On Dec. 19 the Sixth Appellate Court District of Santa Clara County ruled resoundingly in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s favor regarding Aaron Katz’s opposition to the issuance of the $490.8 million Foothill-De Anza general obligation bond measure known as Measure C.

When the bond measure passed in June 2006, Saratoga lawyer Katz immediately opposed the district, saying that Measure C lacked the accountability provisions required by Proposition 39, such as a detailed project list. Katz also claimed that the voting scheme for the proposition was unconstitutional because it excluded nonresident property owners like him from voting.

After losing in trial court last year, Katz appealed again for a court hearing on Nov. 15. The former lawyer filed his case and appeared before the court representing himself. After ninety days, the court released its decision in the district’s favor.

“Needless to say, as bond counsel to the district, as well as having represented the district on the validation and appeal, [I] am thrilled with the court’s decision. We have finally put an end to similar claims that might be raised against all districts by a disgruntled taxpayer,” said David Casnocha, bond counsel to the district on this issue, in an e-mail to De Anza College administrators.

“Regarding Katz’s feelings that he had a right to vote, the court said look, the issue is governmental, that’s been decided many times. We’re not hearing that issue,” said Jeanine Hawk, De Anza College vice president of Financial Services.

Local residents have more knowledge and interest in local affairs, and that is the basis for excluding nonresidents from voting on matters of local importance. The court asserted that the voting scheme was fully constitutional.

“Regarding the first issue, which had to do with the project definitions on our Prop 39 ballot, they dismissed it, saying that there’s been an outstanding job done outlining where the money will go. The court even included the full ballot text for Measure C in the opinion as a model for other districts to rely on in constructing a project list that satisfies the requirements of Prop 39,” said Hawk.

“The Recorder,” a local daily paper read by lawyers, stated that the level of specificity urged by Katz was “impractical and unnecessary.” “For instance,” it continued, “he said that they would have voters informed as to which buildings would receive new fire safety doors or which roofs would be repaired and replaced. What Katz demanded was beyond what voters needed to know, and it would be inconsistent with the district’s need to apply funds based on specific needs once funding was actually available.”

The court ruled that the text of Measure C in the voter information pamphlet satisfied the accountability requirements of Prop 39. The full text outlined the district’s facility needs and described planned projects, including upgrading, maintaining and replacing equipment, upgrading technology, repairing and replacing systems to reduce energy consumption, the improvement of safety and access for disabled persons, expansion of certain facilities, and improvement of emergency access and evacuation routes.

On the project list, all but one of these categories included a paragraph explaining the proposed projects. These included an expansion of the multicultural center, renovation of the old bookstore (also known as the old wine cellar), installation of solar panels around the campus and a new roof for the cottage.

Other projects are currently in development and may include the installation of campus-wide wireless Web reception.

Katz does not live in the district, but is a general partner of a limited partnership that owns townhouses in Mountain View, which is in the district. He has often filed lawsuits challenging district agencies that successfully pass bond measures such as the Mountain View-Whisman School District, El Camino Hospital, West Valley-Mission Community College District and the Campbell Union High School District. He usually alleges that he has been denied equal protection due to his inability to vote while being obligated to pay either a parcel tax or an ad valorem bond tax as a property owner.

Although his claims are considered by many to be meritless and there has been little expectation that he would win his suits if they were carried through, other groups have settled with him rather than holding up their necessary projects, which would have cost more in the long run. His suit against El Camino Hospital cost it $4.3 million in postponement fees, and he was awarded a $250,000 settlement from one of his Mountain View suits.

Because of the numerous challenges to local districts posed by Katz, when Foothill-De Anza’s Measure C bond passed in June 2006, administrators expected lawsuits. They took the step of filing a “validation lawsuit,” which required any challenge to the bond measure to be filed within about a month, and held off on any planned projects until all claims were issued.

The District did not have to bear the brunt of losing money by postponing projects, and so did not need to settle with Katz outside of the courtroom.

The new Performing Arts Center, for which construction began last spring behind the Student and Community Services Building, was funded by money remaining from a previous bond measure, and so was not affected by Katz’s suit.

De Anza is waiting for an approval for its action to validate the issuance of the bond money so it can move forward with planned projects. However, if Katz chooses to petition for a Supreme Court review of the decision, it may prevent the district from spending the funds for an extended period of time.