Lost State Money Sparks Rancor in Santa Ana Schools

A year after voters approved a $145-million bond measure, the Santa Ana Unified School District is under fire for moving so slowly to design construction projects that it has lost the chance to get millions of dollars in matching state funds--and could lose millions more.

The missed opportunities are pitting angry board members against each other and getting parents riled.

“There were some bureaucratic and administrative bungles along the way,” board member Audrey Yamagata-Noji said. “And we knew we were racing against the clock to begin with.”

In contrast, officials in the Capistrano Unified School District, where voters approved a $65-million bond measure during the same election, knew timing was critical and were ready to go with applications for two of their biggest modernization projects the day after their measure passed.

“We knew the funding source would dry up quickly,” Capistrano school board Trustee Marlene Draper said.

Santa Ana isn’t the only district that’s been criticized for moving slowly. The behemoth Los Angeles Unified School District, which won $2.4-billion in bonds three years ago, has fallen years behind schedule on a number of projects--in part due to the bond management structure and contractor mix-ups.

In Santa Ana, critics blame the holdup on a change in bureaucratic procedure.

The board majority, led by John Palacio, wanted to be thorough in creating a new process to select architects and define projects. But Yamagata-Noji and others say that replacing a long-tested, routine procedure was simply unnecessary.

The $145 million in bonds are earmarked for construction of 11 elementary schools and two high schools, and upgrades to 22 schools--projects costing much more than the amount voters approved.

For help, the district was counting on getting matching state funds under Proposition 1A, a 1998 voter-approved initiative that offered money both for renovations and for new construction.

But to get those funds, the district had to complete design work and ship plans to Sacramento with its applications. The trouble was, the district didn’t move quickly enough to get any of that state money.

The state, meantime, has run out of money for modernization projects, though it still has $1.3 billion left to help with new construction.

“The modernization money is gone--it went so fast,” said Bruce Hancock, an assistant executive for the State Allocation Board, which distributes the funding. “We gave all the money we had and still had projects unfunded, and the list has continued to build since then.”

Santa Ana Unified parents have been getting upset. Wendy Tobiska, president of Santa Ana High School’s Parent-Teacher-Student Assn., said parents called her with complaints “that the district was taking a long time getting to some of these projects.”

Hancock said that politicians are talking about putting another measure like Proposition 1A on the 2002 ballot to get more money for school renovations, but for now, it’s just talk. “There is no conceivable way a school district can get money from Proposition 1A” for modernizing schools, he said.

*

Santa Ana Unified has managed to pick up $3.6 million in state matching funds for one project--new construction at the existing Carr Intermediate School. But the board hasn’t submitted any applications for construction of new schools or for renovations.

Palacio said the district has used some bond money to make improvements at a number of elementary schools, including new restrooms at 20 campuses.

Still, a number of modernization projects will require state funding, said Gordon Itow, the district’s director of facilities. But with other districts already waiting for future state bond money, some worry that the district will again be left in the cold.

Critics say the district should have--and could have--taken the steps to ensure state funding for at least a few projects. They blame the holdup on a spring 1999 change in district policy to require that an informal board subcommittee screen all selections of architects.

The change nearly wiped out a year’s worth of staff work that could have allowed the district to apply quickly for Proposition 1A funds. The new policy forced the district to start from scratch, delaying for nearly a year the district’s ability to approve architects and finish designs.

Previously, the district’s staff screened architects and narrowed the field to a few candidates, and the board made the final selection.

“Under that policy, the staff had already gone through the screening process and were ready to present a selection of candidates to the board so that we would be ready to go if the bond passed in November ‘99,” said Mike Vail, the district’s former assistant superintendent of facilities and government relations.

Had the board kept the initial process, Vail said, the district would have had a much better chance of securing state money for at least a few of the modernization projects.

Some board members agree.

“The district should be much farther ahead than we are,” Yamagata-Noji said. “I think we would have a much better idea where we were going and how we’re going to get there, and we would be farther along with our modernization projects.”

Board member Rosemarie Avila is angry with Palacio and board member Nativo V. Lopez, both of whom, she charges, “made themselves in charge of screening architects and [then] dragged their feet.”

Avila, who has locked horns with both men at recent board meetings, also contends the two have “tangled themselves up with the architects” and “left the schools hanging.”

*

Lopez’s 2000 reelection campaign received more than $6,500 from architects, most of whom landed contracts with the district, according to campaign contribution statements. His total campaign war chest totaled $102,568.

Lopez denies any link between the contributions he received and the board’s selection process.

What some call delay, he said, is really an effort to ensure the bond projects are properly planned and implemented. And as for the change in the selection policy, Lopez said, the board had good reason to shift.

“We were not satisfied with the work the staff had done, so the board decided to get involved directly with the process,” Lopez said. “The selection was too narrow, and there was no diversity whatsoever. We’re a district that’s 92% Hispanic and more than 97% minority.”

Less than 10% of the districts contracts, he asserted, have gone to minority firms. “That’s not right, and that’s not fair,” he said.

Still, Yamagata-Noji said, scrapping all that groundwork wasn’t prudent.

“The whole thing is, you didn’t have to appoint them all,” Yamagata-Noji said. “We could have said, ‘OK, it’s not the best pool--everyone agrees. But let’s just get a couple of projects underway and then go out and broaden the pool.’ There was diversity, though maybe not the highest percentage.”

But Itow is still optimistic.

The district could use some of the funds for new construction to complete the most urgent modernization projects and then seek reimbursement from the state later. Regardless of whether there is a future bond, he maintains, the state is still on the hook for those matching funds.

The state, he said, has designed a system to pay a portion of the cost of upgrades and construction, once districts come up with enough money to qualify. He said that other districts have come up with the financing.

“They’ve gone out and gotten their own bond measures or creative financing and have come up with their share of the money,” Itow said. “For the state not to come through with their fair share is not likely.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Santa Ana Schools’ Wish List

Voters in the Santa Ana Unified School District approved a bond measure in 1999 earmarking $145 million for new schools, campus expansions and classroom modernizations. What would be done where:

Note: locations have not been determined for all new schools