This article is from Cal-Tax Digest, published
by the California Taxpayers' Association.
Cal-Tax Home Page | About Cal-Tax | Subscribe

When voters approved the $9.2 billion state school construction bond in 1998, they also ushered in long-sought cost reforms to guard against bureaucratic waste in the process and give Californians more for their hard-earned tax dollars.

Gone was the old costly, bureaucratic and time-intensive program. In its place was a program that carefully balanced the need to provide adequate funding to construct and modernize school facilities with the imperative to do so in a manner that encouraged state and local fiscal accountability and cost control.

School districts were assured of adequate funding to meet their school facility needs and were given positive incentives to be efficient and cost-conscious.

Since its inception, the school facility program, enacted through Senate Bill 50 and triggered by voter approval of Proposition 1A, has been a success. More classrooms have been built, more facilities have been modernized and more California students have been "housed" than ever before.

Despite its strategic importance to the long-term strength of the California economy, competitiveness and quality of life, this year's discussion of school construction funding has drawn little public attention. Legislative deliberations have been going on amidst the roar of debate over the state's energy situation. Still, three school bond bills have been quietly moving through the legislative process. Assembly Bill 16 (Hertzberg/Leonard), AB 1299 (Leonard) and SB 844 (Chesbro) are all aimed at placing a state school construction bond on the March 2002 ballot. While the measures are currently "works in progress," it is critical that the Legislature put a high priority on approving a school construction bond before the scheduled mid-September recess. Even with short-term economic uncertainty, Californians continue to express their strong support for education-related issues.

It is equally critical that the foundational elements - such as the per-pupil grants and the builder fee portions - of the reformed school construction program remain intact. In the future we need to strongly consider establishing an ongoing revenue stream for school capital outlay along the lines of what the Legislative Analyst's Office recently suggested in its report A New Blueprint For California School Facility Finance. (For this report, see Page 2.) Additionally, we should continue to develop new methods and techniques to control costs and to hold school districts accountable for results. Strategies like design-build for school construction will give taxpayers greater assurance that schools will carefully utilize school construction dollars. Serious time and money can be saved when the designer and the builder are the same entity.

Last year, the Office of Public School Construction published a report required by SB 50 entitled Public School Construction Cost Reduction Guidelines. School districts should be strongly encouraged to incorporate techniques and ideas outlined in the report. For example, the joint use of such facilities as parks, libraries and athletic facilities has the potential to reduce costs, achieve better facilities, and better utilize public funds. Also, districts should strive to use land as efficiently as possible. Just as the housing industry is making significant inroads in putting more houses on less land, school districts should design more efficient school sites to include, where feasible, less acreage per school.

Larry McCarthy
is president of the California Taxpayers' Association

And California voters should authorize the statewide bonds knowing that they are financed by general fund tax dollars that everyone pays, relieving pressures to pass larger local school bonds that result in higher property taxes.

Californians should support a bond measure that, like Proposition 1A, is written to require accountability and efficiency through greater use of community colleges, through year-round use of university campuses, and by providing the classrooms needed to achieve the more desirable learning environment than overcrowded schools can provide.

Proposition 1A, a four-year funding plan, was designed to be the first in a series of state bond measures. The Proposition 1A funds will soon be exhausted. Energies must be focused to put the next bond measure before voters in 2002 and win voter approval if we are to ever catch up with our growing student-age population. The Department of Finance estimates that $18 billion is needed over the next five years to construct classrooms for K-12 and higher education facilities.

Clearly, there is consensus that California's students deserve the finest educations possible, and crucial to the end result is a quality learning environment.