[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6707386,"mediaKeyId","2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8","parentId",2173877,"title","Glendale board hears update on statewide school capital-funding lawsuit","audioSeconds",949,"startMs",1507000,"endMs",2456000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8&start=1507&end=2456","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8/thumbnail_1507000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6707386/Arizona/Glendale-board-hears-update-on-statewide-school-capital-funding-lawsuit","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6707386-4961c72718f1fd6b308c8ab1b6b8e612/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990635&Signature=SVGMZpXjJBVcRfAzJsMl4pyCov9YCLSKe0sAPIo~wfSxIB0-4sH480xu9Unk~R8YIClI8ZDzEC4~FnRdSEpxFGkF1pGilg54XyvnYf~G2QrfGgxnNjj4FvDApOJFeSGKXW2fmb8f0AlXNllBJ-JLPizA4frRL89q1IKJ6Sjr9jw9bfy3QOfqFxeNi-ANgEPBbPz9SSR5Qlt72up~aZdAjAJDETITlkoVnFtRiqKCWJhszqq9rWQTwmDsvW-ydCFhEzQUdIT8f~EgG8jCHuWLI9VBnrpFkrTg1nYXXu47gSH0V3goqgzhN8BH4uSxnXZf1-jZsDCQmxhWZoV-5PycVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Glendale Elementary District","date","2025-01-24T06:31:46.02Z","article","At a January meeting of the Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board, attorneys working on a long-running, statewide capital-funding lawsuit told trustees the case asserts the state is not providing enough money to meet school facility needs and that a judicial decision could arrive this spring.

The update came from Danny Edelman, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, who has been involved in school capital litigation for decades. “The basic idea of the case is the state is not providing adequate funding to enable all of Arizona school districts to meet their capital needs,” Edelman told the board, listing repairs, air conditioning, buses and other non-salary items as examples of capital needs.

Board members and district staff said the litigation seeks to address disparities created when districts rely on local bonds and overrides. Edelman said the case follows a 30-year-old Arizona Supreme Court decision that struck down a prior funding system and led to the 1998 Students First reforms. He told the board the recent trial involved dozens of witnesses, more than 80 depositions and a month of testimony and that the state and legislature have reduced or not fully restored capital funding over time.

Why it matters: Board members said delays and reduced state capital funding translate into deferred repairs and higher long-term costs for districts such as Glendale. The district's superintendent and outside counsel framed the lawsuit as a constitutional claim that could change how Arizona finances school buildings statewide.

Details from the presentation: Edelman said the case was filed in 2017 on behalf of four districts, including Glendale, with broad participation from groups including the Arizona School Boards Association and the Arizona Education Association. He described the trial as intense, with testimony from national experts and witnesses across Arizona. He said the final plaintiff filing is set for Feb. 17, after which the judge will consider whether the system is unconstitutional; Edelman said he expects a ruling sometime between April and May, though the judge could take longer because of the case's size and the volume of evidence.

Board members responded with concern about the effects of delayed capital work. One trustee said it is ‘‘incensing’’ to hear suggestions that a serious facility problem could be left unfixed for a decade. Edelman and district counsel described examples from other districts in which roof leaks and toxic water problems took years to fix.

No formal action: The presentation was informational; the board did not vote on litigation strategy during the public session. Trustees later directed staff to discuss SFOB strategy in executive session (a separate agenda item), but no public vote on the lawsuit itself occurred.

Outlook: Edelman said the judge could request extra time to consider a massive record of documents; if the ruling favors plaintiffs, the decision could direct legislative changes to funding. If the legislature's arguments are accepted, the status quo would remain.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Meeting of the Governing Board - January 23, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Attorneys for a multi-district lawsuit told the Glendale Elementary School District governing board that the case argues Arizona has not met its constitutional duty to provide adequate capital funding for schools and that a judge's ruling is expected in spring.","taxTitle","Glendale Elementary District (4271), School Districts, Arizona","taxId",13598,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6707376,"Board adopts agenda and consent items; amends motion to move to executive session on SFOB and negotiations",4436,403000,4839000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8&start=403&end=4839","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8/thumbnail_403000.jpg","/articles/6707376/Arizona/Board-adopts-agenda-and-consent-items-amends-motion-to-move-to-executive-session-on-SFOB-and-negotiations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6707376-0b1a40c7721df27a5f69a0f8b72f36a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990635&Signature=MxaE5H9MJpfgQB-X7amvo0qnrQH9wICUpV6Wn6XBxf7zktzFfyEXuvOGVqDoJnwfwbfeO~N2z~IoedaapmyyG6N2b8IEChUKQqk8LxxaUXYgXcNtMQsyTwm73ufhAcY7n6vvMDCvK8MrZkLxfdEtXw0nWMJDiZniZ~6F5fHQlyoZf94PHYnEQMY-vkHMkq0bfiUJrvVqxdtFjF6u8lFGcELjsQp57~SxRPiHVwo9Do7KgHzhGIAj1AE4O3TlNdHraAAdvVL7qgtF6VvmDzB~V-qpROWpFjC5qZlBYutW2FXGSK85Kn8Gpr5saEXtXoblpS0ym7bxdsEuAmv3IyooIQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the start of the meeting the Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board voted to adopt the agenda and later approved the consent agenda; both votes were unanimous among members present.

A board member moved to adopt the agenda; the board recorded aye votes from Miss Bartels, Miss Pimentel and the chair, and the motion carried. Later in the meeting a trustee moved to approve the consent agenda; Bartels, Pimentel and Mister Jaramillo were recorded as voting aye and the chair also voted aye.

Following reports and presentations the board considered a motion to recess into executive session for three listed items, including pending litigation and personnel negotiation matters. The board amended the motion to exclude the capital lawsuit item and proceed only on the remaining two items (SFOB matters and personnel/negotiations). The amendment was seconded and passed with recorded ayes from Bartels, Pimentel, Mister Jaramillo (recorded as Hadamil in the transcript) and the chair. The board then recessed into executive session. After the closed session the board returned to public session and recorded motions to reconvene and to adjourn; both passed with unanimous recorded ayes.

Public outcome: District staff announced at the close of the executive session that there were no action items coming out of the closed session.

Legal basis cited: During the motion the board referenced Arizona Revised Statutes governing executive sessions; the transcript recited statute numbers during roll call language. The board cited the statutory authority for attorney consultation and for instructions to legal counsel and for personnel negotiations under the Arizona Revised Statutes executive-session provisions.

","The Glendale Elementary School District governing board unanimously adopted the meeting agenda and consent agenda and then recessed into executive session for specified items after amending the original executive-session motion to remove the capital lawsuit item.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6707381,"District reports continued delays in SFOB appeal over campus replacement funding",841,2675000,3516000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8&start=2675&end=3516","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8/thumbnail_2675000.jpg","/articles/6707381/Arizona/District-reports-continued-delays-in-SFOB-appeal-over-campus-replacement-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6707381-4a8c91ed757b7f1c8d0d58d54c963af9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990635&Signature=QuyMCzJUK4QbDIOIDm2kxHI7h2sGW8cMg2Lw~7ihPYYnoZI73ssHgWnq0iB5Hk7NzGe8PryTXW0d-L1ewmiNcuEuHDTUoTHOaIkfyPZueq1l32AUzZ200x8JiCjNPu5rklhEFPkI5m0GVnGfgzTNW0vOpu3yFElqTDMtqhUAFzhV4bl7Bt7P1C01TK8mkh5wLb3YBaDOW0RvdjE0XarBxHHikc8BCZuEf11RucZGyX-g6nNXSERTX8e2Vn-fgCkNmZz7sAubBcDdmkEQxNoU5Qlz6ogJvllU6pBYwJdw4n1wkTFJ8siQdCrpzZP8AyphzQ7QbqTHl6vjUigWm6FXNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Glendale Elementary School District staff and outside counsel updated the board on a separate administrative appeal seeking funding for replacement of two district campuses, saying the district has faced repeated procedural delays from the School Facilities Oversight Board (SFOB).

Lynn Adams, a strategic adviser retained to present the update, described the matter as an administrative appeal of an SFOB decision made Dec. 15, 2022 that denied funding to replace buildings at the Mensendik and JACC campuses. Adams said the district filed an appeal, sought settlement, and issued a subpoena for Scott Thompson, a long-serving SFOB member and facilities manager for Mesa Public Schools, to testify at the hearing.

Adams said the SFOB moved to quash the subpoena and the administrative law judge partially limited its scope, allowing questions about Thompson's work for Mesa and prior roles but barring questions about his internal thought processes. The district then prepared for a hearing set in April but said SFOB filed special-action appeals in superior court and later sought review in the court of appeals, creating further delays. Adams said the district won the superior court special-action briefing on Nov. 8 and was awarded attorney's fees of more than $30,000; the SFOB has indicated it may seek further appeals, and Adams said that could push the hearing schedule farther out.

Why it matters: The district argued the SFOB's repeated appeals and postponements stall needed campus replacements and increase costs. Adams told the board she and district counsel have tried to resolve the dispute through tours, memos to the attorney general's office and settlement talks, but SFOB appeals and procedural motions have repeatedly delayed a final decision.

Key details: Adams said the district prefers to present all hearing testimony together so the judge can consider the full record; the district declined options to proceed without testimony from Thompson or to take his testimony months later. She said the SFOB's tactics amount to repeated delay and that the district will continue to press for full testimony and additional attorney's fees if it prevails on further appeals. Board members later asked for a confidential executive-session discussion of strategy on SFOB matters.

No new public dates: Adams said April hearing dates remain on the calendar but are unlikely to proceed while appeals are pending. She told trustees the SFOB has also considered rule changes and that the district has provided public comments on proposed SFOB policies.

","Glendale officials told trustees the school facilities oversight board has repeatedly delayed an administrative appeal over funding for two campuses, and the district has successfully defended a motion to enforce a subpoena but faces further appeals.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6706312,"Glendale Elementary board hears updates on statewide school capital lawsuit and separate appeal over campus replacement funding",838,1515000,2353000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8&start=1515&end=2353","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2173877-56dfb43c230ec8619ffca55ea857c8f8/thumbnail_1515000.jpg","/articles/6706312/Arizona/Glendale-Elementary-board-hears-updates-on-statewide-school-capital-lawsuit-and-separate-appeal-over-campus-replacement-funding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6706312-019f4fcd5a5741e477533037f3ef0d0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770990635&Signature=FJ7FqgX2bsBzDJL9Mh5f34qgZs9EVgXKpT0PviWmzwIFFzH90aAOD07WVXihyA3AfAciluUeuKlKKd-KTVHUP53k9SI2nt-kJ-18nyke90DXQG~FPYu1G3sUeHwYkg0cA4kA38yGoTsfWrSpR3tr4UiErvwapJnqMjQKEApGmbwJD7Et74aDOcaXQ-rj8xNpcVBmL5SZTriA1~kkF-y~u5n3cvW~GSBABKVFQ120XDWOGZhlt43LD1W~XNsqRX~lTFD9Im6iroL9a3t2NDeP8xjBWQnXT-DgTpYqkCsdwpo6EiRsdscVRf45s6hUpHJIjPTJf2XbaO-bo4145CoVMw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Glendale Elementary School District Governing Board members on Jan. 23 heard detailed updates from outside counsel and advisers on two legal fights over capital funding: a statewide lawsuit alleging the state fails to meet its constitutional duty to fund school capital needs, and an administrative appeal after the School Facilities Oversight Board (SFOB) denied the district replacement funding for two campuses.

The legal team representing districts in the statewide case said the suit alleges Arizona is “not providing adequate funding to enable all of Arizona school districts to meet their capital needs,” and traced the dispute to a Supreme Court ruling about 30 years ago that found the state's reliance on local bonds and overrides produced unconstitutional disparities. Danny Edelman, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, told the board that discovery and trial evidence documented “vast disparities” in facilities and that the case went to trial last summer. He said the court schedule now calls for a final district rebuttal filing on Feb. 17 and that the judge’s ruling is expected sometime between April and May, though he cautioned the judge could ask for more time.

Why it matters: board members and presenters said the outcomes could affect whether the state must restore or restructure capital funding statewide, and they described concrete consequences for districts that lack local property wealth — delayed repairs, higher long-term costs and facilities that can pose health risks. Edelman noted the 1998 Students First changes restored some funding but that subsequent legislative reductions have left many districts short of adequate capital dollars.

District counsel and outside advisers also updated the board on a separate, district-specific dispute with the School Facilities Oversight Board over replacement funding for the Mensendik and JACC campuses. Lynn Adams, described in the meeting as a strategic adviser with long experience in Arizona school facilities law, summarized an administrative appeal that began after SFOB declined to fund replacement of those buildings on Dec. 15, 2022. The district subpoenaed a SFOB member, Scott Thompson (Mesa Public Schools), to testify about facility decision-making; SFOB moved to quash. A judge limited the scope of the subpoena but permitted testimony about Mr. Thompson’s work for Mesa and related factual matters. SFOB then appealed that order, triggering additional stays and appeals.

Adams said the district prevailed in a superior court special-action appeal over the subpoena and was awarded attorney’s fees of more than $30,000 for that stage, but SFOB has continued to pursue further appeals and has sought relief in the Court of Appeals, which the district says has repeatedly delayed the administrative hearing. Adams said the district had April hearing dates set but that the SFOB’s appeals make moving forward uncertain. She said the district is pressing for all testimony to be taken together so a judge can consider the full record without months-long gaps that reduce the testimony’s impact.

Board members pushed for concrete tactics. One board member said she was incensed at suggestions in the case record that it could take a decade to fix capital problems and described how delayed repairs can cause additional damage and higher costs. Another asked how SFOB’s actions affect the district’s capital-budget reserve; district staff said they expect recent voter-approved overrides and district actions to help, but emphasized the fundamental argument in the statewide case that the state has primary responsibility for adequate capital funding.

Procedural actions taken at the meeting: the board adopted the meeting agenda and approved the consent agenda by recorded voice votes of board members present. The board voted to recess into executive session to consult with attorneys regarding (1) the administrative appeal with SFOB and (2) collective-bargaining/compensation negotiation strategy; members amended a motion on the floor to exclude the statewide capital lawsuit from the executive-session items. No public action resulted immediately from the executive session; the board later reconvened and adjourned.

What’s next: Edelman said the statewide capital lawsuit will enter the judge’s hands after the Feb. 17 filing, with a likely decision between April and May. On the SFOB appeal, Adams said further appeals could push the hearing schedule; the district says it will continue to seek testimony and recoverable attorney’s fees and will keep urging the oversight board to resolve issues without further delay.

Ending: Board members thanked legal counsel and district staff for the work invested in both cases and requested further board-level strategy discussions; one board member asked staff to prepare specific tactics for addressing SFOB delays, including the possibility of executive-session strategy work requested at the meeting.","At its Jan. 23 meeting the Glendale Elementary School District governing board heard legal updates on a long-running Arizona capital-funding lawsuit and a separate administrative appeal after the School Facilities Oversight Board denied replacement funds for two district campuses. Board members pressed for strategies to counter procedural delays.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Glendale board hears update on statewide school capital-funding lawsuit

Board adopts agenda and consent items; amends motion to move to executive session on SFOB and negotiations

District reports continued delays in SFOB appeal over campus replacement funding

Glendale Elementary board hears updates on statewide school capital lawsuit and separate appeal over campus replacement funding