News & Insights
Photo courtesy of: Greg Land
The passage of California’s Proposition 2 in November 2024 marked a significant milestone in addressing the state’s pressing school facility needs. This $10 billion bond measure allocates $8.5 billion to K–12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges, aiming to renovate aging buildings, enhance safety, and modernize classrooms for 21st-century learning. Funds are distributed through matching grants, with higher percentages directed to districts demonstrating the greatest need.
While Proposition 2 provides substantial support, it is not a panacea. The Public Policy Institute of California estimates that over $100 billion is required to fully address the state’s school infrastructure backlog . Moreover, the matching grant structure necessitates that districts contribute local funds, which can be challenging for communities with limited fiscal capacity.
Public-private partnerships offer a complementary approach to traditional funding mechanisms. By leveraging private sector expertise and capital, P3s can expedite project delivery, transfer certain risks, and provide long-term maintenance solutions. These partnerships are not one-size-fits-all; they can be tailored to meet the specific needs and capacities of individual districts.
Facing an $8.5 billion infrastructure deficit, Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) implemented a groundbreaking P3 to design, build, finance, and maintain six new schools. This initiative reduced the typical construction timeline from 16 years to just three and is projected to save the district approximately $170 million in deferred maintenance and construction costs.
In Phoenix, a creative P3 transformed the former Maryvale Mall into two public schools, encompassing 300,000 square feet. This adaptive reuse project addressed space constraints and revitalized a community asset, demonstrating the flexibility of P3 models in repurposing existing structures for educational use.
California districts can strategically combine Proposition 2 funds with P3 arrangements to maximize resources. For instance, state bond funds can be used to cover a portion of construction costs, while private partners handle financing gaps and assume responsibility for long-term maintenance. This hybrid approach allows districts to undertake larger or more complex projects than would be feasible through public funding alone.
Considering the opportunities and challenges outlined above, here are three key steps to help your district explore and potentially implement a P3 strategy:
Public-private partnerships offer California school districts an additional, adaptable tool to meet facility challenges—especially in the wake of Proposition 2. By combining state bond funding with innovative delivery models, districts can more effectively manage risk, access capital, and accelerate timelines for critical projects. However, every district’s needs are unique, and thoughtful planning, stakeholder engagement, and expert guidance are essential to determining whether a P3 approach is the right fit. As districts navigate their facility funding strategies, learning from other states’ experiences, putting together the right team, and drawing on expertise when needed will be key to tailoring solutions that truly meet the needs of each community.
Mark Newton is a senior vice president at Brailsford & Dunlavey, with almost 30 years of experience in managing PK-14 development projects and bond programs in California. He can be reached at mnewton@bdconnect.com. Brailsford & Dunlavey is a leading development advisory and program management firm with expertise in the planning and delivery of school projects and district-wide programs across the United States. For more information, visit bdconnect.com.
