College & Careers > Community Colleges

Ed Committee backs crackdown on interest-deferred bonds



Despite opposition from several education organizations, the Assembly Education Committee on Wednesday voted 6-0 for a bill that would severely restrict school districts’ ability to float construction bonds that would saddle future taxpayers with huge balloon payments.

These financial instruments are known as capital appreciation bonds, or CABs, and they have become common over the past decade. By deferring payments on the bonds for sometimes decades and extending the term of the bonds to 30 or 40 years, districts can end up paying interest amounting to 10 times the principal or more, instead of twice the principal as is common for a standard 25-year school bond.

District headquarters, Poway Unified

District headquarters, Poway Unified

Poway Unified has become the CAB poster child. Taxpayers will pay no interest on the first 20 years of a $100 million construction bond in that district. When it’s fully paid off in 40 years, they will have shelled out $1 billion. But Poway Unified’s is not the extreme case. An analysis of SB 182, the bill approved Wednesday, cited an example of a district in San Bernardino County that will end up paying 23 times the amount of the original bond – $6.6 million in debt service on a 28-year bond, issued in 2010 for $283,600.

“The people who will benefit from the bond pay zero; the next generation will bear the burden with serious consequences,” said Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, the chair of Assembly Education and the cosponsor of the bill with Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego.

More disclosure, tighter reins on terms

AB 182 wouldn’t ban CABs; a district could take out one with an interest deferral of, say, two or three years, and a 25-year term, if that fit their needs, Buchanan said. But it would curtail their use by:

  • Demanding more public disclosure. Some school board members have said they didn’t know what CABs were and didn’t understand the financing terms when they approved them. The bill would require school boards, before approving a CAB, to do an analysis spelling out the total cost, justify the reason a CAB has been recommended, and compare the cost of the CAB with traditional financing.
  • Limiting the debt service ratio – how much districts will pay in total interest and principal payments relative to the principal alone – to 4 to 1. This is still higher than for current interest bonds that most districts issue. They operate like a mortgage, charging a uniform, ongoing interest rate.
  • Requiring that each individual bond that a district issues comply with that 4-to-1 ratio, as opposed to the blended average of all of the bond measures  authorized by a district. Averaging ratios is “how Wall Street packaged subprime mortgages,” testified state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who has crusaded for curbing CABs. “But if it’s a rotten deal, it’s rotten no matter how much perfume you put on it.”
  • Limiting all school bonds, not just CABs, to a length of 25 years, as already required under the Education Code. Buchanan said that districts have been doing an end-run around the Ed Code by issuing General Obligation bonds with longer terms. Some opponents of the bill called for exempting standard non-CAB bonds from the 25-year limit. But Buchanan said it is important to “tie financing to the asset; otherwise people who pay for the improvement do not benefit from it.” School upgrade projects generally are timed to last 25 years, after which they are available for state modernization funds, she said.
  • Requiring all CABs over 10 years to give districts the option of  paying them off early. Opponents say this stipulation would raise the cost of the CABs.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

Districts have increasingly turned to CABs since the recession, because declining property values, particularly in the Central Valley and Southern California, have constricted districts’ capacity to issue new bonds. School districts are limited to how much debt they can issue at any time in relation to a district’s assessed value. (For unified districts, the maximum value of bonds they can issue is 2.5 percent of property valuation.) Faced with immediate building needs, districts have turned to CABs, which give districts flexibility by postponing interest and principal payments while assuming that rising property values will enable them to pay off old bonds and issue new ones in coming decades. Bond holders, in turn, forgo payments initially but reap a huge payoff down the road from compounded interest.

An estimated 200 school districts and community colleges – about 20 percent of the total – have issued CABs in the past decade. Dan McAllister, the treasurer-tax collector of San Diego County, said that since 2007 a dozen of the 42 school and community college districts in the county have financed 44 bond issues that included CABs; the average debt ratio to principal was 7.4 to 1, he said.

Among groups that oppose AB 182 or want some of the restrictions changed are the Association of California School Administrators, the California Association of School Business Officials, the California School Boards Association and the Small School Districts’ Association.

Dilemma of declining property values

Patti Hererra, executive director of the Riverside County School Superintendents’ Association, said  she was concerned about districts’ ability to fund construction needs because of low property valuation. Brian Rivas, a lobbyist for the school boards association, seconded Hererra’s concern and said the “bill overcompensates” for the problems caused by CABs.

Disagreeing with Lockyer, Jeff Vaca, executive director of governmental relations for the school business officials’ organization, said that the debt-to-principal ratio should apply to the entire bond program voters approved and not to each individual bond, to give districts latitude to meet building needs. And the maximum term of a bond should be no less than 30 years, he said. In a letter to the Education Committee, he said that the combination of higher construction costs and decreased state aid have created “enormous facilities funding needs, some to the point of crisis.”

“We believe it is important that any legislative solution not create any insurmountable facilities problems for school districts and community colleges that are using CABs in a fiscally responsible manner,” he wrote.

Buchanan, a former school board member, sees the crisis differently, as one of responsibility to taxpayers. “If we don’t police ourselves with reasonable limitations to sell these instruments, then voters will never approve another bond. And that will create an even bigger problem,” she said.

Filed under: Community Colleges, Legislation, State Education Policy

Tags:

Comments

EdSource encourages a robust debate on education issues and welcomes comments from our readers. The level of thoughtfulness of our community of readers is rare among online news sites. To preserve a civil dialogue, writers should avoid personal, gratuitous attacks and invective. Comments should be relevant to the subject of the article responded to. EdSource retains the right not to publish inappropriate and non-germaine comments. EdSource encourages commenters to use their real names. Commenters who do decide to use a pseudonym should use it consistently.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

9 Responses to “Ed Committee backs crackdown on interest-deferred bonds”

  1. el said

    on March 21, 2013 at 7:22 am

    It seems to me that when we’re in crisis for construction funds for schools, that there are better ways to solve it than to take out financing that has to be paid back 10 to 1. New buildings do no good if you can’t afford to staff them.

  2. Mel said

    on March 21, 2013 at 8:00 am

    Districts that reduce its Routine Regular Maintenance funding and use its deferred maintenance funding for educational needs are to blame for its increased need for construction of new and modernized facilities. CABs are used to bandaid poorly maintained buildings as are all recently approved GO bonds. Districts should put more money in the maintenance of its capital assets for an expected life cycle of 25 years which is no longer the norm. Buildings are lasting ten years before they need modernizing. Districts should stop burdening tax payers because of its inability to assign resources to care for its buildings

    • navigio replied

      on March 21, 2013 at 11:28 am

      And the state is to blame for incentivizing flexing maintenance funding.

      Buildings that need modernizing within 10 years is probably as much a function of cheaper construction processes as lack of maintenance. One of the ironies of the ‘advance’ of construction techniques is that many of them are driven by the intent to reduce maintenance costs.

  3. Paul said

    on March 21, 2013 at 8:10 am

    But how would school district officials be able afford their swanky new offices? Yesterday, I happened to walk by Berkeley Unified’s new district office. It is a total renovation of an old school building, with major structural work, a completely new interior, all-new building systems, and new windows. Old schools that still house students don’t receive such treatment. While the “leaders” sip coffee and enjoy the breeze from their openable, tinted windows, students and teachers labor in decrepit classrooms that haven’t been renovated since they were first built in the 1950s and 60s!

    I am totally in favor of these borrowing restrictions. I would like to see additional legal, accounting, and programmatic changes that would motivate districts to plan and save up for capital projects (except administrative offices, which should be relegated to old portables or abandoned schools). Whatever happened to the notion of a “sinking fund”?

    • navigio replied

      on March 21, 2013 at 11:32 am

      I cant resist this one. I heard a story about a new super who wanted his office painted but didnt like the color… 4 times. The painters were working a weekend (ie over/double time) to do it. I know its trivial in the grand scheme of things, but 30 years ago our district set up ‘temporaries’ to address a lack of facilities expansion funding. Today, we are still using them as classrooms. Some with no functioning windows. Some with no visible sunlight. I hope the color turned out perfect.

      • el replied

        on March 21, 2013 at 1:13 pm

        Yeah, um… why do trustees put up with that kind of crap? If you’re a trustee and that’s happening in your district, you’re culpable.

        It’s “trivial” but it also sets the tone, eh? Clearly marks the priorities, and clearly marks them as “not the kids.”

      • Pierre replied

        on March 23, 2013 at 8:24 am

        This article by navigator describes our problems with our Executives running the schools.

        Bear in mind that the PAINTERS hired by the school district must be UNION. And they in turn must be paid prevailing wage rate. The hourly wage for these painters was probably $55-65 per hour

        Then one take into account the OVERTIME required.

        ARE WE NOT A VERY STUPID CITIZENERY?

  4. navigio said

    on March 21, 2013 at 11:34 am

    “If we don’t police ourselves with reasonable limitations to sell these instruments, then voters will never approve another bond. And that will create an even bigger problem

    I’m sorry, but you are already very close to being there, regardless of what you do about CABs.

  5. navigio said

    on March 22, 2013 at 10:28 am

    From the first paragraph of the California League of Bond Oversight Committees’ Best Practices document:

    Some have asserted the bond oversight committees (BOC) are a public relations ploy designed to make bond passage easier, while giving committees no real power. Others have asserted that districts should enhance the independence of oversight committees and thus the credibility of the committee and the district’s standing in the eyes of the public.

    http://www.calboc.org/docs/BestPractices_5.09.pdf

Template last modified: