Massive School Bond Issue Drawing Unusual Support

By now, the horror stories are commonplace.

On a blistering August day in Sacramento, a visiting Washington politician finds, to her dismay, first-graders sweltering in a summer school classroom without air conditioning or even a fan.

In the Southland, Principal Jose Velazquez juggles 2,700 children, year round, at Miles Avenue Elementary School in Huntington Park, built 50 years ago for an enrollment of around 450.

Over in Inglewood, Principal Marjorie Thompson notes that she qualifies for funds to build a science lab but “we don’t have room for a science lab” at Kelso Elementary, now with 800 students on grounds intended for 350.

Stories make the rounds of students attending class under drooping ceiling tiles dislodged by rain leaking through the roof, one more consequence of maintenance “deferred” for lack of funds.

Newer suburban schools also cope with exploding enrollments. Administrators do battle with home builders who complain they are forced to pay inflated school construction fees as the price of doing business in growing communities. Developers pass on the costs to buyers, jacking up the price of new homes.

Stories like those have provided the rallying cry for supporters of Proposition 1A on the November ballot.

If approved by voters, the measure would authorize a $9.2-billion bond issue to build, expand and repair public schools. It would be the largest municipal bond offering in U.S. history, according to state analysts, three times larger than any school bond ever placed before California voters--larger than the last eight combined, going back to 1988.

Success of the bond is viewed as critical by officials of the 691,000-student Los Angeles Unified School District, who hope to spend $1.8 billion over the next 10 years to build schools for waves of anticipated enrollment growth.

For the first time in years, the state’s largest district has local construction funds as a result of its own bond measure--the $2.4-billion bond approved by Los Angeles voters in 1997. But most of that money is being spent on long-delayed repairs to existing schools, leaving the building program short by more than $1 billion.

The surprise--given the bond measure’s massive size--is that it has attracted nearly unanimous support from the state’s major political leaders, including not only both parties in the Legislature, business groups and labor unions, but the California Taxpayers Assn., which routinely opposes measures that might lead to higher taxes.

By comparison, opposition so far remains scattered and minuscule. Opponents acknowledge waging a long-shot fight, but argue that school repairs could be paid for by dipping into the state’s $4.4-billion budget surplus rather than running up additional government debt.

Counting interest, the bond will cost the state $15 billion, notes conservative Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) in the voter pamphlet argument against Proposition 1A.

The “pay-as-you-go” approach to building schools worked in the past in California and can work again, he argues.

Supporters of the bond measure argue that the huge backlog of maintenance projects built up during the recession of the early 1990s, coupled with the projected boom in enrollments in the next decade, make “pay as you go” unfeasible.

Indeed, supporters argue that even this bond will not be enough to cover the estimated $40 billion needed for school expansion and repairs as the state’s kindergarten through high school population, now 5.7 million, grows by an estimated 300,000 over the next five years.

The bond measure would be a major step forward, its supporters say. Over the next four years, it would allocate $6.7 billion for fixing and building classrooms from kindergarten through 12th grade, and $2.5 billion for construction on University of California, California State University and community college campuses.

Proposition 1A would also rewrite the rules on who gets the money, setting aside special funds for inner-city schools with fast-growing enrollments.

Where new schools are built to keep up with expanding populations, mostly in the suburbs, the measure seeks to quiet critics who complain of overpriced “Taj Mahal” campuses. Under terms of the bond package, supporters say, schools would be held to new state requirements that would reduce building costs and contain expansion within realistic projections of enrollment growth.

At the same time, controversial developer fees would be frozen. The maximum rate would be substantially lower than developers now must pay in some booming residential areas. The fees would be allowed to increase where other financing is lacking, provided that strict state standards are met.

The limits on fees, which developers routinely pass along to home buyers, as well as features of the measure that are designed to reduce school construction expenses, helped convince the taxpayers association to support the bond measure, said President Larry McCarthy.

The measure “does not raise taxes,” McCarthy said. Rather, it would spread, but not increase, taxes over a longer period, which he said is only right because taxpayers will be benefiting well into the future.

The bond measure would include a minimum of $2.9 billion for new school construction--a provision aimed mainly at suburban and rural districts. Local school districts under that provision would be required to match state funds dollar for dollar.

The bond measure would provide easier financial help for crowded inner-city schools. That was a victory won during negotiations in the Legislature by Los Angeles Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa, speaker of the Assembly.

Based on their need for upgrading, rather than money for new buildings, urban schools could qualify for bond funds in a variety of ways.

Instead of a 50-50 local match, schools requiring “modernization” could finance only 20% of the cost on their own, with the state contributing 80%.

Also, city schools that converted to year-round classes several years ago to relieve crowding and lost their eligibility for state construction money would re-qualify under Proposition 1A.

From that feature alone, school finance analysts estimate that Los Angeles campuses could receive $100 million over the bond’s four-year life.

Another provision sets aside $700 million to meet the state’s class-size reduction goals. Urban schools probably will be able to draw up to $500 million of that money, analysts estimate.

Still more funds would be available for schools in crowded neighborhoods where the only possibility for expansion is to build upward--adding second and third stories.

And if all that fails, the bond package contains a $1-billion hardship fund for schools that fail to qualify for other funds.

For schools everywhere, said Villaraigosa, “the need is desperate. The voters know that. That’s why they will pass this bond measure.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Improving Schools with Proposition 1A

What it would do: It allows a record state bond issue of $9.2 billion over four years to expand and upgrade California public schools: $6.7 billion for kindergarten through high school and $2.5 billion for colleges and universities. New state oversight would apply, including a 50-50 local match of new construction funds, special help for inner-city schools and a cap on developer fees, with exceptions under new guidelines.

Arguments for: It provides a good start toward relieving the problem of dilapidated and overcrowded schools, while cutting inflated building costs through new state oversight. New developer fee rules mean lower pass-on costs for first-time home buyers.

Arguments against: Borrowing might be justified in the future, but a huge new bond obligation is unnecessary and wasteful now. Immediate relief for California schools can be financed from the current state budget surplus. The plight of schools is often overstated, as is projected enrollment growth.

Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson, most state legislators, both major party gubernatorial candidates, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, California Taxpayers Assn., California Teachers Assn., California Building Industry Assn., California Congress of Seniors.

Opponents: The conservative group California Republican Assembly, National Tax Limitation Committee, state Sen. Ray Haynes (R-Riverside), Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), Northern California high-tech entrepreneur Norman L. Rogers.