Source: http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/0/County/grandjury/GJ2006_final/1%20-%201%20AF%20School%20Bonds.htm
Timestamp: 2019-03-25 19:18:49
Document Index: 1234839

Matched Legal Cases: ['art1', 'art1', 'art 1', 'art1', 'art1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art1', 'art1', 'art 1']

What We Know About E and H
The Dollars and Sense Don’t Add Up:
Bond Measures E and H
Bond Measures E and H, passed in 1998, provided funds for much-needed renovation and modernization of schools within the Santa Cruz City Schools District. Overall, the Grand Jury found school site personnel pleased with the work completed at their schools, and acknowledges the scope and complexity of the construction projects undertaken in the last eight years. Those projects, however, took longer and cost more than original estimates, and students are now occupying classrooms that have not been certified by the Division of the State Architect as being in compliance with all Code of Regulations, Title 24 provisions for structural, life/fire safety, and ADA projects.
The Grand Jury discovered that Measure E bonds were sold for more than the voter-approved $28 million, and questions remain about the 2005 bond refinancing. The Grand Jury is concerned that: bond money was spent on district administrative offices; lease revenues generated from sites that were renovated using bond funds went into the Santa Cruz City Schools general fund; bond funds and property tax deposits have earned and will continue to earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt; and promises to keep the public well-informed about the bond projects have not been kept.
Alternate: an optional component of a construction project
BAN: Bond Anticipation Note; a note issued in anticipation of later issuance of bonds, usually payable from the proceeds of the sale of the bonds anticipated
BOC: Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Oversight Committee
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24: also known as the California Building Standards Code. Public school construction in California is governed by these building standards.
Change Order: a written order that modifies the plans, specifications, or price of a signed construction contract agreement. Change orders can be initiated for a variety of reasons, including unforeseen conditions, owner-requested changes, design errors or omissions, contractor error, and weather-related problems during construction.
DSA: Division of the State Architect
DSA Form-5: the official DSA form that details the project inspector’s qualifications
IOR: Inspector of Record; a state-certified inspector that performs state-mandated site inspection services for public school construction and who is hired and paid by the owner (school district)
Multiple-prime contracting: the owner (school district) holds separate contracts with contractors of various disciplines (such as general, mechanical, electrical). The owner, or its construction manager, manages the overall schedule and budget during the entire construction phase.
RFP: Request for Proposal; an invitation to bid, or a proposal inviting bids from possible suppliers of a product or service
SB50: the 1998 state bond measure that provided matching funds to the Santa Cruz City Schools District for modernization projects. District matching funds were generated from Bond Measures E and H.
SCCS: Santa Cruz City Schools
SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006: This was the version of the summary document detailing construction costs, change orders, and project completion dates that the Grand Jury used for this report.
Stop Notice: a notice to withhold payment from a contractor and to set money aside to satisfy a claim
In April 1998, voters in the Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) District passed two bond measures worth a total of $86 million. The district spent over $300,000 for this special election for Measure E and Measure H that was held just seven weeks prior to the regularly scheduled June primary election.[1]
Measure E, approved by seventy-nine percent (79%) of the voters, was for elementary school improvements not to exceed $28 million, and Measure H, approved by seventy-four percent (74%) of the voters, was for junior and senior high school improvements not to exceed $58 million. The measures stated that the bond money would be used to rehabilitate the schools, including replacing inadequate electrical, plumbing, heating, and window systems; to comply with fire, earthquake, health, safety, and accessibility standards; and to renovate, construct, and modernize classrooms, restrooms, and other school facility improvements. Bond money would not be used for administrator salaries. Expenditures would be monitored by a community bond oversight committee, with all proceeds spent to benefit district schools. All elementary and secondary school sites in the district were included in the bond measures.
Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of Measures E and H stated that “By law, absolutely none of the funds raised by these ballot measures can be used for administrative salaries, offices, or operating expenses. All of the funds raised by these measures will stay in our local community and will be used to fix our schools.”[2]
The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C. Series A was sold in 1998, Series B in 2000, and Series C in 200l. According to the Voter Information Pamphlet, “Impartial Analysis by County Counsel,” the term for each bond sale was to be 25 years, which was the maximum term under California law when the measures were passed. On April 13, 2005, the SCCS Board of Education passed resolutions authorizing the refinancing of the general obligation Bond Measures E and H, Series A and B to take advantage of decreased interest rates. This refinancing did not require voter approval.
As each series was sold, the money from the sale was deposited into the Santa Cruz County Treasury to be withdrawn by the Santa Cruz City Schools District as needed for the bond projects. As property taxes are collected, they are also deposited in the County Treasury. These funds are withdrawn to make payments to the bond holders.
The Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office establishes the rate that each property owner in the Santa Cruz City Schools District must pay toward the bonds. For the tax year 2005-2006, the rate is:[3]
Series A and B, Elementary .035%
Series A and B, High School .033%
Series C, Elementary .007%
Series C, High School .006%
TOTAL .081%
At this rate, taxes resulting from Bond Measures E and H on property within the City of Santa Cruz with an assessed value of $300,000 would be $243 for the 2005-2006 tax year. Property owners outside the city limits, but within the high school district, would pay only the high school percentage, or .039%.
The school renovation projects were not funded solely by the proceeds of bonds E and H sales. Under the State Construction Program, the district applied in 1999 for SB50 (State Bond 50) funds for modernization that it began receiving in July 2000. These state funds were earmarked for renovation of schools that met the age requirement for modernization (twenty-five years or older). This was a cash-matching program, and E and H funds were used for the match. The district received over $28 million from the state. Additions including bond interest, developer fees, deferred maintenance funds, and donations brought the total revenue for bond projects to $128,683,715 as of April 30, 2006. Total revenue for the bond projects is summarized as follows:[4]
Series A (6/98)
$21,854,000
Series B (3/00)
$46,300,077
BAN Funds (Series C, 10/00)
Series C (10/01)
Subtotal Bond Proceeds
$84,254,248
$10,411,303
Bond Arbitrage Liability
($419,412)
$976,905
BAN Arbitrage Liability
($210,905)
$974,499
$2,597,047
State SB-50 Rel. 1
$1,906,616
State SB-50 Rel. 2
$26,514,241
SB-50 Interest
$345,024
Insurance Reimb (Pool Deck)
$122,748
Subtotal Other Revenue
$44,429,467
$128,683,715
Table 1. Revenue, SCCS Bond Projects Budget, July 1, 1998 to
April 30, 2006.
Setting Priorities/Determining Projects
Prior to the bond campaign, a Facility Assessment Team comprised of construction professionals and district staff evaluated each of the school sites, worked with site and district staff in developing a needs assessment, prioritized each site’s needs, and developed a cost estimate for needed and desired school construction projects. This facilities audit, along with community input, was used by the district to determine the amount of money that was requested in the bond election. Although approximately $130 million in needed and desired improvements were identified, a community survey indicated voters would be willing to support bonds totaling $86 million. Projects were prioritized based on the $86 million figure, and renovations and repairs addressing code requirements, health and safety concerns, and systems projects such as roofing, electrical, and plumbing were given priority.
After the election, district staff, together with architects and construction managers, developed a Master Schedule to accomplish the Facility Assessment projects. The schedule defined the sequence for planning and construction of the projects at each school site from June 1999 through December 2003. The schedule was discussed with all site principals and the Bond Oversight Committee. Within the Master Schedule, each school site was listed along with an anticipated planning and construction timeline. The work at each school site was divided into the following tasks: pre-design, design, state review, bidding, and construction.
In the “Road to Renovation” pamphlet mailed out by SCCS in May 2000 to residents within the SCCS boundaries, it was stated that the construction schedule called for all projects to be completed by the end of the 2003-2004 school year. Due to state funding and additional revenues, in May 2003, with SCCS Board approval, site planning committees began meeting to identify and prioritize additional modernization projects at each school site. As of June 2006, there are still three projects to be bid, and eighteen projects under construction. Projects may extend well beyond the end of 2006.
Bond projects were originally overseen by the Director of Bond Projects, a district administrative position, to provide general oversight and management of the program. Two architect/construction management teams (DES-WLC Architects/Turner Construction Management for the elementary schools, and Beverly Prior/Kitchell Construction Management for the secondary schools) assisted. Projects were put out to bid for multiple prime contractors, that is, a prime contractor for each trade. Due to the difficulty in managing multiple and separate contracts, missed work, and instances of poor work quality, the district discontinued its use of multiple prime contractors.
The bond projects are now managed by district staff and contracted firms. The organizational components for project management include:
· the Assistant Superintendent, Business Services, providing district administration oversight;
· general contractors bidding for projects;
· a construction management firm providing overall program management for bond projects (Strategic Construction Management);
· two architecture firms, one for the elementary and junior high schools (DES Architects), and one for the high schools (Beverly Prior Architects), providing design services and project administration;
· Inspectors of Record providing state-mandated site inspection services; and
· district employees (3.2 positions) paid by bond funds: a full-time district Construction Project Coordinator, a full-time clerical support person; a full-time accounting person; and support from the district purchasing manager for bidding and contracting processes.
In California, public school construction is governed by the California Public Contract Code. Construction contracts must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder as defined in these code sections:[5]
“Responsible bidder,” as used in this part, means a bidder who has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract. (Section 1103)
On the day named in the public notice, the department shall publicly open the sealed bids and award the contracts to the lowest responsible bidders. (Section 10180)
SCCS District officials stated that the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder is hired by the district. A responsive bidder is one that has provided all necessary documents and meets all specified qualifications in a timely manner.
When construction projects are put out to bid, a Request for Proposal (RFP) is published in the newspaper, and interested contractors are invited to submit bids by a specified date. On that date, the bids are publicly opened, recorded, and awarded to the lowest, responsive, responsible bidder.
Division of the State Architect Oversight
The Division of the State Architect (DSA) reviews all public school construction involving structural, fire/life safety, and ADA compliance projects. Construction plans and documents drafted by the district’s hired architects and engineers are submitted to the DSA for plan checking to make sure they conform to the California Code of Regulations, Title 24. After plans are checked and approved, they are stamped with an identification stamp, and are ready for the construction phase. When a project is under construction, it is supervised by DSA field operations. Field engineers go to the site to make sure plans are being followed and work is up to code. The field engineer receives reports from state-certified Inspectors of Record (IOR) at least twice a month. The IORs make sure work is performed according to the DSA-approved documents. Public school construction is not inspected by city and county building inspectors, but by state-certified inspectors.
Once a project is completed, a Notice of Completion is recorded at the County Recorder’s office and is publicized. The project closeout process then begins. The DSA reviews all required project documentation to verify that all work was performed and inspected in accordance with code requirements. If documentation indicates that construction met these requirements, the DSA issues a Letter of Certification to the school district. If documentation is incomplete, the DSA sends the Architect of Record a letter, with a ninety-day deadline to submit all remaining documents. If these documents are not submitted, the project is closed without DSA certification. The file can be reopened when documentation is complete, but a fee of $150 for each project is assessed.
In Fall 1998, a committee consisting of volunteer community members was formed by the district to provide oversight for the bond projects. The Bond Oversight Committee (BOC) is an advisory body only and makes recommendations to the school board. Final authority for all aspects of the bond measures resides with the SCCS Board of Trustees. The BOC meets every other month and receives reports on financial and construction status; reviews standard bid documents and change orders; reviews contracts for design, construction management, construction contractors, and contract amendments; and has been involved in the reallocation of dollars between school sites. Specified roles and responsibilities include attending all committee meetings; becoming familiar with the laws, regulations, and processes that the school district must satisfy in completing the projects authorized by the bond; and working with all interested parties to facilitate communication about the status of the bond projects.[6]
According to district officials, by the end of Summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of the bond funds will have been spent as projects are nearing completion. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. A subcommittee has been established to work with school district staff and Strategic Construction Management to prepare a final report on the bond projects for the board and community members, detailing how both time and money were spent under Measures E and H.
This investigation was undertaken to review financial documentation for the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Measures E and H. The investigation included:
reviewing SCCS Board of Education minutes, Bond Oversight Committee minutes, site summaries, project completion documents, and financial documents pertaining to Bond Measures E and H;
reviewing web sites, newspaper articles;
conducting interviews with district staff and volunteers; and
visiting school sites to view bond project results.
As the investigation progressed, the bond details and issues of project management, bidding, and oversight were also examined.
Santa Cruz City Schools District personnel.
Bond Oversight Committee members.
Division of the State Architect personnel.
Santa Cruz County personnel.
Memoranda/Reports/Minutes/Agendas:
Advantages/Disadvantages of Using Multiple Prime v. Single General Contractor, agenda packet, Bond Oversight Committee meeting, January 27, 2000.
California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project Inspector Qualification Record, DSA-5, revised March 27, 2003.
Communications Matrix for Bond Projects Participants, November 29, 2001.
IOR Bi-Monthly Progress Reports, Santa Cruz High, May 2002.
Memo from Northcross, Hill and Ach, June 8, 2006.
Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C.
Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C.
Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
Santa Cruz City Schools, Agreement for Consultant Services, Construction Program Management Services, Strategic Construction Management, February 1, 2002.
Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, May 12, 1999 to May 10, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.]
Santa Cruz City School Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes, May 16, 1998 to May 18, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.]
Santa Cruz City Schools “Bond Oversight Committee Roles and Responsibilities,” revised April 17, 2002.
Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006.
Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006.
Santa Cruz City Schools District Bond Projects Status Reports, November 17, 1999 to January 25, 2006. [Please see Appendix for specific dates.]
Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for Construction Projects, undated.
Soquel High School Bond II Modernization Project IIIA, Bid #2004-21, Opened June 3, 2004.
Soquel High School Bond 2 Phase II Rebid, Bid #2006-09, Opened December 22, 2005.
Newspaper Articles/Pamphlets:
Contra Costa Times, “Schools’ refinancing questioned,” April 30, 2006.
County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.
“Road to Renovation: Keeping You Informed,” Santa Cruz City Schools, undated.
Santa Cruz Sentinel:
“Bond-funded school repairs set to start in Santa Cruz,” May 13, 1999.
“Bonds making a difference,” March 22, 2001.
“Branciforte remodeling project disappoints staff,” October 14, 2001.
“Error could cost schools thousands,” April 8, 2005.
“Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002.
“Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003.
“Santa Cruz City Schools finds surplus in general fund,” April 20, 2006.
“Students say last goodbye to Natural Bridges, Branciforte schools,” June 12, 2004.
Building Standards Commission, http://www.bsc.ca.gov.
California Code of Regulations, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/part1/2001_part1.pdf.
California Education Code, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/15200-15205.html.
California State Constitution, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html.
California Public Contract Code, http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/contents.html?sec=pcc.
“Choosing the Best Delivery Method for Your Facility Projects,” http://www.mbpce.com/news_pubs_delivery.html.
Division of the State Architect, http://www.dsa.dgs.ca.gov.
Division of the State Architect On-Line Project Tracking System, http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/etrackerweb/DistrictProject.asp?clientid=44-h2 and http://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/etrackerweb/DistrictProject.asp?clientid=44-42.
General Obligation Bonds, http://www.calschools.com/static/GOBond.htm.
Santa Cruz City Schools, http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us.
Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects, http://www.sccs.santacruz.k12.ca.us/bizservices/BondProject/bondproject.htm (this web site is no longer accessible).
Santa Cruz County Office of Education, http://www.santacruz.k12.ca.us/board/index.html.
Santa Cruz Sentinel, http://www.santacruzsentinel.com.
State Education Oversight Commissions, http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/57/86/5786.htm.
Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm.
TBW&B, Public Finance Strategies, LLC, http://www.tbwb.com/clients.htm.
2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/Part1/2001_part1.pdf.
Ten Santa Cruz City School sites.
Bonds E and H
1. The E and H bonds were originally each sold in three series: A, B, and C:[7]
Bond Sold
Bond Term Ends
Series A, Elementary
August 1, 2027
Series B, Elementary
August 1, 2029
Series C, Elementary
$5,598,115.65
February 1, 2026
TOTAL ELEM.
$28,098,115.65
Series A, High School
Series B, High School
$31,000,000.00
Series C, High School
$11,997,433.50
TOTAL HIGH SCH.
$57,997,433.50
In April 2005, Series A and B Elementary and High School bonds were refinanced:
Refinance, Series A and B, Elementary
$22,785,000
Refinance, Series A and B, High School
Table 2. Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Sales, Measures E and H.
2. Total Elementary bond sales, Series A, B, and C exceeded the $28 million dollar cap established in Bond Measure E.
3. When asked about exceeding the $28 million cap on the Elementary bonds, district administrative staff referred the Grand Jury’s questions to the district’s bond financial advisor, Northcross, Hill and Ach. The Grand Jury was told, “Unintentionally, $98,115.65 was issued in bonds over the 28 million dollar amount approved by the voters. The district has made provision to repay the $98,115.65 and all interest that has accrued.” The amount of the interest earned is unknown to the Grand Jury.
4. The last of the original Elementary bonds was sold in 2001, but repayment of the $98,115.65 overage has not yet been made as of June 10, 2006.
5. When Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B were refinanced in April 2005, the total amount of the refunding bonds was $4,280,000 higher than the remaining principal of the original Series A and B bonds. The Elementary Series A and B Bonds were refinanced for $22,785,000 (the outstanding principal was $21,030,000); the High School Series A and B Bonds were refinanced for $45,500,000 (the outstanding principal was $42,975,000).[8]
6. SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that “the amount of the refunding bonds is determined by the amount needed to establish an escrow to pay off the old bonds, which includes interest and principal due . . . and pay the costs of issuance.”
7. Elementary bonds, Series C and Elementary 2005 Refunding Bonds total $28,383,115.65, again exceeding the $28 million cap established by the bond measure.
8. The April 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B is not detailed on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006.
9. According to the Official Statements for the bond sales, property owners residing in the Santa Cruz City Schools District will be repaying bonds E and H until 2029.
10. The Voter Information Pamphlet for Bond Measures E and H contained an “impartial analysis by County Counsel” stating that “under current California law, the term of the bonds cannot exceed twenty-five years.”[9] This term is also stated in the California Education Code, Section 15144: “The number of years the whole or any part of the bonds are to run shall not exceed 25 years, from the date of the bonds or the date of any series thereof.”[10]
11. On April 13, 2005, the SCCS Board of Education passed resolutions authorizing the refinancing (refunding) of the general obligation Bond Measures E and H, Series A and B to take advantage of decreased interest rates.
12. SCCS District’s bond financial advisor stated that the refunding of the bonds will result in lower debt service payments, with the majority of savings in 2006-2010, and that the refinancing will lower taxes.
13. For tax year 2004-2005, property owners residing in the Santa Cruz City Schools District within the City of Santa Cruz were paying property taxes at a rate of .068% toward bonds E and H. In tax year 2005-2006, the rate increased to .081%.
14. Interest earned on bond sale proceeds has been used for the bond projects and has not been used to repay the bond.[11]
15. As property tax is collected to repay bonds E and H, the money is deposited in the pooled investment fund of the county until the district draws it out. These deposits earn interest.
Budget Expense Summary
16. Following is a summary of the SCCS Bond Projects Budget expenses from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006:[12]
$82,431,328
$11,212,596
$6,928,864
Miscellaneous Construction Costs
$4,178,084
$3,901,483
Staff Salaries and Other Support
$2,225,522
$110,877,877
Table 3. Summary of SCCS Bond Projects Budget Expenses, July 1, 1998 to
17. In January 2001, the Bond Projects staff requested authority from the school board and the BOC to use their discretion before bidding projects in the future, and to decide whether to bid projects with one general contractor or use multiple-prime contractors.
18. Results of the first four major bond projects undertaken at one high school, one junior high school and two elementary were described as follows: “All four projects were completed late, two of the four projects are over budget, the quality of some of the work was sub-standard on two projects, and sub-standard work was allowed to stand when first done, assuming it would be rectified as part of the punch list at the end of the projects, but after many spaces had been reoccupied. Some work that was planned to be included in some projects was left out of the initial plans and specs and had to be added with change orders, adding time and cost to the project.”[13]
19. At the October 24, 2001, SCCS Board of Education meeting, district administrative staff dissatisfaction with the ability of the construction managers to monitor and control the work on multiple prime projects was reported. District staff recommended:
· bidding future construction projects using general contractors
· terminating the two elementary and secondary Construction Managers’ contracts
· increasing Inspector of Record time on projects to better monitor quality of work
· increasing architect involvement in construction administration
· reorganizing district support and oversight of projects
· pre-qualifying bidders for future projects
20. District administrative staff stated that using general contractors had the advantages of less contract administration, total coverage of work, and direct lines of accountability. Disadvantages were that the general contractor might not select the lowest subcontractor bid and could charge up to a fifteen percent markup on subcontractor change orders.[14] District administrative staff stated that using general contractors could cost more, but there would be clear lines of responsibility and “headaches would be reduced.”
21. On November 15, 2001, district administrative staff reported to the BOC that the SCCS Board had approved a plan to hire a consultant to provide general oversight and management of the construction program. The board’s preference was to hire professionals in the construction management field to manage future projects, instead of having district employees in the project management role. The board stated that it did not have confidence that district employees could provide management, in light of the problems that had been reported by school staff at Branciforte Junior High on that school’s projects.[15]
22. Seven firms responded to the district’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for a construction program manager. Three finalists were interviewed, and Strategic Construction Management was chosen by the SCCS Board as the Construction Program Manager to be effective February 1, 2002. District administrative staff and volunteers stated the board liked the fact that Strategic Construction Management was local and had ties to the community.
23. The district has not been able to produce the fixed-price bids and requested supporting documentation for this selection process. This documentation is public record.
24. The Grand Jury could find no documentation that the bids for the Construction Program Manager were opened publicly as required by the Public Contract Code.[16]
25. “Previously, the district used its staff to oversee multiple contractors at individual schools. Officials expect the new system, which includes hiring a general contractor for each project, will simplify the process and attract more bids, particularly from area contractors. The district will pay Strategic $1.2 million. District officials expect to finish all projects by December 2004.”[17]
26. Construction Management budgets were reduced by $2,128,663 due to termination of the two previous Construction Management contracts. Architect Fee budgets were then increased $1,288,160 for increased services for construction administration due to reorganization of management for the projects. These adjustments, when combined with the new Strategic Construction Management contract for $1.2 million, produced an immediate overall increase for the bond projects of over $360,000.
27. Since February 1, 2002, there have been numerous contract extensions and additional payments approved for Strategic Construction Management, summarized as follows:
Contract[18]
Services[19]
Renewal[20]
Extension[21]
Contract[22]
Extension[23]
2/2/02 –
8/23/02 –
3/1/04 –
10/1/05 –
5/05 –
7/1/06 –
$1,205,104
$958,058
$374,325
$2,889,066
Table 4. Approved Contracts for Strategic Construction Management Paid by Bond Funds.
28. In addition to bond funds, payments totaling $68,273 to Strategic Construction Management have been approved by the SCCS Board: $48,221 from the General Fund to “plan and coordinate moving of furniture, equipment and supplies (March 24, 2004); and $20,052 from the Capital Facilities Fund to “plan and coordinate the relocation of 21 portable classrooms” (April 21, 2004).
29. In the RFP for Management Services for Construction Projects that was part of the Strategic Construction Management Agreement with the district, one requirement is to “plan and coordinate the moving of staff, furniture, material and equipment related to the construction projects.” Strategic Construction Management submitted a fixed fee proposal to secure this contract.
30. In March 2002, the board approved a district Construction Projects Coordinator position to serve as a liaison between Strategic Construction Management and the district sites. The position is funded through the elementary and secondary bonds. The head of the district Maintenance Department was appointed to the position.
31. The SCCS Board of Education approved a resolution to no longer require a public re-bidding of work once change orders exceeded the cost of the original bid by over ten percent (10%), as had been previously required. It was stated that the re-bid process can cause a six- to eight-week delay, and since the district had a general contractor in charge of bond-funded projects, the chances of exceeding a ten percent overrun were considerably less.
32. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, revealed that out of sixty-nine projects, thirty-seven (or 54%) exceeded a ten percent cost overrun due to change orders.
33. In October 2005, the SCCS Board voted to become subject to the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Procedures and to provide for informal bidding procedures under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act Procedures. This allowed projects from $35,000 to $125,000 to be bid using a pre-approved list of satisfactory contractors, while projects over $125,000 were subject to formal bidding procedures. The rationale was that this would allow more flexibility in the execution of work; speed up bidding procedures; improve timeliness of project completion; reduce paperwork and expenses related to advertising; and simplify administration.
34. The SCCS District was advised by legal counsel to set a consistent policy for the acceptance of bids. Subsequently, it was decided to award contracts based on the lowest total bid on each project. Projects often contain several alternates, which may or may not be actually included in the final project. The contract, however, is still awarded on the total bid.
35. When projects contain alternates, contractors can bid low or even zero (0) on some alternates, thereby lowering their overall total bid.
36. In March 2006, the district awarded a bond project contract to a bidder whose past projects for the district included a project that had change orders totaling 34.1% of the original contact amount, a Stop Notice, and had gone to court. That same bidder had previously completed district bond projects with change orders of 32.3%, 36.9%, and 118.8% of the original contract amounts.
37. Contracts were not always awarded to the lowest bidder as evidenced by Bid # 2006-09. The contract was awarded for $1,204,700 when the lowest bid was actually $1,151,399.
38. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, document does not include all bond projects, notably those undertaken in 1998-1999. Approximately $4 million worth of projects are not detailed, nor are their change orders.
39. The SCCS, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, showed twenty projects with change orders exceeding twenty percent (20%) of the original project contract. These percentages range from 21.7% to 118.8%, resulting in additional costs of $5,479,544 above the original contract amount of $17,779,162 for those twenty projects. This reflected a 30.8% increase over the original contract amounts.
40. Sixty-nine completed or nearly-completed projects detailed on the SCCS, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006, had change orders totaling $9,621,580, or fourteen and one-half percent (14.5%) of their original contract total of $66,457,279.
41. District officials stated that general contractors typically make a fifteen-percent markup on change orders.
42. According to the Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, dated May 10, 2006, sixty-four projects have had Notices of Completion filed. Of those sixty-four projects, only one is listed in the “DSA Closeout Complete” column, and only two are listed in the “Closeout Sent to DSA” column. The Architect of Record is responsible for submitting the required closeout documents for final certification.[24]
43. The Grand Jury found at least one instance of a project being started without prior DSA notification by the IOR (DSA Project Code 01-106000). This appears to be a violation of the Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 1, Section 4-331.
44. Inspector of Record assignment date records obtained from the SCCS District and the DSA do not match.
45. “The school board must provide for and require competent, adequate and continuous inspection by an inspector . . .” and; “The project inspector . . . must be approved by the DSA for each individual project.”[25]
46. In reviewing the IOR field reports for Santa Cruz High Modernization, project number 01-103363, there is a gap of eighteen days with no IOR reports or notations. One inspector had been terminated on May 2, 2002, and the next IOR report was dated May 20, 2002.
47. DSA Field Notes from the supervising field engineer from July 10, 2002, stated the first item requiring resolution on project 01-103363 was that the IOR had been replaced by two subsequent IORs, the last of which had not submitted DSA Form-5. The DSA Form-5, which must be signed by the district, architect, and engineer, must be filed ten days prior to an IOR beginning a project.[26]
School Closures/Leasing
48. In January 2001, the BOC questioned the prudence of using bond funds to modernize schools that might be closed in the future due to declining enrollment.
49. In June 2004, Natural Bridges and Branciforte Elementary schools closed. Branciforte became a campus for small district alternative schools. Natural Bridges is leased by Pacific Collegiate, a charter school that is funded by the state. This site is not being used as part of Santa Cruz City Schools. Proposition 39 obligates the district to provide a certain amount of space rent free since sixty percent of the students come from within SCCS boundaries. Pacific Collegiate leases space for the forty percent of the students from outside the district. The district also leases space to another school, Carden El Encanto, at the former Loma Prieta High School site. Lease funds go into the general fund. Following is a summary of the current and projected lease income for these two sites:[27]
$84,897
$284,897
$363,826
Table 5. Santa Cruz City Schools Lease Revenues, 2004-2009.
50. In August 2004, a citizen who attended two BOC meetings expressed concern about bond funds that had been used on schools that were later closed. The citizen felt that the lease money from those schools should be used to reduce the bond debt.
51. District administrative staff reported to the BOC committee that legal counsel said it was not illegal to lease out the renovated schools and not use the revenues to defray the debt. The BOC approved a motion to not recommend using lease revenues to retire bond debt.
District Office Relocation/Renovation
52. Even after Natural Bridges and Branciforte elementary schools had been closed, and the four alternative schools on three sites were moved to the former Branciforte Elementary campus, the district still needed to reduce overhead and save operating expenses due to declining enrollment. The district offices on Mission Street were sold, and ten classrooms at Soquel High School were chosen to serve as administrative offices (Soquel High School’s enrollment dropped from 1693 students in 1998 to 1234 students in 2005-06). The Adult Education Office, the Purchasing Department, and District Warehouse were moved to Palm Street. The Workability Program and Food Services Office were moved to DeLaveaga Elementary School.
53. Classrooms identified to house the district offices at Soquel High had already been remodeled using bond funds. At least an additional $460,537 in bond money was spent for the district office remodel.
54. At its April 9, 2003 meeting, the SCCS Board approved the use of up to $1 million in bond funds for district office relocation and improvements. In its advisory capacity, the BOC did not recommend this action.
55. To date, at least $1,285,486 of bond project money has been spent on district office and adult education relocation. This total includes $274,424 for change orders, or twenty-seven (27%) of the original contract amount of $1,011,062.
56. A BOC member called the use of bond money for offices “not ethical,” and stated that the district could use anticipated redevelopment revenue to pay for the classroom conversions and other relocation projects. “There was a promise (the bond money) would never be used for administrative costs. It was to improve the student environment, not the district office environment.”[28]
Oversight/Public Communication
57. The BOC has been meeting bi-monthly since 1998. These meetings are open to the public. Minutes and any reports released are public information. Meetings are held at Soquel High School, Room 312. Oversight committee members stated that meeting notices are posted at school sites and the district office.
58. In 1998, a bond web page was developed with links to each school site providing regular updates on bond-related issues.
59. In June 1999, the communications sub-committee of the BOC worked on placing bond-related information on the SCCS web page. Signs relating to bond projects were designed for placement at the school sites.
60. On August 26, 1999, the BOC stated that the Board of Education, Bond Oversight Committee, and district administration should work jointly to create a public relations program and method of presentation for each school site, the press, and the public in general.
61. District staff and BOC members were interviewed for “Community Express,” a Community Television of Santa Cruz show. The show aired four times in Fall 1999 and outlined the school bond issues and future project plans.
62. A brochure “The Road to Renovation” detailed the status of Measure E and H projects and was distributed to parents from the school sites and mailed to households within the district in May 2000. This brochure indicated there would be ongoing communication to keep the public aware of progress and improvements.
63. In July 2000, a Board of Education member noted that the district’s web site was in need of updating.
64. The Grand Jury observed that as late as October 17, 2005, there was a “Bond Projects” section on the Santa Cruz City Schools web site. Information was out of date; the last update had been posted in 2001. By February of 2006, that section of the web site was no longer accessible, and posts “Forbidden: You don’t have permission to access … (this site) on this server.”
65. When asked about the inaccessibility of the web site, district staff responded that the webmaster worked one half-day per week and that there were no resources in the district to put more effort into the web site.
66. Strategic Construction Management publishes SCCS site construction newsletters on its web site. Newsletters for completed bond projects include construction budget summaries, schedules, and architect, inspector, and contractor information. Web site summaries of current projects have none of this information.[29]
67. The construction budget summaries for “Completed Projects” on the Strategic Construction Management web site do not match the figures printed on the Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May10, 2006. The Strategic Construction Management web site is the only one displaying information on the SCCS bond construction projects.
68. According to district administrative staff, by the end of summer 2006, ninety-eight percent (98%) of bond funds will be spent. The BOC’s final meeting is scheduled for November 2006. If there is any money left over, district staff will oversee expenditures. Construction projects could extend into Spring 2007.
69. Strategic Construction Management will be paid $34,500 to produce a Bond Projects Report. This fee is included in their July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 contract extension.
70. At its May 18, 2006 meeting, the BOC reviewed options for its final committee report which may be in the form of newspaper ads or inserts, postcards, a newsletter, a twenty-four page report, or a video.
1. Measure E, Series A, B, and C bond sales exceeded the voter-approved amount of $28 million by $98,115.65. The $28 million cap was exceeded a second time when the Measure E, Series A and B bonds were refinanced, this time by $383,115.65.
2. A savings of over $3 million in interest is projected due to the refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds, Series A and B that were sold for $4,280,000 million more than the principal remaining. Although interest was decreased, the total debt was increased. The purpose of the refinancing appears to be to extract more funds and not to lower property taxes.
3. The 2005 refinancing of the Elementary and High School Bonds is not shown on the SCCS Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006. Voters are entitled to full disclosure regarding all bond details.
4. Contrary to the language of the Voter Information Pamphlet, the bond terms of both the Elementary and High School bonds are greater than twenty-five years.
5. Property owners in the Santa Cruz City Schools District are paying a higher percentage of their property taxes to repay bonds E and H in the 2005-2006 tax year than they paid in the 2004-2005 tax year. To date, the decreased bond interest rates have not reduced property taxes.
6. Over the next twenty-three years, property tax deposits will earn interest that could be used to reduce bond debt.
7. The SCCS District has exceeded its fiscal authority granted in Measures E and H by selling bonds for more than the voter-approved limit. By so doing, it could make it more difficult for voters to approve future bond projects.
8. As of April 30, 2006, expenses for architects/engineers, and construction management total sixteen percent (16%) of the total bond project expenditures, or over $18 million.
9. The district did not have personnel on staff with adequate construction knowledge to manage large construction projects.
10. The district could not find an efficient and cost-effective method of construction program management. There were many layers of construction supervision and coordination paid for with bond dollars: general contractors, architects, Strategic Construction Management, and the district’s Construction Program Coordinator.
11. Originally, the Strategic Construction Management contract was for $1.2 million and all projects were to be completed by December 2004. By the end of 2006, payments to Strategic Construction Management will reach nearly $3 million, and projects are still continuing.
12. Additional payments were made to Strategic Construction Management for moving services that were part of their original contract with SCCS for which a fixed-price bid had been submitted.
13. Total bond project construction management fees from 1998 to present appear excessive, and will top $7 million before the end of 2006.
14. The bidding process for the Construction Program Manager was not conducted according to Public Contract Code Procedures. Bid documentation is not available from the district to determine whether the lowest bidder was accepted; and documentation that the bids were opened in public as mandated by the Public Contract Code has not been made available by the district.
15. When the board voted to no longer require re-bidding projects that surpassed the ten percent change order threshold, it removed the cap on change orders.
16. A contractor should not have been considered “responsible” if that contractor’s previous jobs had excessive change orders and if court action was necessary.
17. When projects were bid with alternates, this allowed contractors to manipulate the system by giving a low bid or zero on alternates, thereby allowing a contractor to submit the lowest bid. The bid would not necessarily be awarded to a responsible bidder.
18. The SCCS Bond Project, Status of Project Closeout, May 10, 2006 is incomplete; therefore, a true assessment of costs and overruns cannot easily be made.
19. The amount of change orders appears excessive. This could be due, in part, to the removal of the ten percent (10%) cap requiring project re-bidding.
20. There was no financial incentive for contractors and architects to keep change orders to a minimum.
21. The Architects of Record have not fulfilled their responsibilities to secure project closeout and certification by the DSA.
22. District administrative staff has not seen the projects through to closeout by insisting that the Architects of Record submit all closeout documentation.
23. The district, architect, and engineer failed to file DSA Form-5 before IORs started project 01-103363 as required by the California Code of Regulations.
24. IOR documentation for project 01-103363 is incomplete and shows a gap of eighteen days with no IOR site notations or reports. It is a violation of the California Code of Regulations for a project to proceed without an IOR.
25. Since district and DSA documentation of IOR assignments and dates do not match, the Grand Jury was unable to determine whether projects progressed without an assigned IOR, or without a DSA-approved IOR.
26. Although bond funds were used to renovate the Natural Bridges and Loma Prieta sites, lease revenues have not been used to repay bond debt.
27. Despite the fact that the Voter Information Pamphlet arguments in favor of the bond measures clearly stated that bond funds were not to be used for administrative offices, the SCCS Board used bond funds for this purpose.
28. The SCCS Board ignored BOC recommendations not to use bond funds for district office renovations and relocation.
29. Lack of planning resulted in wasted money at Soquel High when ten classrooms that had already undergone renovation and modernization were remodeled for district offices.
30. The SCCS District spent more than $1.2 million on district office renovations and relocations. The district inappropriately approved $1 million for this purpose; no bond money should have been used.
31. The BOC is scheduled to disband in November 2006. Projects may continue until at least Spring 2007, and there will be no BOC oversight. Bonds were passed under the assumption that an oversight committee would be in place for the duration of the projects.
32. The district has not maintained the bond project information on its web site. This could have been a valuable means of providing ongoing, up-to-date public information on the bond projects.
33. Over the last eight years, there has been no ongoing form of public communication with district residents regarding the bond projects. Efforts made, such as starting a web page, being interviewed for Santa Cruz Community Television, and producing a brochure, all took place between 1998-2000.
34. As of this late date, the BOC has not yet determined the format and scope of its final report. The Grand Jury questions whether this will give the BOC time to prepare a comprehensive report.
35. Paying Strategic Construction Management $34,500 to help prepare a final report detailing the bond projects could result in a loss of objectivity and detail in evaluating the projects’ successes and failures.
1. The Grand Jury recommends that the Santa Cruz County Auditor initiate an outside, independent audit to scrutinize the bond sales and refinancing, and expenditure of bond funds. If there was surplus cash gained from the refinancing, it should be accounted for and used to reduce the bond debt.
2. An outside, independent performance audit should be conducted to analyze, assess, and report on the Santa Cruz City Schools District’s operational and construction management policies, procedures, and practices regarding Bond Measures E and H. Investigation as to whether all California Code of Regulations, Title 24 standards were followed should be included.
3. The SCCS District should insist that the architects submit all documents related to completed bond projects under DSA supervision so the projects can be certified and closed out. Architect fees should be withheld until DSA certification is complete.
4. For future major construction projects, the SCCS District should consider hiring an experienced, qualified construction project manager or team as a limited-term district employee(s). This would cost less than hiring a construction management firm.
5. The SCCS District should replace the funds used for District Office relocation and renovation to reduce bond debt.
6. The SCCS District should use lease revenues and interest on future property tax collections to reduce the bond debt.
7. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects budget document that includes bond refinancing details.
8. The SCCS District should provide a complete bond projects closeout document detailing all bond construction projects.
9. Future construction projects should be awarded to the contractor submitting the lowest base bid. Alternates should be bid separately.
10. For future construction projects, the contractors hired should adhere to the ten-percent cap on change orders previously in effect.
11. The SCCS District should provide an objective summary and analysis of bond projects from beginning to end. This should include project details, budget, and completion dates; financial accounting; analysis of successes and failures; and suggestions for improvement for any future bond or construction projects.
12. The SCCS District should make sure its web site is comprehensive and updated frequently. The final bond projects report and analysis should be posted on that web site.
13. The BOC should continue to operate until all bond projects are completed.
14. District support staff is to be commended for its helpfulness, promptness, and courtesy when providing requested documentation.
Santa Cruz City Schools Board of Trustees
2-12, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27-29, 31, 32, 34-44, 46, 47, 51, 53-56, 64-70
(October 1, 2006)
Santa Cruz County Auditor/Controller
(September 1, 2006)
Appendix A – Source Details
Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes:
May 12, 1999.
May 26, 1999.
June 9, 1999.
June 28, 1999.
July 14, 1999.
August 11, 1999.
August 18, 1999.
September 8, 1999.
October 27, 1999.
November 17, 1999.
December 8, 1999.
January 12, 2000.
January 26, 2000.
February 9, 2000.
February 23, 2000.
March 15, 2000.
March 29, 2000.
April 13, 2000.
April 26, 2000.
May 24, 2000.
June 7, 2000.
August 3, 2000.
August 16, 2000.
September 6, 2000.
October 11, 2000.
October 25, 2000.
November 8, 2000.
November 29, 2000.
December 13, 2000.
February 14, 2001.
February 28, 2001.
March 14, 2001.
March 28, 2001.
April 25, 2001.
May 23, 2001.
June 6, 2001.
July 11, 2001.
August 8, 2001.
August 22, 2001.
September 26, 2001.
October 24, 2001.
November 7, 2001.
November 28, 2001.
December 5, 2001.
December 19, 2001.
January 16, 2002.
January 23, 2002.
January 30, 2002.
February 13, 2002.
February 20, 2002.
March 13, 2002.
May 22, 2002.
July 9, 2002.
August 14, 2002.
August 28, 2002.
October 2, 2002.
October 9, 2002.
October 23, 2002.
November 6, 2002.
November 13, 2002.
November 20, 2002.
January 15, 2003.
January 29, 2003.
February 26, 2003.
March 12, 2003.
April 9, 2003.
April 30, 2003.
May 14, 2003.
June 25, 2003.
July 23, 2003.
August 6, 2003.
September 10, 2003.
September 24, 2003.
October 8, 2003.
October 22, 2003.
November 5, 2003.
December 10, 2003.
January 14, 2004.
February 11, 2004.
February 25, 2004.
March 10, 2004.
April 21, 2004.
May 5, 2004.
May 26, 2004.
June 16, 2004.
June 29, 2004.
August 21, 2004.
September 22, 2004.
October 13, 2004.
October 27, 2004.
November 10, 2004.
January 12, 2005.
February 9, 2005.
March 9, 2005.
July 27, 2005.
August 10, 2005.
October 10, 2005.
November 21, 2005.
January 9, 2006.
January 25, 2006.
February 8, 2006.
February 22, 2006.
March 8, 2006.
April 19, 2006.
Santa Cruz City Schools Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes:
May 16, 1998.
June 25, 1998.
July 20, 1998.
September 30, 1998.
December 10, 1998.
January 21, 1999.
June 24, 1999.
August 26, 1999 (agenda packet).
October 28, 1999.
January 27, 2000 (agenda packet).
March 30, 2000.
May 18, 2000.
May 18, 2000 (revised).
June 22, 2000 (revised).
July 20, 2000.
July 20, 2000 (revised).
September 21, 2000.
October 19, 2000.
November 16, 2000.
January 18, 2001.
March 22, 2001.
May 17, 2001.
July 19, 2001.
September 20, 2001.
October 11, 2001.
November 15, 2001.
January 17, 2002.
March 21, 2002.
July 11, 2002.
September 12, 2002.
September 19, 2002.
November 21, 2002.
January 23, 2003.
March 20, 2003.
July 10, 2003.
September 18, 2003.
November 13, 2003.
March 19, 2004.
May 20, 2004.
August 5, 2004 (agenda packet).
September 16, 2004.
November 4, 2004.
November 18, 2004 (agenda packet).
January 20, 2005.
March 15, 2005.
May 19, 2005.
July 21, 2005.
September 22, 2005.
November 17, 2005 (agenda packet).
January 19, 2006 (agenda packet).
March 16, 2006 (agenda packet).
May 18, 2006 (agenda packet).
Santa Cruz City School District Bond Projects Status Reports:
October 10, 2001.
[1] County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.
[2] County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.
[3] Figures supplied by the Santa Cruz County Auditor/Controller Office, June 2, 2006.
[4] Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 1, 1998 to April 30, 2006.
[5] California Public Contract Code, http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/contents.html?sec=pcc.
[6] Santa Cruz City Schools, “Bond Oversight Committee Roles and Responsibilities,” revised April 17, 2002.
[7] Official Statements, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, and C; Official Statements, Santa Cruz City High School District, General Obligation Bonds, Election of 1998, Series A, B, C; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
[8] Official Statement, Santa Cruz City Elementary School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds; Official Statement, Santa Cruz City High School District, 2005 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
[9] County of Santa Cruz Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet for Special School District Election, Tuesday, April 14, 1998.
[10] California Education Code, Section 15144, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc.html.
[11] Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006.
[12] Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Projects Budget, Report from July 11, 1998 to April 30, 2006.
[13] Santa Cruz City Schools, Request for Proposals, Management Services for Construction Projects, 2001.
[14] “Advantages/Disadvantages of Using Multiple Prime v. Single General Contractor, agenda packet, Bond Oversight Committee meeting, January 27, 2000.
[15] Santa Cruz City School Bond Oversight Committee Meeting Minutes, November 15, 2001.
[16] California Public Contract Code, Section 10180, http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/contents.html?sec=pcc
[17] Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Firm will oversee school construction projects,” February 15, 2002.
[18] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, February 27, 2002.
[19] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, August 14, 2002.
[20] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, December 10, 2003.
[21] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June 8, 2005
[22] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, June 8, 2005.
[23] Santa Cruz City Schools, Board of Education for the Elementary and Secondary Districts Minutes, April 26, 2006.
[24] 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 1, Sections 4-339 and 4-341, http://www.bsc.ca.gov/title_24/documents/Part1/2001_part1.pdf.
[25] 2001 California Building Standards Administrative Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 124,
Part 1, Section 4-333(b).
[26] California Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect, Project Inspector Qualification Record, DSA-5, revised, March 27, 2003.
[27] Agenda Packet, Santa Cruz City Schools, Bond Oversight Committee Meeting, November 18, 2004.
[28] Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Moving costs stir school-bond debate,” May 29, 2003.
[29] Strategic Construction Management, http://strategic-cm.com/main/santacruzcityschools.htm.