Publications

Spring 2004 Newsletter

Assemblymember Montañez Seeks Reform of Joint-Use Law

There are many in the Legislature who recognize that the greatest need for social, educational, and health care services lies in our inner-city and inner-suburban communities. Many also recognize the potential for schools to function as centers of neighborhoods, to provide a forum for pubic services beyond their primary education functions. However, there is a disconnect in the law allowing for the development of mixed-use school facilities. California Assemblymember Cindy Montañez has proposed AB 2446 to bridge the gap and better facilitate mixed-use school development in our urban centers. NSBN is pleased to present this interview with Asm. Montañez about AB 2446.

Assemblymember Montañez, you have authored a bill, AB 2446, which seeks to reform the allocation of the joint-use dollars in the state school facilities bond. What's the legislation's objective?

AB 2446 is an attempt to alleviate some of the civic challenges that communities throughout the state are faced with when it comes to the siting of schools in communities with limited physical resources--recreational space, and public facilities that deal with health care or the cultural arts. With the bill, we're attempting to expand the list of school construction projects currently eligible for joint-use funding to include parks, recreational centers, cultural arts centers, technology centers, health clinics, and athletic fields. Many communities lack these public facilities, especially neighborhoods that have been built-out and that are facing major problems with critically overcrowded schools.
AB 2446 would also require proposed joint-use projects to be evaluated on what we're calling an Educational Empowerment Zone Map. The Educational Empowerment Zone Map would take into consideration a five mile radius around a proposed project and analyze the demographics of the community, taking into account critically overcrowded schools, and the number of public facilities such as parks, recreational spaces, cultural centers, or health clinics. The map would also consider median household income, unemployment, crime statistics, and the educational attainment of that community. This would ensure that when we utilize joint-use funding, we are targeting the communities with the greatest need, and creating schools that will become centers of their communities.

Assemblymember, you know that New Schools-Better Neighborhoods, with support from First 5 L.A., has been working to demonstrate the power of community engagement and master planning of schools as centers of neighborhoods. But, the districts we're working in have been running into problems accessing those joint-use funds because of the level of matching funds required from poor city budgets, and the requirements that have been imposed by the State Allocation Board. Are you going to change that dynamic with this bill?

We're attempting to do exactly that. More than one million students throughout the state of California attend overcrowded schools. With this legislation, we're trying to encourage cooperation and collaboration among school districts, nonprofit agencies, local governments, and community members. The goal is to be able to address the lack of public facilities and services in neighborhoods that have critically overcrowded schools.
The neighborhoods that are most affected by overcrowded schools and a lack of facilities tend to be those with higher poverty rates and lower incomes. One troubling aspect to accessibility of those joint-use funds is that we should not require the poorer neighborhoods to contribute more towards the match if those neighborhoods lack that economic base to do it. We are going to be looking at different ways to make sure that joint-use money gets spent in the areas of greatest need.

In Section One of your bill, you've added the kinds of joint-uses that could take advantage of these funds--parks, cultural affairs centers, recreation centers, and technology centers. You mention health care, but it's not in the draft we have and, given your background, I know your strong interest. Is that now a part of the bill?

Yes, we amended the bill to include health clinics. What we see is, especially in a lot of schools throughout the LAUSD as in other districts throughout the state, most of these kids don't have access to health insurance. They get their medical attention from the school nurse, if there is a school nurse. We should be able to provide basic health care needs for a student and that the health clinic also be considered in that definition of what would qualify for a joint-use project.

In February, an op-ed piece by Dr. Jonathan Fielding, the County Health Director, pointed out that obesity and diabetes are the most significant health challenges facing the youth of Los Angeles County. But the School District is cutting back on the resources available for health care. Is this joint-use money a way of aiming back at the problem in a positive way?

Absolutely. We have a big interest in looking at that issue and have been trying to work on legislation and programs in that area. A study by the Center for Public Health Advocacy, concluded that it was the 39th Assembly District that had the second highest percentage of unfit kids in the entire state. And, in the 39th AD, in the Northeastern part of the San Fernando Valley, we face some of the most critically overcrowded schools. The follow-up study by the Center for Public Health Advocacy found that the Speaker's district in the Boyle Heights/East L.A. area has the highest rate of diabetes amongst children--and my district is in the top 10. So, this measure is just part of an effort to address health care needs for kids by encouraging more joint-use development, taking into account facilities that are lacking in the community.

One finds in Capitol conversations about school facilities a balkanization of comment – the League of Cities very rarely comments on education bills unless the School Boards Association asks them. How do you get a thorough conversation about how to leverage these school facilities dollars if representation in the Capitol is so balkanized?

We're going to continue to work with our school district, with the administration, local teachers, local principals, our local governments, and our local cities to help us pass this bill. We must involve everyone because it has to be a collaboration that extends beyond just the school district and the builders. We must get others involved--including the counties and cities--in embracing joint-use projects. Because, especially in neighborhoods that lack those public facilities, it's our responsibility as government bureaucracies, whether we're a school district, a city, or a county, to provide those facilities to communities. That responsibility must transcend inequities in existing open space, access to health care, or access to cultural centers or technology centers. This is what we're trying to do with this bill--create greater equity when it comes to access to certain services.

You have a provision about the matching fund requirement, and you're trying to reform that. Talk a little bit about the local match, given the budget constraints that local governments are going to have in the next couple years.

That's an area which we want to continue to explore. We have at least $34 million that has already been allocated for joint-use projects and then, if the March bond passes, it will be probably at least another $50 million that will go into joint-use spending. So I understand that currently for joint-use, the partner has to come up with a 50% local match. And that matching requirement makes it very hard. However, there are different ways that somebody could promote that match. Perhaps it is services provided by the city, in which the city partners with the school district and that becomes part of the services that are provided? You just have to look at that to see how we work with the local cities and counties at a time when people are facing budget cuts. How else can they provide those services? The state doesn't have any money, the counties don't have any money, and our cities don't have any money. Dealing with that issue of matching funds is an area that we have to work on.

One last question. On the home page of the NSBN website there's a quote from senator Jack Scott that reads as follows: "If a facility can be used by a school district and a facility can be used by the city and they can jointly work out between them how that can best be used, then the taxpayer is a winner, the school's a winner, everybody's a winner." But that takes planning on the part of all those collaborative partners. Are there resources available for them to plan together to do this? Are there planning dollars to facilitate these jurisdictions working out these problems so everybody's a winner?

I guess it depends on how you approach it. For example, in San Fernando the city has been more aggressive in trying to work with LAUSD on the new high school that's going to be built inside of the city. So, the planning part of it is coming from our planners within the city of San Fernando. And that's one particular situation where the resources are coming from the local governments that are becoming more aggressive. In other communities even within my own district, the school district is leading the direction in which the project is going to be developed. Either way, we have to engage more community members at a grassroots level.
The city planners, the school district and the teachers have got to be much more engaged in planning the schools. Often it's not the people who live in our communities who are planning the schools. It's very important, and I do believe the school district is being much more aggressive about trying to involve community members in the very beginning stages of development on how we plan our schools, how our schools become important centers for neighborhoods, and how these schools become a place that not only serves the kids who attend school during the weekdays, but also serves the community during the weeknights and on the weekends. That needs to happen, and we cannot have any excuses for why that doesn't happen.