Publications
Summer 2001 Newsletter
LAUSD Government Affairs Director Ponders: Is Meaningful Reform
Possible In This Legislative Session?
While
many in L.A. decry the LAUSD's handling of Belmont and the Ambassador
Hotel sites, do they know what the staff must deal with both at
the city and state-wide levels. NSBN was pleased to talk with
Fabian Nunez, Government Affairs Director for LAUSD, who sheds
light on the behind the scenes mechanations both here and in Sacramento,
adding descriptions of pending legislation for urban school districts
and lending some insight into what the real problems are not merely
here in L.A. but in the system statewide.
What bills are you shepherding in the capitol on behalf
of LAUSD that deal with the staggering facilities needs that the
district has?
We've been working with 5 specific facilities bills during this
year's legislative session. Unfortunately, one bill has recently
become a two-year bill and was held in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee suspense file. That bill proposed a set of incentives
to build smaller schools, which house 400 or fewer pupils, by
way of a supplemental per pupil allocation. While that bill remains
on the back burner until the next legislative session, a number
of other bills offer some very significant help in meeting our
school construction needs.
Let me start with AB 1580, authored by Assemblyman Tony Cardenas.
This bill proposes that school districts be allowed to apply for
state school construction money upon certification from the Department
of the State Architect (DSA) that final plans for a site have
been submitted, rather then waiting for full approval of a project.
It basically allows us to apply for funding concurrent with DSA's
review process.
This bill is not aimed at subverting the review process. We will
still need to receive the requisite environmental and DSA approvals.
However, if approved, we will have streamlined the process so
that school districts don't miss opportunities for state monies
because of a backlog at the DSA. Given the recent Proposition
1A settlement and the approaching June 2002 funding deadline,
this bill could mean that LAUSD would be able to submit over $250
million worth of applications on time to the State Allocation
Board (SAB).
Another important bill is AB 1072, authored by Assemblyman Gil
Cedillo. Much of the growth in L.A. has taken place in the inner
city where we have a lack of developable space. This bill would
allow districts with dense populations to elect to receive their
state bond funding eligibility dollars in the form of lease assistance.
Again, this bill is not trying to alter any part of the review
process; the required compliance with the Field Act remains. This
bill simply adds a level of flexibility and creativity to the
school siting process, particularly for those schools located
in areas where land in scarce and where acquisition can take many
years.
The last bill I want to highlight is Assemblyman Tom Calderon's,
AB 972. This bill attempts to put an end to undue delays in the
environmental review process that were the inadvertent result
of legislation passed last year, by allowing us to conduct two
separate hearings, one for the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) review and the other for Department of Toxic Substance
Control (DTSC) review, rather than one joint hearing for processes.
Again, we are merely trying to streamline the process so that
one review does not hold up the other. The public will actually
be provided an additional hearing in which to participate.
Fabian, in a recent LAO report the current school construction
need is quantified at approx. $30 billion. She goes on to say
that the state will need to raise approx. $17 billion to cover
its share of the matching grants. Her conclusion, simply stated,
is that the current funding mechanism is flawed and to truly address
this crisis changes must be made such as: 1) Creation of an ongoing
revenue stream replacing the bond funding paradigm; 2) Redirection
of funds away from specific projects to a dispersion aimed at
helping all districts; and 3) A clarification of both state and
district roles re: facilities. From the description of the major
legislation you gave above it sounds as if that report has fallen
on deaf ears. Can you comment?
The most engaging aspect of the LAO's recommendation is the idea
that general fund monies should be utilized to help off-set our
school construction problems. The suggestion that we have two
complementary funding sources--a consistent bond allocation and
$1 billion of general fund monies--is revolutionary and truly
necessary if we hope to continue to fund school construction in
this state. The report offers an interesting variation on the
current process.
And despite reports to the contrary, the analysis has not fallen
on deaf ears. The response is merely a factor of the timing of
its publication. Currently, 90-percent of the focus in Sacramento
is on the energy crisis, with the other 10-percent on the budget.
So, yes it has been overlooked for the moment. One must also realize
that the LAO's recommendation requires a huge amount of one time
and ongoing money. Given the state's budget problems, the timing
is less than propitious--however real the need.
In spite of this, I believe that school construction will be
the next issue that the Governor and the Legislature turn their
attention to. So, while the immediate response to the report was
not overwhelming, I think it did make an impression. I believe
that the elements it addresses are now in the minds of many who
work in both the executive and legislative branches and that they
will most likely try to incorporate some of the major components
of the report into pending and/or future legislation.
Let's delve deeper into the crisis. Stephan Castellanos,
the State Architect, in response to a question re: what the State
Architect can do in the school facilities arena to improve a rather
meager and non-performing metropolitan new school construction
program in California said, "Our flexibility and performance
depends on effectively managing partnerships both internally and
externally. And right now we are neither flexible nor efficient.
It has become painfully obvious that we are not providing service
and support at an adequate level." Fabian, looking at what
you are being asked to do by LAUSD, it looks as if it's merely
a patchwork, or Band-Aid approach to making the state system fit
with the local needs. Could you comment?
In some respects, what we're doing can be seen as patchwork. In
the sense that we aren't trying to solve all problems at once,
you're correct. However, we are trying to get at the major obstacles
to our construction of schools. But, because of the enormity of
the problem, people want to find scapegoats rather than solutions.
And average person in L.A.--and most likely up and down the state--blame
local school districts for all the problems that exist. Very few,
however, are willing to make the difficult choices that building
schools in their communities require. I don't consider ours a
patchwork approach. It's part of a larger effort to impact the
next bond, work more closely with the state agencies that oversee
school construction, advocate for more resources for these agencies,
and educate the community and elected officials about the difficulties
faced by urban school districts in constructing new schools.
Stephan's point is correct, but I would take it one step further.
We need to assist these agencies in getting the necessary resources
and we must maintain an ongoing dialogue with them. From what
I've seen, these agencies take their roles seriously and are making
every effort to work with us to get the job done. There is, however,
always room for improvement.
Let me add a quote from one of the largest developers
in this nation Richard Baron, who has been doing school/housing
projects in St. Louis and recently returned to California. He
stated, "School districts are notorious for using rigid formulas
that they claim are required by state law and regulation. Often
times it is all just smoke and mirrors because the technical staff
in the Board of Education doesn't like to deviate from their standard
rules. We all know the mantra, we've got to have 8 acres, we've
got to have so many parking space, we've got to have this, that
and the other." Don't the state rules and the processes that
we have in California lead to this kind of school construction?
Richard makes it sound more rigid than it actually is. There is
some underlying sense to this madness, but clearly a lot needs
to be done to make the program work better for schools. The biggest
hole in the process is--going back to what Stephan made mention
of--that there needs to be greater synergy between the Dept. of
Education, DSA, DTSC, the SAB, the Office of Public School Construction
and the school districts. I think we are making progress there,
too. We constantly work with these agencies to streamline the
process and solve potential hurdles. There is some flexibility
in the system. I do agree, however, that there are some cases
in which the rules are too rigid and the process of revising them
is too slow.
The biggest problem with the system is not that it is archaic
and rigid, it's the lack of synergy and prioritization. But the
only way that is going to happen is with leadership from the very,
very top. In other words, until and unless the Governor of California
says that he wants to bring this enormous crisis under control,
I don't think we're going to see very many changes.
As more districts get projects into the agencies, the demand
on these agencies will grow. What this boils down to school districts
fighting over attention. And if that's what everybody else is
doing, then so does LAUSD. We're going to go out there and talk
to our members to make sure that pressure is placed on agencies
so that our projects get the attention that they deserve. But,
we're also going to advocate to our delegation and the administration
about increasing the resources for these agencies so that they
can do their job in a timely and responsible manner. So changes
definitely need to be made to the system, but I wouldn't say that
the system is falling apart.
The NSBN philosophy calls for a construction paradigm
much like that of former U.S. Sec. of Education Richard Riley's
with smaller school sites being shared by community and government
agencies. The NSBN model also calls for a high degree of community
involvement in school site location, design and construction.
Would it be fair to say that under the current state rules, it's
almost impossible for school districts to really be local in their
orientation. Can partnerships be formed with non-profits and community
organizations for joint-use and site selection be encouraged when
you have to go through so many state agencies just to get funding?
There's an element of truth to that. And there's no reason why
the state government should be pushing school districts to build
large schools, it's a huge injustice to communities who want to
build smaller schools.
But under the current allocation formula, the larger the school,
the higher your matching fund percentage is. So if you build a
school below 400 students you lose money. It's that simple. On
the issue of sharing sites, although sharing a site with community
and government agencies may be beneficial--we must remember that
our priority is to build schools to educate children.
Now what about joint-use with other governmental entities.
Is that a victim of this process as well?
Last year Governor Davis signed a bill that LAUSD sponsored allowing
for joint-use agreements between schools and other non-profit
and state agencies. So now, under state law, we have the option
to enter into joint-use projects. What we did not have as of Jan.
1, was the right to get a state matching fund for the lease payment
under that joint-use agreement. We hope the Cedillo bill, mentioned
earlier, will close that loop so that we can adequately address
joint-use.
But just because you have the right to do joint-use doesn't
mean it is incentivized. Is it worth a district's energy to negotiate
with the Community College District if it means you are going
to lose time in pursuing the state allocation?
That's exactly the point. Last year's bill got us halfway towards
incentivizing joint-use. This year, AB 1072 will allow us to add
a funding component. That bill creates the incentive structure
that you're talking about.
In San Diego the school district, the city and Price Charities
are pursuing an innovative project to renovate one of the oldest
and most blighted neighborhoods in San Diego, City Heights, through
housing, school development and open space revitalization. Are
projects like this currently incentivized through the current
state funding process? And is it this project something that you
can see happening with LAUSD?
I don't know if our projects will be as comprehensive as the City
Heights project, but there's an effort--currently in its infancy--to
build a few schools in conjunction with the MTA, City Planning
and the CRA.
Since I've been at the district, I've always said that the best
approach to school construction is to involve all pertinent agencies--local,
state and federal. Each must have a seat at the table. This is
not just a school district problem; it's a community problem.
We need to get everyone involved in the process of helping to
build schools. The San Diego effort is precisely the thing that
we should be doing in L.A.
The L.A. Mayor-elect, James Hahn, articulated during the
course of the campaign that he thought a joint-powers arrangement
was the way to go in Los Angeles for the siting and building of
new schools in the future. I wonder if that has come up in your
meetings with LAUSD people and has it translated into any initiatives
in the capitol?
It has not translated into any initiatives in the capitol. There
was an effort last year to try and create a statewide joint-powers
authority, but it did not succeed. I think folks should give the
new administration at the district the opportunity to prove themselves
and fulfill our obligation to build schools. We've got 78 projects
in design and planning and significant work is being done at the
district to attempt to meet this enormous challenge head-on.
However, if it comes to a point in 3-4 years where we've only
built a handful of middle schools, perhaps a joint-powers authority
would have more traction in Sacramento. I think that currently
legislators want to see school districts succeed.
So you think there would be resistance from the school
district if the next state bond measure, maybe it's AB 16 modified,
allocated the money not only to school districts, but to a school
district and/or joint-power arrangement between cities, counties
and school districts.
The next school bond will most likely be on the March 2002 ballot,
which means that we would have to flesh out a vision for the joint-powers
language before the end of August. I don't see the kinds of in-depth
discussions necessary to implement something of that magnitude
between now and then.
Last question Fabian, how much money to you anticipate
by June 2002, LAUSD getting in the way of new facilities monies.
And do you think there is public support in Los Angeles and LAUSD's
constituencies for voting for a new state school bond given the
reputation of the school district to date?
We expect to receive in excess of $450 million, perhaps even hit
the $500 million mark. And I think there is support for a new
state bond statewide. Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg recently
commissioned a study which found that there is already solid support
for a new statewide school construction bond. The support is in
the high 60's. That is a very positive message for those of us
trying to build schools in the state of California.
|