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 modernizing our schools and supporting policies that create opportunity and freedom for Oregonians. Bond Measure 26-259 proposes to modernize three Portland high schools at a pricetag of $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).

On January 7th, the PPS board rushed to refer the bond to the ballot seven weeks before the February 28th filing deadline, and ahead of the Cornerstone Management report and recommendations. This bond refuses 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’re asking PPS to go back to the drawing board and bring forward a better bond. Portland needs a smaller, smarter, and specified bond that fulfills their modernization promise and builds real schools for real kids based on real enrollment projections.

image

On Tuesday, May 6th, John Charles presented this Testimony to the TSCC (Multnomah Co. Tax Supervising and Conservation Commission), tasked with reviewing and certifying the bond for the election. This was the ONLY oversight for the bond.

More from Cascade:


ww
ballot

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
  • 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.”
    • “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.”


oregon live
image

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


OTHER IMPORTANT NEWS


ELECTIONS LINKS

Share Post

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Related News