SECTION 5 - New Directions in School Facilities

JOINT USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES

Introduction

School Districts and Community College Districts alike continue to struggle to identify adequate sources of capital and operational funding.  These economic pressures are exacerbated by demographic change and the underlying funding structure of K-14 education in California.  Further, public school construction in California is fraught with regulatory hurdles.  Planning and developing a new school facility, even if all the jurisdictional requirements are met without setback, is a process that is measured in years.  Any district that has embarked upon a capital improvement program must deal, at a minimum, with planning, financing, and plan check authorities.  Districts acquiring sites in older urban areas often face significant environmental mitigation efforts as well.

No discussion of school and community college facility development is complete without touching, at least briefly, on the patchwork of initiatives and regulations that drive local government finance in California.  A reasonable starting point is Proposition 13, the watershed tax revolt measure approved by the voters in 1978.  Some have said the greatest unintended consequence of Proposition 13 was turning K-14 education finance from a model that was predominately locally driven to a system largely controlled by the state legislature. This turn-of-events significantly reduced local autonomy in school finance matters.  Public education finance was re-examined after Proposition 13 but beginning in the mid 1980's expenditures per pupil faltered and not only did California's spending per pupil begin to increase at a slower rate than those of other states, it actually fell during the early 1990s. ^[1]

One response to this crisis in funding came in the form of Proposition 98, approved by the electorate in 1988, which provided a minimum floor for K-14 operational expenditures.   Under Proposition 98, California has re-gained some lost ground in relation to other states. However, in practice, it has served more as a ceiling for funding than a floor. Further, Proposition 98 was not focused on capital expenditures and the impact of Proposition 13 was felt not only on operational funding for schools and community colleges but on a districts ability to secure capital funding as well.

After the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, there followed a brief period where schools and community colleges had no authority to pass local bonds. Subsequently this prohibition was modified to allow local districts, with a two-thirds super majority vote, to pass a local general obligation bond.  However, that approval threshold proved elusive for many school districts and most community colleges.  Within the community college system during that period, most capital development was dependent on state funding.  The approval of Proposition 39 in 2000 largely changed that equation.  By lowering the approval threshold to 55% for local G.O. bond measures, the success rate for these measures has markedly increased.

Demand, at least in the community college system, would appear to be continuing unabated.  The Legislative Analysts office projects that by 2007-08 total facilities needs in the community college system including critical infrastructure, facilities modernization and enrollment growth will exceed $6.6 billion, yet available sources will be less than one-third of that amount. ^[2]

Joint Use of Facilities

One alternate strategy that some districts have employed to help mitigate these challenges is joint use of facilities.  Such an approach can facilitate enhanced operational and capital funding opportunities. There are examples within the community college system where a joint venture with a private entity has resulted in better service to the community, more efficient operations as well as a new income stream. This article will briefly examine the existing administrative and regulatory framework that allows Joint Use of facilities in both the K-12 and community college system.  It will look at the synergy created when two public agencies join to construct and/or operate a facility and examine a few examples of joint use and the elements that made these ventures successful.  This is not to suggest that joint use is a panacea for all the challenges in facility development and operation facing public education entities in California.  Bringing together multiple public entities who may share a common interest in a particular development can yield efficiencies in development and operations.  At the same time, the partners in these joint ventures may have core missions that are greatly diverse and this diversity can tend to complicate project delivery.

Background

California's population continues to grow.  Historically, school enrollments have ebbed and flowed.  A marked surge was recorded in the 1960's.  That growth pattern flattened in the 1970's and surges were again recorded in the 1980's and 1990's.  Enrollments have slowed in the first decade of the new millennium; however, growth rates are again expected to accelerate in 2010 and beyond.  Community College enrollments on the other hand have been more sensitive to economic conditions.  A different dynamic tends to impact community college enrollments.  This is perhaps best illustrated by recent enrollment declines in the face of several years of robust budgets.  The causes of this decline are many; however, some have said that the strong economy beckons students into the workforce who would otherwise enroll in college.  Conversely, during economic downturns, several factors intersect to create serious enrollment management challenges.  First, in the face of declining revenues, the state has often sought to shift its economic burden to students in the form of higher fees.  Second, enrollment demand tends to increase as the job market tightens.  Finally, just when workers may be looking to the community college system to enhance their job skills and marketplace competitiveness, the community college finance system is often drained of resources.  In the longer term however, and much as is the case with K-12 growth, enrollment demand is projected to continue trending upward. ^[3]

Despite the success with capital funding however, a satisfactory level of operational funding continues to prove elusive for many if not most school and community college districts.  Life-cycle cost and total-cost-of-ownership analyses have raised awareness about the need for an adequate operational fund stream, but little real change has resulted thus far.

Districts throughout the K-14 system have sought viable means of enhancing operational fund streams.  Some districts, mostly limited to the K-12 system, have found varying degrees of success in seeking voter approval of "Qualified Special Taxes," more commonly referred to as Parcel Taxes.  Such taxes presently require a two-thirds super majority vote ^[4].  In the community college system, one community college district has a received a county augmented sales tax ^[5].  Despite the relative success of districts who have sought out these alternate sources of funds, there remain significant gaps between actual levels of funding and what might be considered a sufficient level of operational funding in the California K-14 school system. 

Clearly, in this "post Proposition 13" era, school and community college districts have had no choice but to seek out creative alternatives in their attempts to overcome the limited financial resources otherwise available. 

Application

The concept of joint use, especially in a broad context, can help overcome these hurdles.  Many, if not most that are familiar with the approaches and applications of joint use, often see it in isolation.  Examples of shared use of school facilities abound, but the most successful approaches are those that are more comprehensive in nature.  In order to extract the greatest synergies from the collaboration of multiple public governmental entities, the concept of joint use should be viewed from the broadest possible perspective.  At least one organization formally recognizes how the benefits and synergies of joint use can have far-reaching impacts.  Their work provides powerful examples of joint use strategies involving multiple public agencies and a variety of different fund streams resulting in positive outcomes that extend beyond an immediate project.  This organization, New Schools Better Neighborhoods (NSBN), has a vision of schools as community centers and is committed to understanding and facilitating joint ventures among public agencies and ensuring engagement by the very community members served by these schools.  NSBN recognizes the scarcity of public resources and how joint ventures can allow local governments, through cooperative joint ventures, to do more with less. ^[6]

The current statutory scheme authorizing Joint Use for school districts can be found in Education Code section 17077.40 et seq. It generally allows school districts to enter into joint use agreements with a governmental, non-profit or public higher education entity. Joint Use of school facilities is also codified in the Office of Public School Construction (OPSC) regulations.  OPSC explicitly recognizes two approaches to joint use for school districts.  The intent of the OPSC regulations is to facilitate school facility development through a joint-partnership; school construction that may not otherwise come to fruition. ^[7] The Education code generally provides for a broader application of joint use for the community college system.  In 1999, the Board of Governors of the California Community College system adopted a policy in support of collaborative facility use. ^[8] Community colleges may enter into joint use agreements with private entities whereby a portion of the district/college may be leased for a fee.  Joint ventures are also allowed in which the community college district and a private entity join in a profit making venture. ^[9]

If one takes a more abstract view of public school facilities, they can be seen through several lenses including educational facility, community center and public asset to name but a few.  From an asset management perspective, many if not most public schools could be considered vastly under utilized assets.  Traditionally, schools have operated somewhat in isolation for perhaps six hours a day for nine months a year.  Increasing the utilization of a school through a broader community use or service not only enhances the schools role as a community center, it can mitigate the need for capital development by other local government and non-profit entities and potentially offset the school district's current and future capital and operational burdens.  From a community center perspective, adopting a multi-use model during the planning phase can result in a more comprehensive development approach and a facility better integrated into the fabric of the community.

An example of two public entities sharing use of assets for the combined benefit of their respective constituent groups can be seen in the arrangement between the Newport-Mesa Unified School District (district) and the City of Costa Mesa (city).  In this agreement, the city and district agree to a shared use of Facilities and Active Use Areas.

The agreement outlines plans for joint master scheduling, prioritizes allowed uses by each party and defines maintenance standards and other operational concerns.  The relative value of the land assets held by these beachfront local government entities cannot be overstated.  Value in this joint use relationship can be measured in several ways. First, by maximizing the utilization of the existing facilities of both parties; and second, by negating the need to acquire and develop new facilities and finally in terms of increased service levels to the broader community. ^[10]

A more comprehensive example of joint use can be seen in the planning and development of the Lincoln Public Library at Twelve Bridges.  This facility was developed through a partnership whose membership included the City of Lincoln, the Western Placer Unified School District and the Sierra Joint Community College District.  The Library was part of a larger effort in which the school district was acquiring adjoining property to construct a high school and the community college was acquiring property to plan and construct a campus.  Under this agreement, the city planned to acquire land from the college for a joint use library and the parties agreed to jointly fund the construction, maintenance and operation of the library facility.  Funding came, at least in part, from the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000.  This joint development effort would seem to capture many of the broader synergies available to local government entities when collaboration is embraced at the conceptual stage of development. ^[11]

There are examples in the community college system of under-utilized land assets being developed by private entities that provide a fund stream to assist the college in its core mission.  Los Angeles Harbor College and Los Angeles City College have both developed golf driving ranges that provide multi-faceted benefits.  These developments have not only created additional recreational/educational opportunities at the college, they have served as a source of community economic development and have resulted in a fund stream for the college.

The intent of the legislature would seem to be geared toward furthering the cause of joint use.  The spending plan for Proposition 1-D, the statewide facilities bond measure on the November 2006 ballot, explicitly recognizes and funds Joint Use projects.  Specifically, the bond measure identifies $29 million that is set aside for Joint Use purposes.
"Joint-use projects include gymnasiums, libraries, child care facilities, and teacher preparation facilities that are located at a school but used for joint school/community or K-12/higher education purposes. Under such arrangements, the school district and joint-use partner share the 50 percent local matching requirement." ^[12]

Conclusion

If one considers the initiative schemes that have been voted in place by the electorate since Proposition ^[13], one can see a continued tendency to inhibit the ability of government, especially at the local level, to raise revenues.  Absent what might be considered an adequate fund stream, governmental entities at all levels in California have had to seek out creative avenues to deliver services.  The logistical challenges in bringing together two or more public agencies in a joint use environment are not to be dismissed, however; as has been outlined in the foregoing, the joint development and operation of educational facilities can provide measurable benefit to the school district, its partners and the community at large.  There are also less tangible benefits to be had with a comprehensive approach to joint use.  The advantage of bringing together school districts and city/county governments at the planning phase of a school project can facilitate a community-centered school involving a broader constituent base resulting in a project that is more tightly woven into the fabric of the community.

Bibliography

1. Proposition 13, Some unintended consequences, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_998JCOP.pdf
2. LAO 2004 Budget analysis, Community College 2003 Infrastructure Plan, http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2004/cap_outlay/co_15_6870_anl04.htm
3. Education Facilities, Public Policy Institute of California, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_EducationFacilitiesJTF.pdf
4. California School District Parcel Taxes, http://www.orrick.com/publications/index.asp?action=article&articleID=259
5. Financing California's Community Colleges, Patrick J. Murphy, 2004, http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=324
6. Joint Use Facilities, Case Studies, http://www.nsbn.org/case/jointuse/
7. Office of Public School Construction, School Facility Program, Joint Use Program, http://www.opsc.dgs.ca.gov/SFPJtUse/Default.htm
8. Joint facilities with the University of California, the California State University, and independent colleges and universities, http://www.cccco.edu/executive/bog/agendas/attachments_0101/04-6-Joint%20Facilities.pdf
9. Maximizing District Assets, Implementing Successful Joint Ventures, http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/Index.cfm?pageID=3453
10. Community Use Of Schools - Policy Issues and Joint Use Agreements, http://www.edfacilities.org/rl/joint_use.cfm
11. The Lincoln Public Library at Twelve Bridges, http://www.ci.lincoln.ca.us/pagedownloads/12%20Bridges%20Joint%20Use%20Library.pdf
12. Legislative Analysts Office, Proposition 1-D, Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006, http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2006/1D_11_2006.htm
13. Representation without taxation, Proposition 13 and Local Government in California, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_998DLOP.pdf

- Andy Dunn

Previous Article