|
ledge to Rebuild
Our Public Schools 100%
Frequently Asked Questions
about PROP 100%
What is PROP 100%? PROP 100% is an acronym for
the Pledge to Rebuild Our Public
Schools 100%. Simply put, PROP 100% is a pledge to support the
rebuilding and modernization of 100% of the District of Columbia Public
Schools and Public Charter Schools.
Is PROP 100% a ballot initiative? No,
PROP 100% is not going on any ballot and is not a proposition in
that sense. It is simply a pledge of support for all of our schools to be
modernized.
What does PROP 100% call for? PROP 100%’s
desired outcome is the adoption by the Federal Government of the
financial responsibility for their fair share of the cost for the
rebuilding and modernization of the District of Columbia Public Schools
and Public Charter Schools and a seven year construction program.
Why should the federal government pay for 100% of the
costs of this program? PROP 100% does not ask the federal
government to pay all the costs, but only those capital expenses that
remain. The District of Columbia has already appropriated or spent almost
$700 million of its own funds, a sum equal to almost 25% of the total
costs involved in the construction program. Adding in small capital
expenditures, replacement reserves, and interest costs over the expected
life of the facilities, DC will spend more than half of the total
estimated costs.
Who originally paid for the construction of DC
Public Schools? Until DC was granted municipal borrowing authority
from Congress in 1980, all school design and construction
was paid for by Congress through the District appropriation, with the
modest building program that went on during the 1960s being managed by the
General Services Administration.
Why can’t the District of Columbia pay for the
rebuilding of its own schools? The GAO has recently issued a
report (May 2003) to members of Congress entitled, "District of
Columbia: Structural Imbalance and Management Issues," which, among
other things, outlines why the District of Columbia is unable to issue its
own bonds or otherwise finance this billion dollar rebuilding program. The
reports speaks to the City's statutory borrowing limits, its credit
rating, and the need to pay for all other capital needs, including safety
and security within a system that is structurally imbalanced: the District
of Columbia’s large percentage of federal land and buildings generate
zero tax revenue and the City government lacks the legal authority to tax
commuters or otherwise raise the funds. Thus, the City does not have the
tax base or legal structure to raise revenue to pay for the requirements
of a comprehensive school modernization program.
How much will it cost and how long will it take
to complete the modernization and rebuilding program that is now being
implemented? How would PROP 100% change this? The District of
Columbia Board of Education has recently approved a scaled down program
from that which was originally proposed and approved in 2000. The scaled
back effort calls for approximately six (6) schools to be modernized each
year over the next 23 years! This $3.4 billion program has been endorsed
by the Mayor and the City Council and sent to Congress for FY04. PROP 100%
seeks to not only restore the original ten-year plan, but to accelerate
its timing, resulting in savings of more than $1.05 billion and
completing the program in seven (7) years at a cost of $2.35 billion.1
What is meant by a "Marshall Plan"
approach to DC school construction? Within this context, PROP 100%
proposes shortening a 23 year construction plan to a seven year plan and
saving more than $1.05 billion for the same total number of schools to be
built or modernized. Just as the public infrastructure was rebuilt in
Europe following WWII under the "Marshall Plan" in recognition
of the need to jump-start the core of an economic engine, the rebuilding
our public schools is the keystone to the financial success of Washington.
Modern, safe, high quality schools keep existing citizens in the city and
attract new employers, taxpayers, and residents.
Why is it urgent to rebuild our public and public
charter schools? The deplorable physical condition of the DC
schools is well known. Research organizations such as McKinsey &
Company, the Brookings Institution, the 21st Century School
Fund, and others have documented the need to provide modern, state of the
art schools as the first step in attracting new residents to the city and
building the tax base for economic expansion. Postponing the construction
of new schools only further exacerbates and continues to increase the
costs of other necessary social expenditures in the areas of health care,
law enforcement, and subsidized housing. Educational issues aside, the
Department of Homeland Security is already relying on DC schools for
neighborhood shelters, yet many schools don’t pass basic fire, safety,
health, and building codes. These unsafe, unsecured buildings cannot be
used for "shelter in place" let alone serve as security hubs for
their communities. Another generation of DC children cannot be allowed to
pass through substandard, outdated, unhealthy, and educationally
inadequate school buildings.
Will funds be available for Public Charter Schools?
Since funds are presently not available for this part of the
construction program, PROP 100% calls for federal funding support to a
level sufficient to build and modernize not only the District of Columbia
Public Schools, but the Public Charter Schools as well, as part of the
seven year plan.
How do other jurisdictions handle their capital
improvement program for public schools? Most other school
jurisdictions generally have the legal and economic capacity to either
issue bonds for the construction of public schools, raise real estate
taxes outright (in most, but not all, localities real estate taxes are set
aside for the operation and construction of schools) or raise the tax
rates resulting in additional available funds for either operations or
construction or both. Most large cities get substantial funding for school
construction from their states (e.g., Newark-100%, Cleveland – 65%,
Baltimore – 75%, Boston – 80%).
How can any federal funding program ensure that money
goes directly to school construction? Any federal funding should
and can be legislatively earmarked solely for District of
Columbia public school and public charter school rebuilding.
_______________
1. DCPS Office of Facilities
Management, June 2003.
Back to top of page
PROP 100%
Pledge to Rebuild Our Public
Schools 100%
100% funding by the Federal Government for the
rebuilding and modernization
of the District of Columbia Public Schools and Public Charter Schools
Facts
-
DC needs almost $1.6B more to rebuild the DC
Public Schools than the $0.6B the Mayor has authorized for the next
six years of its capital program, as already documented by the GAO1
and several private studies.2
-
DC is unable to issue its own bonds for this $2.2
billion rebuilding program, because of the City's statutory
borrowing limits, credit rating, and the need to pay for all other
capital needs, including safety and security.3
Homeland Security is already relying on DC schools for neighborhood
shelters, yet many schools don’t pass basic fire, safety, health,
and building codes.
-
Public Charter Schools are struggling to find
adequate space and to support the improvements needed for their
educational programs.
-
Due to DC’s large percentage of federal land and
buildings that generate zero tax revenue for DC schools, DC does
not have the tax base or legal structure to raise revenue to pay
for the requirements of a comprehensive school modernization program.
-
Until DC was granted municipal borrowing authority
from Congress in 1980, all school design and construction were paid
for by Congress through the District appropriation, with the building
program of the 1960s managed by the General Services Administration.
-
Most cities get substantial funding for school
construction from their states:
Newark – 100% ▫ Cleveland – 65% ▫ Baltimore – 75%
▫ Boston – 80%
Proposal
-
This US Government funding should be earmarked
solely for DC school rebuilding, with a "Marshall
Plan" approach to complete the effort and not let another
generation of school children suffer the consequences of unhealthy,
unsafe, educationally inadequate school buildings.
-
Funding would be "provided" to a third
party public trust.
-
One model to follow is the RTC (Resolution
Trust Corporation) with a sunset provision, independence and competency
in contracting and oversight. Competition is the watchword.
_______________
1. “D.C. Public Schools’
Modernization Program Faces Major Challenges,” April 25, 2002. GAO
Testimony.
2. “Guide to the D.C.P.S. Capital
Budget,” January 28, 2003. The 21st Century School Fund.
“Assessing the District of Columbia’s Financial Position,” March 14,
2002. McKinsey & Company.
“Envisioning a Future Washington,” June 2001. The Brookings
Institution, C. O’Cleireacain and Alice M. Rivlin.
“Leaving Children Behind: The Underfunding of DCPS Building Repair and
Capital Budget Needs,” July 2003.
3. See “District of Columbia
Structural Imbalance and Management Issues,” May 2003. GAO Report to
Congressional Requesters.
Back to top of page
COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004
April 15, 2003
Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Chairman
District of
Columbia Subcommittee
House Appropriations Committee
2442 Rayburn House 0ffice Building
Washington, D.C. 20525-3011
Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen,
We are writing to share our endorsement of Proposition 100%
(see attached) and to ask you to use your good offices to pursue 100%
funding by the Federal Government for the rebuilding and modernization
of the District of Columbia public schools and public charter schools.
It's common knowledge that the District of Columbia needs
more than $2 billion to complete the modernization of its public and charter
schools. Private studies as well as the GAO have cited and confirmed the
City's need to rebuild the schools immediately.
Just as the federal government originally funded and
built our schools on average more than 75 years ago, we need the federal
government to repeat that effort again today. If DC were to continue to
try to fund such an effort from the annual operating budget or to issue our own bonds; it would impact on the city's statutory borrowing
limits, its credit rating, and the ability to pay for all other required
City services, including the expanded need in today's environment for
increased safety and security measures for all who reside and work in
Washington.
Proposition 100% should be approached as a "Marshall
Plan" undertaking: an investment in school modernization is immediate and short term, resulting in long-term
educational, economic and social benefits. Proposition 100% calls for the use of
private sector contractors and project managers, together with a third party public
trust to manage the requested funds that would be earmarked solely for
the modernization of DC public schools.
We ask that you take whatever steps you can to help ensure that 100% of the
funding for our school modernization program is put in the appropriate
legislation at the earliest possible moment. Our representatives are prepared to
meet with you and your colleagues to assist with this effort.
Sincerely,
Linda W. Cropp, Chair
Harold Brazil (At Large)
Carol Schwartz (At Large)
David Catania (At Large)
Phil Mendelson (At Large)
Jim Graham (Ward 1)
Jack Evans (Ward 2)
Kathleen Patterson (Ward 3)
Adrian Fenty (Ward 4)
Vincent B. Orange, Sr. (Ward 5)
Sharon Ambrose (Ward 6)
Kevin P. Chavous (Ward 7)
Sandra Allen (Ward 8)
Back to top of page
ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS
MAYOR
May 30, 2003
Honorable Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, Chairman
District of
Columbia Subcommittee - Appropriations
2442 Rayburn House Office
Building
Washington, D.C. 20525-3011
Re: Proposition 100%
Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen,
I am writing to endorse Proposition 100% (see attached)
and to ask that you use your good offices to pursue its desired outcome:
adoption by the Federal Government of the responsibility for the
rebuilding and modernization of the District of Columbia Public Schools
and Public Charter Schools.
Private studies as well as the GAO have cited and
confirmed the City's need to rebuild the schools immediately. Long-term
estimates for complete modernization range up to $2 billion. Every one
of our City Council members has signed a letter in support of
Proposition 100%.
Just as the federal government originally funded and
built our schools on average more than 75 years ago, we need the federal
government to repeat that effort again today. Further, if DC were to
continue to try to fund such an effort from the annual operating budget
or to issue our own bonds, it would impact on the city's statutory
borrowing limits, the city's credit rating, and the ability to pay for
all other required City services, including the expanded need in today's
environment to take increased safety and security measures for all who
reside and work in Washington.
Proposition 100% should be approached as a "Marshall
Plan" undertaking: an investment in school modernization is
immediate and short term, resulting in long-term educational, economic
and social benefits. Proposition 100% calls for a third party public
trust to manage the requested funds that would be earmarked solely for
the modernization of DC public schools.
We ask that you take whatever steps you can to help
ensure that momentum occurs towards relief for our education system. I
look forward to discussing with you what sort of legislative vehicles
might be appropriate for this initiative.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams
|
