CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT:

CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT:

BONDS AND DEPT

Can they be divided equally?

Prepared by:

Jocelyn Izumigawa

Spring 2001

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

College of Urban Affairs

Department of Public Administration

Committee:

Dr. Anna Lukemeyer (PUA) – Chair

Dr. Teresa Jordan (Ed. Leadership) – Member

Dr. Karen Layne (PUA) – Member

Dr. Robert Schmidt (PUA) – Member

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents 1

Acknowledgments 2

Abstract 3

Chapter 1: Introduction 4

Chapter 2: Literature Review 7

Chapter 3: Research Design 20

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions 23

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations 28

Appendix A: Map of Boundary Configurations of Plan B: Racially Balanced Districts 30

Appendix B: Plan B: Racially Balanced Districts 31

Appendix C: Total Assessed Value 34

Appendix D: Debt Allocation v. Assessed Valuation 35

References 36

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to extend appreciation to the following people for their assistance, impact, understanding and willingness to assist the author and to see this project through to its completion:

Walter, my husband, for his encouragement, patience, unconditional love and support in my endeavors (whatever they may be) and for just being there for me;

Joshua, Justin & Walshe, my children, for their support and patience and never letting me forget to do my homework;

Mom and Dad, for helping me with the kids, and supporting me with my endeavors;

David S. Lee, Esq., my boss, for giving me the time off from work and encouragement to finish this project;

Mark W. Schofield, Clark County Assessor, and his staff at the GIS Department, Eric, Avan and Zane for taking the time to help me obtain the assessed value of the hypothetical districts;

Dr. Anna Lukemeyer, who gave me support, encouragement, patience, for always being there when I needed her and for her faith in my abilities;

Drs. Teresa Jordan, Karen Layne, and Robert Schmidt, for agreeing to participate and taking the time in their busy schedules to review this paper.

Again, to all of you above, thank you so very much. For without your support, assistance and understanding, I would not be where I am today. DAGHANG SALAMAT!!! DOOMO ARIGATO!!! MAHALO NUI LOA!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART.

ABSTRACT

Clark County School District is one of the largest school districts in the nation with a student population of 203,616 for 1998-1999. Talk of deconsolidating Clark County School District has been proposed by Assemblypersons. However, as recent as November 2000, another initiative for deconsolidation and reconfigurations had not been approved by the voters. One of the issues surrounding deconsolidation is the district=s bond debt. An equitable division has not been reached should Clark County School District deconsolidate. This paper deals with dividing the bond debt equally among eight districts (identified in an earlier study of deconsolidation) and assessing whether each of the eight districts would be able to support its portion of the bond debt as well as continue to provide education to its population. The result show that rich and poor districts are created and two of the eight districts would run into problems funding their own districts even though their share of the debt is manageable.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Clark County School District (ACCSD@) has been pegged as the 8^thlargest school district in the nation with an enrollment of 203,616 students for the 1998 - 1999 school year (facts are from Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 326). By year 2001, the estimated student enrollment will increase by 13.04% to 231,028 students (facts are from Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 326) and is perhaps the fastest growing school district in the nation.

Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany (District 21), with support from other community leaders such as fellow Assemblyman Richard Perkins, has proposed an initiative breaking up the school district into multiple districts. An initiative petition has been submitted to the County Clerk=s office for voter signature verification.

Because of its phenomenal growth, CCSD is faced with many questions as to its effectiveness in managing the district. Those who are in favor of deconsolidation argue that CCSD is too large to be effective and is unresponsive to the needs of the community. On the other side of the spectrum are the opponents of deconsolidation who have argued the Avantage point of historical struggles to achieve a kind of broad-based educational equity@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 154).

Other issues of concern have also been discussed with no resolution in sight. For example, the general obligation bond debt has been discussed at length with no agreement. Paul Zamora, Clark County School District Maintenance Division who has been involved in the bond debt, explained that the bond debt is a complicated matter due to the fact that it has been refinanced several times over and allocation of the bond debt would be a nightmare. Former

Clark County Superintendent Brian Cram testified in the1999 State Legislature that Aa fair split of financial resources is almost an impossible task@ (Las Vegas Review Journal, March 30, 1999)

Due to the many concerns brought by parents, community leaders and those individuals interested in the school district, the Nevada State Legislature directed the Legislative Commission to Aconduct a study of the feasibility of reconfiguring the structure of school districts@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 1). However, talks of deconsolidation are not new. In 1975, deconsolidating efforts began and there were talks of breaking up the larger school districts into smaller districts in order to obtain quality education. In the 1977 and 1979 sessions, talks of deconsolidating Clark County School District arose again. However, no measures were adopted.

On January 13, 2000, Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany sent initiatives into the community for signatures. In order for the petition to be placed on the ballot, she must obtain ten percent of the registered voters in 13 of the 17 counties. On November 10, 2000, it was learned that the initiative failed because it was one county short of passing. Had the initiative been confirmed, it would be would have been placed on the ballot for voter approval in the 2002 election year.

For now, CCSD is safe from being divided into multiple districts. However, the question of deconsolidation is still at the minds of those who want CCSD to be divided into multiple districts. Proponents, mainly politicians and other community leaders, of deconsolidation have been loud in their desire to deconsolidate. The public however, has been opposed to deconsolidation as evidenced by the failed initiative. Before the state Legislature implements changes to the current system, it is important to seek the opinion of the community and not just the leaders but the public at large, to determine its success.

One area that the State Legislature must look into is the bond issue. AAs of July1, 2000, the district had an outstanding General obligation debt of $1,863,611,996" (Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 228). This researcher has spoken to several leaders in the community and all have agreed that one of the sticking points with deconsolidation has been the bond issue. Questions, such as how can the bond debt be divided so that it would be equitable to all districts if CCSD were to be deconsolidated, have been asked and possible solutions provided, but no consensus has been reached.

Following a 1995 directive from the Nevada Legislature, the Legislative Council hired Management Analysis & Planning Associates (MAP) to study school district boundary reconfiguration. This researcher reviewed the AMAP@ study and determined that Plan B: Racially Balanced Districts would be used in this research since it is deemed the most equitable configuration by the MAP study. In its report, the consultant concluded that Athe resultant school districts would all score reasonably well on each of the criteria used to evaluate boundary changes@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 187). According to MAP, racial and ethnic groups would not be set apart and that the new district size would Amaximize the economies of scale; and citizens would enjoy greater access to decision making concerning their schools (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 187).

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it seeks to determine preliminary figures of bond indebtedness should CCSD deconsolidate; and second, would the new districts be able to afford the bond debt allocated to them.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Historical Overview of Nevada School District^[1]

The Nevada school districts have been in existence for over 130 years and since their inception, have changed dramatically. The school system began with local districts in the most populated areas and, over time, changes were made to accommodate the many situations it encountered. Laws were enacted to allow the formation of a variety of school district types. However, as the population increased, the need for a better system arose. A study was conducted in the mid 1950s and since then has been the father of today=s current school district structure. Issues such as consolidation and deconsolidation have also been around since the birth of the current system.

Territorial School Districts

In 1861, the Territory enacted a bill which called for an elected County Superintendent who served for two years. The Superintendent was given the powers to apportion the school districts where there were occupants in an area. He was also given the powers to form new or eliminate districts should he choose to do so. In 1863, there were 22 school districts with an enrollment of 200 students; and by 1864, there were 34 districts with an enrollment of 1,278 students (facts are from (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 5).

Statehood through the Nineteenth Century

In 1865, the first state Legislature reaffirmed the local school districts and the County Superintendent to oversee the school districts. The Superintendent was to Aapportion funds to the districts within the county; Aexercise a general supervision over the interests of public schools and provide aid and counsel to teachers and district superintendents@; distribute materials from the Superintendent of Public Instruction; record official acts; report annually on the districts within the county; conduct teacher institutes; appoint trustees in districts that have not elected trustees; purchase school books for schools within the district; and distribute professional educational journals (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 5 - 6). Also, under the 1865 legislature, if 10 heads of households petitioned for a formation of a new school district or to consolidate school districts, then by approval of the County Superintendent and county commission, it was granted.

In 1879, the law was changed to allow parts of different counties which had10 heads of households to form a new school district. However, in 1891, an amendment was made allowing the school trustees within the same county or adjoining counties to consolidate districts.

By 1880, Nevada had 109 districts with an enrollment of 7,300 students. At the turn of the century, Nevada=s school districts grew twice as much, to 231 districts. However, the student population of 7,373 increased by only 73 students.

1900 Through 1953

In 1911, the Legislature passed a bill modifying the school districts. The law allowed for one district for each town, city or village. County commissioners were the only ones with power to create new school districts at the request of five or more parents of school children. The law also allowed the County commissioners to change existing school districts if three-fifths of the taxpayers or heads of households petitioned.

A law allowing for the consolidation of two or more adjacent districts into one was passed in 1915. A request by the majority of the voters who are affected by the change must first be made. And in 1921, the Legislature Aprovided for the dissolution of consolidated school districts@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 7), and again at the request of the majority of the voters within the consolidated district.

In 1947 the Legislature provided for a comprehensive public school code. This code categorized districts into seven groups^[2]:

Regular School Districts - consists of districts not combined with another;

Joint School Districts - territory lies in adjoining districts;

$ Union School Districts - consists of two or more elementary or high school districts controlled by one school board, but where the individual districts maintain their own identities;

$ Consolidated School Districts - consists of two or more districts which completely lose their separate identities - except for an apportionment purposes, which are governed by one school board;

$ County High School Districts - consists of the entire territory of the county, governed by a school board elected by all voters in the county, and supported by a tax on all property within the county; may establish Abranch@ high schools within the county;

$ District High School Districts - established in an elementary school district to provide a high school for at least 10 resident students when the new high school is located 40 or more miles from an existing high school; and

$ Combined High School Districts - schools where children from two or more districts attend one school by annual contractual agreement between the separate districts.

The number of school districts grew to 349 districts with an enrollment of 12,000 students in 1915. Declining school districts began in the 1920s and 1930s. By 1937, the number of school districts had fallen to just under 300 and by 1954, the number of school districts dipped to 207 districts with an enrollment of 35,640 students.

1956 To The Present

A study was conducted in 1954 (known as the Peabody Report) and as a result of the study, the Legislature in 1956 enacted a new school code which included bond laws and other procedural changes. The law provided for the Aformation of joint school districts, encompassing the territory of two or more contiguous county districts@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 9).

Nevada=s population growth began its rise at around the same time, so that by the first year of reorganization, there were 17 districts with a total enrollment of 45,758. Today, those 17 districts have a total enrollment of more 265,041 (with the majority in Clark County School District).

By the 1970s, there were talks about consolidating smaller districts into larger districts and deconsolidating larger districts into smaller districts. For example, in 1971, Governor Mike O=Callaghan requested a study be conducted regarding consolidation and deconsolidation. The study concluded that the number of districts should be reduced to 11 from 17 and that, in order to eliminate disparities among schools in their ability to provide for programs in education, the districts be consolidated to larger school districts. This proposal was never passed by the Legislature.

In 1971, the Legislature again dealt with the issue of consolidation when they passed Bill 224 wherein it eliminated references to joint (consolidation) school districts. Again, in 1989, the Legislature passed a bill allowing for the creation of a general improvement district for the purpose of constructing school facilities. These were attempts by the State Legislature at consolidating school districts. However, in 1995, this law was repealed.

In 1993 two measures were introduced to the State Legislature regarding deconsolidation. Assembly Concurrent Resolution 57 Adirected the Legislative Commission to conduct a study of the desirability and feasibility of amending the requirement that the boundaries of county school districts be coterminous with county boundaries@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 11). However, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74 called for Aa study to determine the feasibility of creating an additional school district in southern Nevada for the Boulder City,

Henderson, Laughlin, and Searchlight areas@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 11 - 12). Again, both measures were not adopted by the Legislature.

In1995, four measures were introduced and all dealt with school district boundaries. The four measures are as follows^[3]:

1. Assembly Bill 332 - created, among other county entities, the Ponderosa County School District within the Incline Village area of Washoe.

2. Assembly Bill 664 - required the division of school districts that enroll more than 50,000 pupils. The districts formed in this manner could have no fewer than 20,000 or more than 50,000 pupils.

3. Senate Bill 511 - provided for the formation of independent school districts within certain cities. A City=s population (or combined population of two contiguous cities) must be in excess of 25,000. In addition, counties with a population greater than 400,000 residents may not form such a district, if the number of pupils in the remaining area is less than 5,000.

4. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 - directed the Legislative Commission to conduct an interim study of the feasibility of reconfiguring the structure of Nevada=s school districts. Funding for a consultant to conduct this study was contained within Assembly Bill 224.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 30 and Assembly Bill 224 both passed. As a result, the report, which is commonly known as the AMAP study@ was born. AMAP@ is the acronym for Management Analysis & Planning Associates of Berkeley, California, which is the company that conducted the study for the Legislative Commission.

Current Capital Projects and Capital Improvement

The State Legislature has left the responsibility of financing schools, whether maintaining or building new schools and/or improving existing schools, with the local school districts. It is one of Aten states in the nation that provides no aid for school construction@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 105). Because the State of Nevada does not fund capital projects or capital improvements, it has created a predicament for CCSD. Compounding this problem is that Clark County is growing rapidly and construction of new schools is hampered.

However, the State Legislature has made available to school districts ways in which to fund capital improvements and capital projects. Two of the options are for the school districts to

levy taxes or issue general obligation bonds with the approval of the voters and another is through a portion of the vehicle privilege tax pursuant to N.R.S. 482.180. For purposes of this research, discussion will be focused on tax levies and/or general obligation bonds.

Currently the following are financing options that the local school districts may exercise:

1. General Obligation Bonds

This is a Aform of borrowing, secured by the full faith and credit of the school district@. The terms of repayment is typically 20-30 years. However, before a school district can issue general bonds, the voters must approve it. Also, the total indebtedness cannot exceed 15% of the total assessed property value of the school district.

Although school districts may issue general obligation bonds with voter approval, there are limits to the amounts being issued. Currently, Clark County School District=s total bond indebtedness of $1,863,611,996 is well below the 15 percent limitation imposed by N.R.S. 387.400.

2. Pay-As-You-Go

This type of financing allows the local school districts to tax now and accrue funds. The money obtained are then used to build new schools, remodel or repair existing schools. Again, the voters must approve the Alevy of this tax@. Tax is limited to $0.75 per $100 of assessed property value where districts have fewer

than 25,000 students. Districts with more than 25,000 students are limited to $0.50 per $100 of assessed property value.

According to N.R.S. 387.3285 which spells out the tax for capital projects, the board of county commissioners can, Aupon approval of the majority of the registered voters of a county voting upon the question at a general or special election ..... whose enrollment is fewer than 25,000 pupils may levy a tax .... of not more than 75 cents on each assessed valuation or taxable property within the county@ and Awhose enrollment is 25,000 pupils or more may levy a tax ...... of not more than 50 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation or taxable property within the county@. Therefore, in Clark County where the population is well above the 25,000 pupil mark, tax levied for capital projects cannot exceed 50 cents per $100 assessed property value.

3. Impact fees

This type of financing does not affect voters directly. Rather, it affects developers who want to develop an area. Developers may be charged Aup to $1000 per dwelling of new residential construction, including mobile homes@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 106). County Commissioners must approve prior to levying these fees and only areas served by the school are levied. To exercise this option, a school districts must have less than 35,000 residents.

Even though school districts in Nevada have three options to finance capital projects, all but three utilize general obligation bonds. Elko, Lander, and White Pine also utilizes pay-as-you-go while Douglas and Storey counties are the only two that have imposed the impact fees.

Although the State Legislature does not fund school construction or maintenance of existing schools, it has given school districts in the state, with the approval of electors in the municipality, authority to issue general obligation bonds for purposes of funding capital

improvements or capital projects. Specifically, Nevada Revised Statutes (N.R.S.) 350 states in

part:

A..in the public interest to foster and promote the protection and preservation of the property . . . The state should encourage and assist municipalities in the acquisition, construction, and equipping of public improvements . . . making of such loans and the issuing of state securities therefor as general obligation bonds are necessary, expedient and advisable@

The State Legislature has included school districts in its definition of municipality, thereby giving CCSD authority to issue general obligation bonds for funding of capital projects and capital improvements. Further, N.R.S. 350.020 states that should a municipality decide to issue general obligation bonds and approval of the voters has been obtained, the school district must issue the bonds within ten years after the date of approval. It further requires a school district to establish a reserve for the repayment of the bonds. School board trustees Amay accumulate money in the fund for capital projects for a period of twenty years@ (N.R.S. 387.328).

Like N.R.S. 387.3285 which allows for funding of capital projects, N.R.S. 387.3287 spells out the Atax for account for replacement of capital assets or construction of new buildings for schools to accommodate community growth.@ Again, should the board of county commissioners decide to levy a tax for purposes of funding the Aconstruction of new buildings for schools to accommodate growth,@ the majority of registered voters in the county voting must approve the action. It further instructs the board of trustees of a school district to determine the replacement value of capital assets prior to property taxes being levied.

N.R.S. 387.195 states that the board of county commissioners cannot exceed a Atax of 75 cents on each $100 of assessed valuation of taxable property within the county for the support of the public schools within the county school district.@ In addition, the board of county commissioners Amay levy a tax to pay for interest and redemption of outstanding bonds.@

Clark County School District has a total of $1,863,611,996 (amount obtained from Clark Count Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001) in outstanding general obligation debt and is within the 15% allotment of the assessed property valuation of the county. Assembly Bill 353 was passed by the state Legislature in 1997. The Bill provided the following^[4]:

1. Freeze On Property Tax Rates for Long Term Bonding: The Board of School Trustees was authorized to submit a ballot question to the voters seeking approval to freeze property tax rates for long term bonding, enabling the district to issue general obligation bonds until June 30, 2008 without increasing the existing property tax levy. On November 3, 1998, the voters approved the single largest and most far-reaching bond issue while freezing the current tax rate for school construction during the next decade.

2. County Room Tax Proceeds: The Board of County Commissioners was authorized to increase the County room tax by one percent beginning August 1997. Proceeds from this tax are deposited in the School District=s fund for capital projects. Also, effective July 1, 1999, the five-eighths of one percent of the room tax currently provided to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority will be transferred to the Clark County School District=s Capital Projects Fund.

3. Real Property Transfer Tax Proceeds: This bill also authorized an increase in the real property transfer tax from 65 cents to $1.25 for each $500 pf value. Proceeds from this 60-cent increase are deposited in the district=s Capital Projects Fund.

In 1994, with voter approval, a total of general obligations bond was sold at $605,000,000 (facts are from Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 245). With the monies obtained from the sale of the bond, the voters were promised the following^[5]:

1. $30 million for land acquisition;

2. 24 new schools;

3. 3 major expansions; and

4. 114 modernizations.

The result, however, was better than what was promised. The money went towards purchasing 514 acres for 37 sites and building 25 new schools (1 more than promised). All of the expansions and modernizations have been completed. In addition, A128 schools have received technology upgrades@ (Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 245).

In 1996, again with voter approval, a total of general obligations bond was sold at $642,700,000 (facts are from Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 246). The voters were promised the following^[6]:

1. 16 new schools;

2. North/South Horizon campuses;

3. Classroom additions;

4. Modernizations; and

5. Technology/science equipment.

Fifteen new schools new school have been completed and one more will open this fall. The modernization project is 65% complete and the remainder to be completed by 2001; technology and science equipment are also complete; classroom additions (107 complete with the remaining 36 to be completed by 2001) are almost done and the north and south horizon campuses completed.

In 1998, CCSD School Board Trustees revised the building program for an additional $168.8 million for a total of $3,695,307,840 (facts are from Clark County School District Budget And Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001, p. 256) capital improvement plan. It is anticipated that 88 new schools would be constructed at a cost of $2.5 billion; renovations at $970 million; land acquisition at $150 million; three replacement schools (mandated by Assembly Bill 368) at a cost of $45 million; and two bus yards at $31 million.

As evidenced by the above, Clark County School District and the School Board Trustees have spread throughout the county the monies obtained from the general obligations bond. All schools countywide have benefitted from the general obligation bonds - whether new schools are built in a particular area; or modernizations of older schools; or classroom additions to those schools at full capacity; or providing science and technology equipments. Countywide, everyone has benefitted from the sale of general obligation bonds.

MAP Study Boundary Reconfigurations

The MAP study had drawn several alternative boundary reconfigurations. They were as follows:

1. Trustee Area Boundary Model^[7]

Clark County has seven school board trustee districts. The boundaries of these districts are adjusted periodically to comply with criteria regarding student enrollment and overall population characteristics. This, MAP undertook a simulation of the consequences of dividing Clark County into seven districts, along existing Trustee Area Lines.

2. Secondary School(s) Cluster Boundary Model^[8]

Each secondary school, and its attendant elementary and middle Afeeder@ schools, might comprise a logical grouping. This pattern coincides with at least one definition of Acommunity of interests,@ namely all those who rely upon common high school.

. 3. Municipal Boundary Model^[9]

Under this alternative boundary scenario, each municipality within Clark County with more than 10,000 residents would have an option of becoming a separate, fully autonomous school district. Cities such as Las Vegas and North Las Vegas, and combinations of cities such as Henderson and Boulder City, would be communities currently meeting such criterion.

4. Racially Balanced Districts^[10]

Map attempted to construct school districts which were approximately equal in enrollment and where minority students did not exceed half of the student population. The rational for the racial criteria was that any official act that tended to isolate an identifiable ethnic group could be interpreted as de jure segregation.

The Trustee Area Model holds the same concerns as the Municipal Boundary Model. MAP concluded that Awithout modifications...... assessed value is unequally distributed among the area, they are not racially balanced, and, for the most part, the trustee boundaries do not seem to correspond to identifiable communities of interest@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 168).

The Municipal Boundary Model is similar to the initiative that Ms. Tiffany proposed. As evidenced by its failure to pass, the public will most likely not embrace such a plan. Also, MAP stated that Aas a stand-alone option, it seems to fail to adequately address the concerns raised about the current district configuration@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 166). Therefore, this plan is too closely similar to the current system and would not be feasible.

The Secondary School(s) Cluster Boundary Model was described by MAP as Aattempts to construct districts around high school attendance areas failed to yield any results that offerred promise of avoiding serious racial isolation@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 170).

The consultants concluded that the Racially Balanced Districts= model was the most equitable and Ainvulnerable to legal challenge@ Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 187) of the four reconfigurations. However, they have cautioned that Ano attempt was made to balance on assessed value@ and that this plan Ais contingent upon county-wide equalization of operating revenues and statewide equalization of revenues for capital construction@ (Legislative Counsel Bureau Bulletin No. 97-4, p. 172).

Taking into consideration MAP=s analysis of the four reconfigurations, this researcher chose Racially Balanced Districts since it was deemed the most equitable and will more than likely hold up in a court of law should legal challenge occur.