Editor NJ Herald :
In the New Jersey Herald, the editorial “Intimidation tactic in Sparta” said that the New Jersey Herald submitted an OPRA (Open Public Records Act) request to the Sparta Board of Education asking for “details of the board’s bond counsel’s recommendation regarding use of ‘leftover’ referendum funds for athletic fields,” and that that request was denied. It made me think! So I decided to look into this matter and discovered the following:
Two referendum questions and the explanatory statements on the Sept. 26, 2006, ballot read:
PROPOSAL NO. 1: “The Board of Education of the Township of Sparta in the County of Sussex, New Jersey is authorized (a) to provide for construction of additions, alterations and renovations at Sparta High School, including acquisition and installation of furnishings and equipment and sitework; (b) to appropriate therefore $71,513,519; and (c) to issue bonds of the school district to finance the project in the principal amount of $71,513,519.The final eligible costs of the project approved by the Commissioner of Education are $24,242,865. This project includes $11,076,437 for school facility construction elements in addition to the facilities efficiency standards developed by the Commissioner of Education or not otherwise eligiblefor State support pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5(g). The State debt service aid percentage will equal 40% of the annual debt service due with respect to the final eligible costs of the project.”
The vote was 2,988 yes, 2,771 no.
PROPOSAL NO. 2: “This Proposal No. 2 will only go into effect if Proposal No. 1 is also approved by the voters at this election. The Board of Education of the Township of Sparta in the County of Sussex, New Jersey is authorized (a) to provide for acquisition and installation of artificial turf, bleachers and a press box at the Sparta High School athletic fields, including acquisition and installation of equipmentand site work; (b) to appropriate therefore $2,496,575; and (c) to issue bonds of the school district to finance the project in the principal amount of $2,496,575. This project is not eligible for State support under the Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act.”
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT:
“These proposals will authorize the construction of additions, renovations and alterations at Sparta High School, including equipment, site work and athletic field improvements. If both proposals are approved by the voters at this election, the total aggregate cost of the project will be $74,010,094, and the aggregate final eligible cost of the project approved by the Commissioner of Education is $24,242,865. ...”
I then reached out to an attorney in the field of bonding and asked if Superintendent Morton and the Board can spend leftover monies from proposal No. 1 to “rehabilitate and improve the athletic and sports facilities.” That’s how Morton worded it at the Sept. 29, 2011, board meeting.
The attorney replied: “The simple answer is no. The provisions of NJSA 18A:24-1 et seq state and have been clearly interpreted to limit the expenditures to those approved by the voters. The referendum approves both the purpose and the amount of bonds. Unless the wording of the first question that was approved can be interpreted to include the additional purposes, then the excess bond proceeds from the one purpose cannot be used for a different purpose.”
“Financing and construction of school facilities projects,”found under N.J.S.A. 18A:7G-5(o) which was referenced in proposal No. 1, states:“In the case of a school facilities project of a district other than an SDA district, any proceeds of school bonds issued by the district for the purpose of funding the project which remain unspent upon completion of the project shall be used by the district to reduce the outstanding principal amount of the school bonds.”
It’s obvious to me that the unspent monies of $3.8-plus million need to be applied to pay down the bonds and if Morton and six out of nine Board members are not going to do that, then the question to them is:
What is the specific analysis prepared by the Superintendent or Board of Education that analyzes the rulings, court decisions, court interpretations, etc. that has allowed them to determine that they can continue to use the bond proceeds the way they are?
I would like the superintendent and board to adequately answer the above question and make that answer public knowledge.
Jesse Wolosky
Sparta
