McLeod

McLeod v. Vista Unified School District

Bad Law
158 Cal. App. 4th 1156·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 42·71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 109
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 2008D050449California5,441 words

Opinion

Opinion

McCONNELL, J.

In November 2000 California voters approved Proposition 39, which is also referred to as the “Smaller Classes, Safer Schools, and Financial Accountability Act.” (Prop. 39, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000).) “First, and most important, [Proposition 39] amended the state Constitution to create an exception to the 1 percent limit on ad valorem taxes on real property, and to reduce from two-thirds to 55 percent the number of voters required to approve any bonded indebtedness proposed to be incurred by a school district for the ‘construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities.’ ” (Ridgecrest Charter School v. Sierra Sands Unified School Dist. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 986, 993 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.3d 648 ]; see Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (b)(3).) A local measure submitted to voters under Proposition 39 must set forth certain “accountability requirements,” including a list of the specific schools facilities projects to be funded, and a statement that the bond funds may be used only for those projects. (Cal. Const., art. XIII A, § 1, subd. (b)(3)(A), (B).)

The issue in this case is the applicable statute of limitations for a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.