You have asked us to review the Bond Project List approved by the voters (the "Bond Project List") in the San Jose Unified School District (the District”) in connection with the issuance of general obligations bonds pursuant to Section 1(b)(3) of Article XIIIA of the Constitution of the State of California (together with related provisions of the Education Code, including Chapter 1.5 of Title 1, Division 1, Part 10 of such Code, “Proposition 39”). You have also asked us to compare the Bond Project List approved by the voters in the District with project lists approved by voters in other jurisdictions in the State. In order to ensure that only specified projects are funded with bond proceeds, the District’s Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (the “Committee”) will have to decide how the projects funded with bond proceeds match up against the Bond Project List. Amongst its most important responsibilities is the directive for the Committee to report on the expenditure of bond funds on projects not encompassed by the Bond Project List. Despite the specificity of the Bond Project List approved by the voters, as part of its review of bond expenditures, the Committee will still need to interpret whether certain projects fall within the parameters of the Bond Project List and convey that interpretation to the voters as part of its required annual report. The discussion that follows demonstrates that the Committee is not alone in this respect. Citizens’ oversight committees across the State of California will also need to engage in varying degrees of interpretation of their respective bond project lists. Discussion Section 1(b)(3)(B) of Article XIIIA of the State Constitution requires that the bond proposition approved by the voters include “A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board … has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list (emphasis added).” Proposition 39 does not set forth what is meant by “specific,” nor does it provide guidance as to what should be included in a bond project list that would render the bond project list “specific” per se.[1] In reviewing the District’s Bond Project List, it is helpful to compare the District’s list with the bond project lists prepared by certain other California school and community college districts in connection with their Proposition 39 bond elections. We reviewed the available bond project lists for Proposition 39 bond elections held on March 5, 2002 in the County of Santa Clara and the County of Los Angeles,[2] all of the bond project lists for Proposition 39 bond elections held on March 5, 2002 in Orange County, and also the bond project list for the Mt. Diablo Unified School District which featured one of the largest Proposition 39 bond authorizations approved on March 5, 2002. The ballot measures reviewed constitute approximately 20% of the number of Proposition 39 bond measures on the ballot on March 5, 2002 and approximately 50% of the total dollar authorization approved under Proposition 39 since it was passed. To the best of our knowledge, none of these elections faced legal challenge based on any claimed deficiency in the specificity of the ballot measures. Please see Appendix A for the full text of the ballot measures referenced below. In the discussion below, we review the descriptions of proposed projects provided by the District in its Bond Project List and compare it to descriptions provided by other school and community college districts for similar types of projects included in their respective Proposition 39 ballot measures.
Repair
and Upgrade Projects San Jose Unified School District: The District’s description of its repair and upgrade projects is in many cases, more specific than other similar repair and upgrade projects proposed by other school and community college districts. A number of projects to be undertaken at each of its forty-eight school sites are described, as well as District-wide projects. A glossary of terms, unique to the District’s Bond Project List, is also included to add more specificity to descriptions used. For example, “repair or replacement of bleachers” is further clarified in the glossary to refer only to “indoor bleachers.” And, despite the fact that many campuses require similar repair and upgrade projects, some projects are unique to a particular site, such as the “Media Center” project at the Downtown College Prep site, “upgrade of access drives, parking lots and bus drop-offs” at schools such as Bachrodt and the “Repair, expansion or replacement of hardcourts” at the Crossroads High School. Other Districts: School and community college districts vary in terms of the specificity provided in their bond project lists regarding repair and upgrade projects. Including a similar list of repair and upgrade projects for each campus was the norm for districts statewide. We have discussed them below in descending order of the dollar amount of Proposition 39 bonds approved by the voters. We have noted approximate ADA or enrollment figures for the districts to the extent they were readily available to us. Measure E of the West Valley-Mission Community College District ($268,653,300, approximately 20,000 students) lists repairs and upgrades to be undertaken at its two college sites. Location of some improvements within each school site are also included. For example, at West Valley College, “upgrade and expand the math and science instructional facilities.” Descriptions of projects vary in specificity from the somewhat general “Repair, renovation and upgrade existing classrooms” to the more specific “Repair and renovate Administration of Justice (law enforcement) instructional facilities.” Reference is also made to Educational and Facilities Master Plans, which were not available to us at this time, for more detail of the listed projects. Measure C of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District lists ($250,000,000, approximately 38,000 ADA) repairs and upgrades to be undertaken at each school site. Many of the project descriptions are identical for many of the schools, such as “Wire Classrooms for Internet Access” and “Accessibility Improvements.” Measure X of the North Orange County Community College District ($239,000,000, approximately 67,000 students) lists repairs and upgrades to be undertaken at its two college sites and district education center. Location of improvements within each school site are included. Descriptions of projects vary in specificity from the somewhat general “Seismically retrofit, renovate and/or remodel, furnish and equip existing facilities to include classrooms…” to the more specific “Piazza/Infrastructure Repair: Replacement of worn-out membrane under second level pedestrian walkway to prevent major water leakage and structural damage.” Measure Z of the Anaheim Union School District ($132,000,000, approximately 31,000 students) lists repairs and upgrades to be undertaken at each school site. There is some minor variation in the projects listed under “modernization” for each site but the projects listed under “health and safety” and “technology” appear to be identical for each site. Examples of descriptions of projects are “Add technology network and upgrade classroom technology” and “Furnish, construct and equip all school facilities to the extent permitted by law.” Measure BB of the Anaheim City (Elementary) School District ($111,000,000, approximately 23,000 students) lists repair and upgrade projects to be undertaken at a list of school sites without specifying the projects to be undertaken at each site or reciting the same project list for each site. In addition, projects are listed specifically for Ross Elementary. Many of the project descriptions are the same for the various sites and Ross Elementary. An example is “Rehabilitate aging restrooms” and “Renovate classrooms.” Measure V of the Antelope Valley Union High School District ($103,600,000) lists the three schools to be renovated with bond funds. The only other description of repair and upgrade projects is that the renovation includes, “but is not limited to, the modernization of classrooms, science labs, plumbing, heating, electrical, and lighting systems.” Measure K of the Beverly Hills Unified School District ($90,000,000, approximately 5,200 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at each school site. The same projects are listed for each elementary school. An example of the specificity provided is “[u]pgrade or replace fire, smoke alarms and security systems to meet current code compliance requirements” and “[r]emove hazardous materials, including asbestos, lead-based paint and other hazardous materials as necessary.” Measure I of the Azusa Unified School District ($75,000,000, approximately 12,200 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at elementary schools, middle schools and high schools in the district without specifying the projects to be undertaken at each site or reciting the same project list for each site. Many of the same projects are listed under each of the elementary, middle and high school categories. An example of the specificity provided is “[r]epair/renovate/replace/improve water, sewer and electrical systems, including all necessary fixtures” and “install energy efficient lighting.” Measure H of the Campbell Union School District ($74,900,000, approximately 6,805 ADA) provides a list of improvements to be undertaken throughout the district. With the exception of “Modernization of Monroe Middle School” and “Renovate Hazelwood Elementary School,” repair and upgrade projects are listed without specifying the projects to be undertaken at each site. An example of the specificity provided is “Upgrade electrical systems” and “Replace, repair and upgrade HVAC systems.” Measure J of the Pomona Unified School District ($68,000,000, approximately 32,000 students) provides a list of repair and renovation projects and modernization projects that will take place throughout the district without specifying the projects to be undertaken at each site. An example of the specificity in the list is “[u]pgrade facilities and campuses to provide for safety and lighting programs, including field lighting, replace and upgrade where appropriate communication, alarm and intrusion systems.” The measure also makes reference to the fact that the repair and renovation projects and the modernization projects will be done in accordance with the District’s ten year facility plan. Measure AA of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District ($67,940,000, approximately 15,500 students) lists the necessary repairs and upgrades to be made at all comprehensive school sites. An example of the specificity provided is “Upgrade deteriorating restrooms and plumbing.” Measure S of the San Gabriel Unified School District ($46,045,000) lists the projects to be undertaken at each school site. An example of the specificity provided is “Repair projects including asphalt, irrigation systems, underground sewer lines, restrooms.” New
Construction/Acquisition Projects San Jose Unified School District: The District’s Bond Project List identifies the construction/ acquisition projects to be undertaken at each school site as well as projects to be undertaken throughout the District with the level of detail used by other districts for similar projects. A glossary of terms is also included to add more specificity to descriptions used. Additions for increased capacity were contemplated at certain specifically identified existing schools. The construction of permanent facilities to replace portable facilities is contemplated within the definition of “Classroom and instructional area upgrades, remodeling, addition or modernization.” The construction of facilities for specialized instructional programs is also contemplated at specific campuses, such as Burnett Middle School. Other Districts: In describing new facilities to be built or acquired with bond proceeds, the other school and community college district ballot measures we reviewed varied in terms of the specificity provided in their bond project lists. We have discussed them below in descending order of the dollar amount of Proposition 39 bonds approved by the voters. We have noted approximate ADA or enrollment figures for the districts to the extent they were readily available to us. The bond project list in Measure E of the West Valley-Mission Community College District ($268,653,300, approximately 20,000 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at each college site. The description of new construction for each campus does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. However, for greater detail, voters are referred to the Educational and Facilities Master Plan for each campus, which were not available to us at this time. The bond project list in Measure C of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District ($250,000,000, approximately 38,000 ADA) lists the projects to be undertaken at each school site. The ballot measure contemplated the construction of a new elementary school “in Pittsburg” which is a community within the District. The description of the new construction does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. Additions for increased capacity were also contemplated at certain specifically identified existing schools. Descriptions for such additions, such as “Construct New Classrooms for Growth,” are provided. The bond project list in Measure X of the North Orange County Community College District ($239,000,000, approximately 67,000 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at each college site. The description of the new construction for each campus does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. There is also a general provision for “Campus Expansions: Acquire property for enrollment growth and campus build out.” Measure Z of the Anaheim Union School District ($132,000,000, approximately 31,000 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at each school site. The measure contemplated the construction of “a new junior high facility to reduce existing student overcrowding.” New construction is also contemplated at each of the school sites identified in the ballot measure. The description of the new construction does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. However, certain types of buildings such as “science labs, video production labs, band/choral rooms” are identified although many of the same projects are listed for each campus. Measure BB of the Anaheim City (Elementary) School District ($111,000,000, approximately 23,000 students) lists the general location of construction and acquisition sites. The sites for new construction are identified with varying degrees of specificity ranging from “land adjacent to the existing Revere campus” to “acquisition of a site in the North Anaheim area; planning, design and construction of a new elementary school and related facilities.” The description of the new construction does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. Measure V of the Antelope Valley Union High School District ($103,600,000) lists the number of schools to be constructed, along with the amount of student capacity to be created. However, no mention is made of the location of the new construction. Sample descriptions of the new construction include “construct and equip three small alternative high schools with a combined capacity of 900 students” and “construct, acquire, and equip the District’s eighth comprehensive high school.” Measure K of the Beverly Hills Unified School District ($90,000,000, approximately 5,200 students) lists the projects to be undertaken at each school site. No new schools were to be constructed with bond funds but additional classrooms were to be constructed at various specifically identified existing school sites. However, the description of the new construction generally does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. Measure I of the Azusa Unified School District ($75,000,000, approximately 12,200 students) lists the projects to be undertaken generally at elementary schools, middle schools and high schools in the district. Each of the type of school has a new construction component described, for example, as “construction/acquisition/lease of temporary or permanent classrooms, administration, support and/or ancillary facilities as needed to relieve overcrowding and accommodate increased numbers of students and staff.” However, the location of specific school sites is not mentioned. There is also no description of the number of buildings, classrooms, or the amount of student capacity created. Measure H of the Campbell Union School District ($74,900,000, approximately 6,805 ADA) lists construction projects to be undertaken generally throughout the district. Reference is made to approximate location for some projects “Construct restrooms near athletic and play fields.” However, the description of the new construction generally does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. Measure J of the Pomona Unified School District ($68,000,000, approximately 32,000 students) describes each new construction and acquisition project to be undertaken, including approximate locations of new construction. The amount of student capacity created by new construction and acquisition projects is also stated. Facilities, such as recess and athletic fields, created by the new construction and acquisition are also mentioned. It also includes provision for the “acquisition of land to be used as sites for two additional campuses serving students in the northwest and south Pomona attendance areas.” Measure AA of the Fullerton Joint Union High School District ($67,940,000, approximately 15,500 students) includes a provisions for construction projects “dependent on the unique needs of each school site.” It also includes reference to buildings and classrooms to be built at each school location. One such project is described as “Constructing standard classrooms to meet growth needs.” Measure S of the San Gabriel Unified School District ($46,045,000) lists the new construction projects to be undertaken at each school site. The description of the new construction does not contain references to the number of buildings or classrooms to be constructed or acquired. Nor is there mention of the number of classroom seats to be created by new construction. Reference is made to the fact that the details of the described projects are set forth in the Long Range Facilities Master Plan, which was not available to us at this time. Charter School Facilities San Jose Unified School District: Projects to be undertaken at charter schools are described as “Classroom and instructional area upgrades, remodeling, addition or modernization in order to meet evolving Charter School … needs.” Other Districts: Measure C of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District ($250,000,000, approximately 38,000 ADA) contained the only bond project list that we reviewed which specifically refers to projects to be undertaken for charter schools. The project description provided for charter schools is “Facilities Funding.” Analysis: The projects proposed to be undertaken for charter school facilities are described in greater detail than that of most other measures. Repair,
Upgrade or Construction of Facilities for Specialized Instructional
Programs San Jose Unified School District: The Bond Project List provides for the “[r]epair, upgrade or construction of facilities for specialized instructional programs” at certain selected schools in the District which is further defined as “[t]he repair, upgrade, construction or modernization of equipment or facilities in support of programs at a specific campus.” Such “repair, upgrade, construction or modernization” is not planned at every school in the District, but only at certain schools specified in the Bond Project List. Other Districts: Other districts also have constuction or repair projects tailored to specific school sites including the Fullerton Joint Union High School District which includes a provision in its bond project list for construction projects “dependent on the unique needs of each school site.” Analysis: The voters in the District approved the use of bond funds for “construction of facilities for specialized instructional programs” at certain schools in the District. Certain schools in the District are designated as “magnet schools” that offer specialized instruction. For example, Burnett Middle School and Lincoln High School are both designated as “performing art schools” and offer specialized instruction in a variety of performing arts. Construction projects in support of the specialized programs offered appear to be a proper expenditure of the District’s Proposition 39 bond proceeds because they are encompassed in the Bond Project List approved by the voters, but only at the schools for which the District requested such funding on the Bond Project List and only in support of a valid specialized instruction program at such school. Use of Proposition 39 bond proceeds for a theater at a performing arts school appears would be a proper expenditure, particularly since theaters are not a standard facility at District schools. Conclusion The specificity of the Bond Project List has been approved by the voters. The Committee is charged with reviewing how the projects funded with bond proceeds match up against the Bond Project List and interpreting whether certain projects fall outside the parameters of the Bond Project List. As noted above, the description of the repair and upgrade projects contemplated by the District is generally more detailed than other similar repair and upgrade projects proposed by other school and community college districts. The District’s description of its new construction/acquisition projects in the Bond Project List generally are described with the level of detail that other districts used to describe the type of construction/acquisition projects contemplated by the District. [1] Including a specific list of projects in the bond proposition is not required to issue “traditional” general obligation bonds. It would be legally permitted for the District to have sought authorization for bonds for “educational facilities” under the generally accepted interpretation of the Constitutional provisions authorizing traditional general obligation bonds. [2] The bond project lists for Measure E of the Long Beach Community College District, Measure U of the Santa Monica Community College District, Measure P of the Pasadena Area Community College District and Measure G of the Glendale Community College District were not provided to us by the County of Los Angeles Registrar of Voters for review and possibly were not prepared by the respective community college districts for inclusion in the ballot pamphlets in connection with their bond elections. See Appendix B. |
||||||||||||||||||||