There are good reasons why CBOCs should have responsibility for at least some non-school construction bond expenditures and plans.

First, many projects have multiple sources of funding, such as the State of California providing funds for construction of new schools.  In most (but not all) cases, once the money from the different funds goes into the pot, it becomes fungible.  It is not that school construction bond expenditures pay for the construction of the first floor of the new school, State funds pay for the second floor, and developer fees pay for the third floor – rather, it is 45% of the total is from funding source A, 35% from funding source B, and 20% from funding source C.  It is simply not very practical to oversee 45% of the expenditures on a project in such cases – and it is not really very much additional work, if any at all, to oversee the entire project.

On the other hand, there are funding sources that are dedicated to specific uses and only specific uses, such as Federal e-rate funds for educational technology upgrades.  If, as is commonly the case, there are multiple individual projects at a school being performed at the same time, funded from difference sources, then it is important that there be procedures in place to ensure that each type of cost is allocated to the proper funding source, no more and no less, and that there is a pre-established methodology for splitting joint costs (such as the demolition work necessary for the e-rate work, plumbing, HVAC, and natural gas for new science classrooms or culinary facilities), and that overruns on one part of the work are not funded out of the other in violation of the allowed purposes.

If there is construction project that is totally separate from bond-funded projects, physically, technically, and financially, there would be less reason to have the CBOC have cognizance, but, if the district does have the recommended single consolidated capital projects plan, a case could be made for the CBOC to perform oversight for the entire program.