). Malibu’s petition is officially recommended for denial. The Committee’s decision is forwarded as a recommendation to the State Board of Education.
This was undeniably a setback for Malibu’s effort. However, it’s not the end of the road:
- Malibu can (and has signaled it will) appeal to the State Board of Education in Sacramento (source). The State Board has the power to overturn the county and approve the petition or send it back with instructions.
- Alternatively, Malibu and Santa Monica could resume negotiations to tweak the deal in a way that satisfies the Committee’s criteria concerns (for example, addressing the enrollment criterion by possibly including some unincorporated areas to boost student count, or legislative fixes to criteria).
- If the State Board eventually approves, the final step would be a county-wide election where voters of the affected areas (likely Malibu and a portion of Santa Monica) vote on whether to form the new district. That’s perhaps a year or two down the line if it gets that far.
Current Status (Mid-2025): Malibu remains determined to achieve an independent district. City leaders and advocates are working on the State appeal and also keeping the dialogue open with SMMUSD for a voluntary resolution. Santa Monica officials, for their part, have expressed relief at the County’s decision but also reiterate that they’re “continuing on the path toward creating an independent Malibu Unified School District” – indicating they haven’t abandoned the idea, just their timeline (source). 
The history of Malibu’s unification effort shows patience, persistence, and an unwavering focus on what’s best for students. It’s a story of a community that came together to seek self-governance, and that engaged in good-faith negotiation to ensure fairness. While the journey has been long and has encountered obstacles, Malibu’s core argument remains strong and simple: Malibu should have the right to control Malibu’s public schools, and this can be done without causing harm to our neighbors.
This timeline will be updated as new developments occur. Malibu residents have waited decades – and we will keep pushing forward until we reach the finish line of an independent Malibu Unified School District.