See the complete California Policy Center report For the Kids: California Voters Must Become Wary of Borrowing Billions More from Wealthy Investors for Educational Construction (complete, printable PDF Version, 4 MB, 361 pages)
Links to all sections of this study readable online:
Executive Summary: “For the Kids” – Comprehensive Review of California School Bonds (1 of 9)
You are here: More Borrowing for California Educational Construction in 2016 (2 of 9)
Quantifying and Explaining California’s Educational Construction Debt (3 of 9)
How California School and College Districts Acquire and Manage Debt (4 of 9)
Capital Appreciation Bonds: Disturbing Repayment Terms (5 of 9)
Tricks of the Trade: Questionable Behavior with Bonds (6 of 9)
The System Is Skewed to Pass Bond Measures (7 of 9)
More Trouble with Bond Finance for Educational Construction (8 of 9)
Improving Oversight, Accountability, and Fiscal Responsibility (9 of 9)
Guide to all Tables and Appendices – Comprehensive Reference for Researchers
Why This Report Matters: More Borrowing in 2016
Californians will be asked in 2016 to continue taking on debt for construction of educational facilities, but one elected official is leery. Governor Jerry Brown wants to change the funding system for school construction. He is concerned about debt that Californians have accumulated from years of allowing the state and local educational districts to relentlessly borrow.
That money borrowed through bond sales will have to be paid back — with interest — to the investors who bought them. Voters have limited understanding of bonds and how bonds provide funds for construction, and elections focus on what voters will get rather than how they will pay for it. To the detriment of future generations, few Californians realize the huge amount educational districts have been authorized to borrow and the huge amount of debt accumulated.
Interest Groups Want Voters to Consider Another State Bond Measure
When the California Policy Center published this report, the California Attorney General had approved circulation of petitions through September 21, 2015 for a proposed statewide ballot initiative entitled the “Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016.” Professional signature gatherers set up tables at grocery stores and other public locations trying to cajole citizens into signing petitions to “help the kids” by putting the measure on the ballot.
If this proposal qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, the State of California will have the authority to borrow $9 billion through selling bonds to investors. According to the petition, this $9 billion will ensure that “K-14 facilities are constructed and maintained in safe, secure and peaceful conditions.” As reported in the Sacramento Bee, school construction interests and residential housing developers want this bond measure, or one like it, on the ballot in 2016.
Proponents point out, accurately, that most of the money that voters authorized the state to borrow in 1998, 2002, 2004, and 2006 has been distributed as matching grants to local educational districts. As of April 15, 2015, $195.4 million remains3 from $35.4 billion approved to borrow as a result of three statewide ballot propositions in the 2000s.
The petition for the Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016 lists four “findings” explaining what the state could do if it borrowed $9 billion:
1. Career technical education facilities to provide job training for many Californians and veterans who face challenges in completing their education and re-entering the workforce.
The history of recent bond measures on the state and local level shows that voters are inclined to support more government spending when veterans are cited as beneficiaries. Poll results confirm this. A “State of California School Bond Measure Feasibility Survey” of likely voters conducted January 30 to February 9, 2014 for California’s Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) indicated that “more than six-in-ten are highly concerned about unemployment among veterans.”
2. Upgrade aging facilities to meet current health and safety standards, including retrofitting for earthquake safety and the removal of lead paint, asbestos and other hazardous materials.
Again, the “State of California School Bond Measure Feasibility Survey” concluded that “more than two-thirds agree that many California public schools need significant health and safety improvements,” specifically the statement that “many schools and community colleges throughout California are old, outdated and need upgrades to meet current health and safety standards, including retrofitting for earthquake safety and the removal of lead paint, asbestos and other hazardous materials.”
3. Studies show that 13,000 jobs are created for each $1 billion of state infrastructure investment. These jobs include building and construction trades jobs throughout the state.
Influential construction interests are part of the coalition supporting this statewide bond measure. This statement acknowledges their pivotal role in the campaign to pass it.
4. Academic goals cannot be achieved without 21st Century school facilities designed to provide improved school technology and teaching facilities.
Once again, the “State of California School Bond Measure Feasibility Survey” concludes that “in particular, voters believe that funds must be directed towards upgrading vocational/career education programs, repairing classrooms and science labs and upgrading technology.”
These are deliberately chosen arguments to justify borrowing another $9 billion for community college and K-12 school district construction projects. In fact, these were the same arguments used in newspaper opinion pieces and position papers in 2014 to support Assembly Bill 2235, which if signed into law would have asked state voters in the November 2014 election to authorize borrowing $4.3 billion for school construction through bond sales.
Regardless of whether the four arguments listed above for a statewide bond measure are factually valid, they have been tested through polling and other voter research and shown to be effective in winning voter support. Surely a 2016 campaign for a state bond measure will use them.
How do these arguments stand in the larger context of bond indebtedness for the State of California and its community college districts and K-12 school districts? This report provides some of that context and introduces information never before available to the public.
Governor Brown Worries About Debt and Seeks Change in School Construction Finance
Governor Jerry Brown has used his executive power to thwart legislative efforts to place a statewide bond measure for educational construction on the 2016 ballot. Assembly Bill 2235 never received an opposition vote as it passed the Assembly and moved through Senate committees with support from numerous interest groups. Voters didn’t get to consider it in the November 2014 election only because Governor Brown didn’t want it on the ballot. As reported by a Capitol Public Radio reporter, the bill author issued a statement explaining its abandonment: “The governor has made it clear that he does not want a school bond on the same ballot as the water bond and rainy day fund. We do not expect the legislature to send the bill on him.”
Meanwhile, the Governor is taking a leading role in calling for change in how state and local governments fund California school construction. He submitted a state budget proposal to the California legislature in January 2015 with an introduction stating that funding commitments “must be honestly confronted so that they are properly accounted for and funded.” It warned that “budget challenges over the past decade have also resulted in a greater reliance on debt financing, rather than pay-as-you-go spending…From 1974 to 1999, California voters authorized $38.4 billion of general obligation bonds. Since 2000, voters authorized more than $103.2 billion of general obligation bonds”
|Table 1: All General Obligation Bonds to Be Paid Off Through
California’s General Fund
|Amount Authorized to Borrow||$135.2 billion
|Amount Borrowed||$105.7 billion
|Amount Authorized But Not Borrowed||$29.5 billion
|Amount Owed in Principal (June 1, 2015)||$72.4 billion
|Amount of Debt Service Owed (June 1, 2015)||$131.8 billion
|Amount of Debt Service to Be Paid 2015-2016||$6 billion
|Sources: “Schedule of Debt Service Requirements for General Fund Non-Self Liquidating Bonds (Fixed Rate),” California State Treasurer, June 1, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201506/general-fixed.pdf and “Authorized and Outstanding General Obligation Bonds,” California State Treasurer, June 1, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.treasurer.ca.gov/bonds/debt/201506/authorized.pdf ||
Concern About Debt Growing from State Matching Grants for Local Educational Districts
One funding commitment Governor Brown “confronted” in his proposed fiscal year 2015-16 budget was the State of California’s debt accumulated from funding construction of facilities for local school districts. California voters approved bond measures in 2002, 2004, and 2006 authorizing the state to borrow $35.4 billion via bond sales for school and college construction, and only $195 million remains to be borrowed. According to internal California State Treasurer documents, debt service on those three state bond measures is $56.7 billion.
According to the Governor’s 2015-16 Budget Summary, “the Administration has noted the following significant shortcomings” related to school bond finance over the past two years:
The current program does not compel districts to consider facilities funding within the context of other educational costs and priorities. For example, districts can generate and retain state facility program eligibility based on outdated or inconsistent enrollment projections. This often results in financial incentives for districts to build new schools to accommodate what is actually modest and absorbable enrollment growth. These incentives are exacerbated by the fact that general obligation bond debt is funded outside of Proposition 98. These bonds cost the General Fund approximately $2.4 billion in debt service annually.
This statement is surprising and controversial recognition that some school districts spend money on new school construction that perhaps isn’t needed. The proposed budget summary also notes that large school districts have in-house professional facilities departments that can take advantage of the first-come, first-serve application system to get funding from the State Allocation Board for local school construction.
Another surprising admission in the Governor’s budget proposal is acknowledgement that voters approve four out of five proposed local bond measures, thus providing a relatively easy flow of money for school construction: “The current program was developed before the passage of Proposition 39 (which reduced the local bond vote threshold from a two-thirds supermajority to 55 percent) in 2000, which has since allowed local school bonds to pass upwards of 80 percent of the time.”
The budget summary also reported that the California Department of Finance had met with parties interested in educational construction and developed a set of recommendations, including three related to bond finance:
1. Increase Tools for Local Control: Expand Local Funding Capacity
While school districts can pass local bonds with 55% percent approval, assessed valuation caps for specific bond measures and total caps on local bonded indebtedness have not been adjusted since 2000. In order to provide greater access to local financing, these caps should be increased at minimum by the rate of inflation since 2000.
Based on the Consumer Price Index of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the inflation rate from November 2000 (when voters approved Proposition 39) to May 2015 was 36.6%. Therefore, under this proposal the California legislature would increase tax and debt limits at least 36.6% above existing amounts. However, the flaw in this proposal is that it does not account for increases in property value or total assessed property valuation in California since 2000. (See Section 5 of this report for background on tax and debt limits.)
2. Expand Allowable Uses of Routine Restricted Maintenance Funding
Current law requires schools to deposit a percentage of their general fund expenditures into a restricted account for use in maintaining their facilities. Rather than requiring that these funds be used solely for routine maintenance, districts should have the ability to pool these funds over multiple years for modernization and new construction projects. Expanding the use of these funds will provide school districts with yet another funding stream to maintain, modernize, and construct new facilities.
This proposal injects a bit of “pay-as-you-go” from district general funds into educational facilities construction — a departure from the bond debt financing that has driven school construction since the enactment of Senate Bill 50, the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998.
3. Target State Funding for Districts Most in Need
State funding for a new program should be targeted in a way that: (1) limits eligibility to districts with such low per-student assessed value they cannot issue bonds at the local level in amounts that allow them to meet student needs, (2) prioritizes funding for health and safety and severe overcrowding projects, and (3) establishes a sliding scale to determine the state share of project costs based on local capacity to finance projects.
This recommendation is based on the perception that the current first-come, first-served funding system allows certain school and college districts to win a disproportionate amount of state matching grants at the expense of other districts that may have a more legitimate need but lack the resources and wherewithal to take advantage of opportunities.
Finally, the list of recommendations concludes with a message:
…it is the intent of the Administration to advance the dialogue on the future of school facilities funding. School districts and developers should have a clear understanding of which limited circumstances will qualify for state assistance. Over the course of the coming months, the Administration is prepared to engage with the Legislature and education stakeholders to shape a future state program that is focused on districts with the greatest need, while providing substantial new flexibility for local districts to raise the necessary resources for school facilities needs.
These proposals are not new ideas. A 2003 report from the Public Policy Institute of California analyzed school bond measures and identified disparities among districts based on wealth and region. In response to these findings, the report suggested raising state debt limits for bond measures to reduce the impact of changes in assessed property valuation. It also recommended adoption of a plan that would give deserving school and college districts access to state construction funds without having to match these grants with local funding.
State Legislative Initiatives
The stage is set for change in California school construction financing. Subsequent to the release of the proposed budget from the Governor, state legislators introduced bills such as Senate Bill 114 and Assembly Bill 148. These bills would make some mild changes to the state’s school construction program, while at the same time placing a statewide bond measure on the November 2016 ballot to borrow money (for a yet unidentified amount) via bond sales for school construction.
The author of Senate Bill 114 explained the purpose of the bill:
Funding for the School Facilities Program is virtually gone and there is a backlog in applications for state assistance…while the state’s growing debt service is of concern, it is unclear whether local districts have the capacity to generate sufficient revenue at the local level to meet their specific facility needs. The “winding down” of the current program, and the Governor’s call for change, present an opportunity to rethink the administrative and programmatic structure of the State Facilities Program…
Supporting one or both of these bills are the California School Boards Association, the California Faculty Association, the California Association of School Business Officials, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME); the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. Further debate will reveal if these groups are willing to withhold potential objections to some of the Department of Finance proposed changes to educational construction finance in exchange for having another statewide bond measure on the 2016 Presidential general election ballot.
No formal opposition to these bills has yet emerged, but at this time the bills are just a frame, to be expanded with more detailed proposals.
“Request for Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative: Kindergarten Through Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016,” Office of the California Attorney General, January 12, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0005%20(Education%20Bond%20Act).pdf
“California School Builders, Others to Gather Signatures for November 2016 Bond Measure,” Sacramento Bee, January 12, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article6143364.html
“AB 148 School Facilities: K–14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016 – California State Assembly Education Committee Analysis,” California Legislative Information, April 28, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB148#
“State of California School Bond Measure Feasibility Survey,” California’s Coalition for Adequate School Housing, Date, accessed June 28, 2015, https://www.cashnet.org/meetings/2014_Annual_Conference/documents/38_LegislativeUpdate_Bond_Feasibility.pdf
“Text – AB 2235 Education Facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2014,” California Legislative Information, accessed June 28, 2015, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2235
“No School Bond, Lawmaker Suspension Measures On November Ballot,” Capitol Public Radio, August 19, 2014, accessed June 28, 2015, www.capradio.org/articles/2014/08/19/no-school-bond,-lawmaker-suspension-measures-on-november-ballot/
“2015-16 Governor’s Budget Summary,” Department of Finance – California Budget, January 9, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.ebudget.ca.gov/2015-16/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
“2015 California’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan,” Department of Finance – California Budget, January 9, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.ebudget.ca.gov/2015-Infrastructure-Plan.pdf
“Governor’s Budget Summary 2015-16: K Thru 12 Education,” Department of Finance – California Budget, January 9, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, www.ebudget.ca.gov/2015-16/pdf/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf
“SB 50 – Chaptered. Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998: Class Size Reduction – Kindergarten University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998,” Official California Legislative Information, August 27, 1998, accessed June 28, 2015, www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_50_bill_19980827_chaptered.html
“Fiscal Effects of Voter Approval Requirements on Local Governments,” Public Policy Institute of California, January 27, 2003, accessed June 28, 2015, www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_103KRR.pdf
“Text – SB 114 Education Facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016,” California Legislative Information, June 3, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB114&search_keywords=
“Text – AB 148 School Facilities: K–14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016,” California Legislative Information, May 6, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB114&search_keywords=
“Senate Education Committee Legislative Analysis – AB 148 School Facilities: K–14 School Investment Bond Act of 2016,” California Legislative Information, March 25, 2015, accessed June 28, 2015, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB114#