PPS Bond M26-259

Author: Naomi Inman, [email protected]

PPS Bond Measure 26-259 is
Too Big
Too Vague
Poorly Managed

Hit the “pause” button on the PPS Bond.
Tell PPS to come back to the voters with a
Smaller, Smarter, and Specific Bond in November.

At Cascade Policy Institute, we favor the modernization of schools and supporting policies that create opportunity and freedom for Oregonians. That includes our public school spaces. Three Portland high schools still need to be modernized but the current bond plans to spend between $400-$491 million on each—making them the most expensive high school construction projects in the nation with as much as two to three times the capacity of statistical enrollment projections from PSU’s Population Research Center.

Not only that, on January 7^th, the PPS board rushed to put the bond on the ballot a full seven weeks before the filing was due on February 28^th, completely passing over their own Cornerstone audit and recommendations, and refusing to specify how the funds will be spent on the most expensive bond in state history, choosing instead to put out “big buckets” of unspecified funds.

We are asking PPS to go back to the drawing board to simplify and specify this bond. Portland taxpayers don’t need a bungled bond now, they need a better bond in November. Portland needs a smaller, smarter, specific bond that builds real schools for real kids. Overbuilding schools for unrealistic enrollment projections robs the real kids in the classrooms today and cannibalizes resources that should be available to serve real kids in real schools.

More from Cascade:

• Trust is Given, Not Earned: Trust Is Earned, Not Given – Cascade Policy Institute
• Why Are Portland School Construction Projects So Expensive? Why Are Portland School Construction Projects So Expensive? – Cascade Policy Institute

Willamette Week’s editorial board sat down with PPS leaders and now recommends a “No” vote until PPS can come back with a better defined bond measure that voters can pass.

• Willamette Week – Demand Better from Portland Public Schools: Ballot Measure 26-259 Portland Public Schools bond No: Read it at WW’s May 2025 Endorsements
  • Watch it on YouTube https://youtu.be/T4qZnyfvQm8?si=Kx1fahkH-i5wXiTP
• Here’s what WW had to say about the bond.
  • “At $1.83 billion, it is by far the most expensive school bond in state history (the current record is also held by PPS: $1.2 billion in 2020).” 
  
  
  • “But that’s also the danger: The urgency, and elected officials’ fear of disappointing parents, has enabled PPS to ask voters to write what is perilously close to a blank check.”
  
  
  • “For months, WW has reported on a bond process that has lacked the transparency… The public deserves to know the district will use this massive sum of money to address its facilities’ most critical issues. We don’t know that.”
  
  
  • “In previous bond proposals, PPS precisely listed how much money would go toward everything … Now, we have a bond largely divided into two pools of money: $1.15 billion for shockingly expensive high schools designed to serve far more students than the district has or expects to get, and $190 million for deferred maintenance whose uses remain undefined.”
  
  
  • “When pressed on how much money would go toward what many see as one of the most critical repairs—19 URM buildings that will cost the district about $126 million to retrofit—no one could provide a straight answer.” 
  
  
  • “District officials assured us they’d present a clear spending plan once the bond passes.” [i.e. We need to pass the bond to know what’s in it.]
  
  
  • “It also needs to show some actual effort toward frugality with the high schools. As WW has reported, the district’s own enrollment projections suggest PPS doesn’t need all three high schools in the bond—and certainly doesn’t need all three to be so large. Yet, months of pledges to cut down on what would be some of the most expensive high schools in the nation have resulted in, at best, less than 5% savings from the costs of all three.”
  
  
  • “Other districts around the country have rebuilt high schools at half the cost, yet PPS has not been able to meaningfully lower its estimates. Worse, the district is trying to add $100 million to the cost of one high school—Jefferson—with a current enrollment of 459, less than a third of the capacity it plans to build for.”
  • “The bond’s lack of a community stakeholder advisory group, dedicated public comment, and even stifled discussion on the School Board are other reasons for alarm.”
    • See KATU News April 29 – Julia Brim Edwards says resolution to discuss trimming the costs of three high schools in bond measure abruptly dismissed from PPS board meeting on April 22.   ‘Disappointed’: PPS board member describes abrupt ending to $1.8B bond discussion
      • @3:08 “We shouldn’t be stiff-arming parents in the community when we’re asking them for a lot of money.”
  • “There’s a headlong, out-of-control feeling surrounding this bond—the sensation of a district throwing good money after bad in a panic that it will keep losing students, at the expense of a clear-eyed appraisal of where the greatest needs are.”
    
  • “The 2012 PPS bond successfully modernized three high schools: Franklin, Grant and Roosevelt, on budget and a model of what the district can accomplish when it focuses.”
    
  • We believe voters should again hold PPS to that standard. They should approve a bond only when it has met the following conditions:
    
  • “We share district leaders’ desire for a Portland that attracts families with successful, new schools. But the district owes it to voters to present a detailed plan for where their money will go, and it owes it to its students to ensure that every dollar goes toward needed upgrades.”

Even the Oregonian admitted that their endorsement was “Under duress”
Editorial endorsement: Under duress, a ‘yes’ for PPS school bond – oregonlive.com

• Watch the Oregonian’s editorial forum here: Editorial endorsement: Under duress, a ‘yes’ for PPS school bond – oregonlive.com [Or on YouTube at https://youtu.be/NFLJ08XccjU?si=7tnJsGpNWRz3-FlD]
  • John’s clip: @4.48-10:22 https://youtu.be/NFLJ08XccjU?si=YExY_1HtkEl1g1o0&t=288
• “Immense cost and unresolved scope…”
• “The district, however, doesn’t contemplate providing much more information before the May 20 election – basically asking voters to trust PPS and the school board to do the right thing.”

OTHER IMPORTANT NEWS

• Oregon Catalyst – Opposition Statement for Voter’s Pamphlet
  • No on #26-259. Portland’s near $2B school bond | Oregon Catalyst
• KATU News April 29 – Julia Brim Edwards says resolution to discuss trimming the costs of three high schools in bond measure abruptly dismissed from PPS board meeting on April 22.   ‘Disappointed’: PPS board member describes abrupt ending to $1.8B bond discussion
  • @3:08 “We shouldn’t be stiff-arming parents in the community when we’re asking them for a lot of money.”
  • @4:57-5:11 “We have schools that are seismically unsafe and … how are you prioritizing it in this bond. I think those are very legitimate questions to ask.”
• KATU News March 19. Willamette Week’s Ed reporter Joanna Hou cites enrollment projections and the math doesn’t add up. Willamette Week: ‘Too many high schools’
  • Joanna Hou: HS Enrollment is 13,100. PSU Population Research Center data projects that in 2034 we will see 10,800. Right now the District is set to build a capacity of 15,200.

ELECTIONS LINKS

• PPS School Info Site: Bond (School Building Improvement Bond) / 2025 Bond information
• Multnomah County Elections info site: Ballot Measure 26-259 – Portland School District 1J | Multnomah County
• Multnomah County Voter’s Pamphlet: Multnomah County Voters Pamphlet_May 2025.pdf.pdf
• Washington County Voter’s Pamphlet: (One school in Washington County, Raleigh Hills Elementary, is in the PPS District) Current Voters’ Pamphlet | Washington County, OR
• Oregon School Boards Association, School Bond Manual — 2024-BondManual-Final.pdf
• PSU Population Research Center (PRC) produces a study for PPS that includes: analysis of population, housing and enrollment trends affecting the District in recent years, estimates of the impacts of new housing development on PPS enrollment, forecasts of district-wide enrollment for a 15 year horizon, forecasts by area of residence (high school clusters, school attendance areas) for the following 10+ years, and forecasts by individual schools for the following 10+ years.