Shall the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, be authorized to contract indebtedness and issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $191,525,000 to provide funds to address health, safety, and accessibility issues in all school buildings, including air conditioning all school buildings, reducing the use of temporary classroom structures in the District, addressing classroom, lunchroom, and gymnasium overcrowding, and dedicating rooms to art, music, prekindergarten, and science by constructing, furnishing and equipping a new building, constructing additions to and/or remodeling, repairing, and improving the school buildings remaining in the District’s Facilities Master Plan, as follows: Mann and Lincoln renovations, Liberty High athletic facilities construction and site improvements, new elementary school construction in North Liberty and site improvements, West High renovation, South East and North Central Junior High additions, Shimek renovation, City High addition and upgrades, Wood addition, Wickham upgrades, Garner and Northwest additions, Liberty High addition, Horn renovation, Kirkwood addition, Borlaug, Alexander, and Lemme additions, and Tate High addition and upgrades?It’s possible that the board could still make changes to the language, our administration has told us that we cannot wait any longer to settle the language, so significant changes are probably unlikely.
Here is a red-lined version showing changes from the previous draft (underlined portions represent new language):
Shall the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, be authorized to contract indebtedness and issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $191,525,000 to provide funds to address health, safety, and accessibility issues in all school buildings, including air conditioning all school buildings, reducing the use of temporary classroom structures in the District, addressing classroom, lunchroom, and gymnasium overcrowding, and dedicating rooms toI don’t know what motivated the change in the order of science, music, and art. The one word that has been added is “prekindergarten,” apparently to address the objections of those who want some attention to expanding preschool space in the district. I’m not sure how much weight to put on the addition of that word, however, since it is not tied to any particular building, and is unaccompanied by any change in the bottom-line dollar figure. Is it just lip-service to the preschool idea without any associated funding? Is it there to enable a future board to change the facilities master plan to direct some of the bond funding toward preschool rooms and away from its currently designated uses? Or is there another possible meaning?science, music andart, music, prekindergarten, and science by constructing, furnishing and equipping a new building, constructing additions to and/or remodeling, repairing, and improving the school buildings remaining in the District’s Facilities Master Plan, as follows: Mann and Lincoln renovations, Liberty High athletic facilities construction and site improvements, new elementary school construction in North Liberty and site improvements, West High renovation, South East and North Central Junior High additions, Shimek renovation, City High addition and upgrades, Wood addition, Wickham upgrades, Garner and Northwest additions, Liberty High addition, Horn renovation, Kirkwood addition, Borlaug, Alexander, and Lemme additions, and Tate High addition and upgrades?
Many people have asked about whether passage of the bond referendum locks the district in to doing the projects listed in the bond language or in the district’s facilities plan. That turns out to be a complicated legal question to which the answer is not entirely certain; I’ll be posting more about that issue.
Please chime in with comments about the draft language.
8 comments:
There is nothing legally complex about the bond language. The board would be authorized to spend the money. Arguably it would have to spend the money on something in the facility master plan - but that plan lists everything under the sun, plus more.
And the facility master plan could always be revised after the bond issue, as it has been revised several times already.
You want accountability? Vote "no" until specific projects are identified along with a dollar amount which will be spent on that project.
The bond language is pretty meaningless. The board already let Murley get rid of classroom additions from the facilities plan at several Iowa City schools so whatever the facilities plan says now, its meaningless too IMO.
Even if you believe the facilities plan, there is no $$ breakdown between athletics and classroom space. There was also supposed to be money for maintenance from other sources. What happened to it?
Anonymous (11:13 am): It's not clear that even what you're describing ("specific projects are identified along with a dollar amount which will be spent on that project") would legally commit the district to doing each project. There may be an argument that passage of the bond merely *authorizes*, but does not require, the district to go ahead with the listed projects. I've asked the district for more information about the law on that kind of argument. If the district can choose not to do certain projects, even tightly drawn ballot language would not give you the assurance you're after.
The district's latest FAQ contains this statement:
Q: What if the bond passes and the board changes its mind on what projects need to be completed?
A: There is no clear answer to this question. As a general rule, ballot propositions should be drafted as precisely as possible; at the same time, the Iowa Courts recognize that their phrasing encompasses some measure of Board discretion and leeway and that inaccuracies in drafting do not always involve material matters. The particular language of the ballot and facts and circumstances at the time will be important considerations for the Board.
That doesn't exactly address whether tighter language would legally constrain the board, but I suspect that the answer will still be "there is no clear answer." (That part of the FAQ, unfortunately, is not particularly consistent with some other parts -- for example, "A GO bond locks in the plan!")
At some point, people may have to decide whether they are willing to trust the district to follow through on the projects it has identified in the ballot language or in the facilities master plan. Put another way, people will have to decide whether they are willing to rely on their political remedies (e.g., voting board members out, electing like-minded board members) rather than legal ones.
In my view, it would have made more sense to bond for a couple of years' worth of projects. Then voters could see whether the district is following through with its projects before they decide whether to authorize the next round. A smaller dollar figure would also be easier to pass.
In addition to Iowa law, you'd also need to consider if/how tax and securities laws apply since the end result will be issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
Chris, the district could decide not to do any projects. If the superintendent assigns a dollar amount to a specific project in the bond referendum and the language is clear the district can't spend more on a specific project, that would be better than nothing but the district could later change the use of the building such as turning Shimek from an elementary to a preschool.
Murley and board can change their mind about what projects to pursue and there is nothing in the ballot language to stop them. The answer is clear.
If you vote yes in September, you trust the superintendent not to lie to us and not to change his mind. I don't have that level of trust.
To Recovering Bond Lawyer--
ICCSD Voters will vote on the bond referendum but won't vote on the language when the bonds are issued.
If past history is any guide, too often the board majority just caves into the administration without asking questions so who knows the superintendent will put in front of the board if voters approve the bond vote in September?
Anon 9:52, you make a very good point that is worth repeating. On one hand, more specific bond language does not necessarily limit what the board can do. On the other hand, this much is clear: there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop the board from changing their minds.
It is a $200,000,000 blank check.
Chris, I am 11:13. I agree that the tighter language that I want is not a guarantee, but it would certainly help. As things stand now, the broad language which speaks in terms of "relieving overcrowding" and "safety, etc" lets the board do what it wants. On the other hand, if the ballot said "spend $15 million on Liberty High Athletic fields" there is a better chance that those fields would actually be built. Instead, under the present language, all the bond money could be spent on only some of the projects with nothing left for the Liberty High fields. Or, for that matter, all the bond money could be spent on an indoor football stadium for Liberty High with little or nothing left over for the rest of the projects.
There simply is no accountability under the bond language.
Post a Comment