1. What's the Problem with Maintaining Under-Used Schools?

• Plummeting Enrollment: PPS enrollment keeps declining, leaving entire wings or campuses half-empty.

• Costly Overhead: Each vacant building still requires electricity, custodial staff, security, etc. — money that could go directly to teachers and supplies.

• No Clear Consolidation Plan: Despite endless talk of "declining enrollment," PPS continues to operate 100+ campuses without a firm closure or consolidation strategy.

2. Who Green-Lit Spending on Under-Used Facilities?

• The PPS Board repeatedly approves budgets with no absolute footprint reduction. The Board passed budgets in 2023, 2024, and 2025 without requiring a single building consolidation.

• Legislatively, Senate Bill 1149 (2019) at the state level offered districts incentives for energy efficiency but never demanded closures. It passed with heavy support from Sen. Michael Dembrow (D-Portland) and Rep. Karin Power (D-Milwaukie), claiming it would save schools money. However, no one enforced that PPS must actually cut wasteful properties.

3. Any Specific Examples in the 2024–25 or Proposed 2025 Bond?

• PPS's Proposed 2025 Bond includes $1.8B for new high school construction and remodels, such as Jefferson, Cleveland, and Wells, each with an estimated $435–$491 million price tag.

• Meanwhile, several existing campuses are utilizing 30–50% of their space. PPS still pays to heat, secure, and maintain these sites and has no plan to downsize.

• Multiple under-capacity elementary schools remain open, draining resources that could be used to fix urgent issues (such as leaky roofs, HVAC problems, or overdue safety repairs).

• New schools in Sherwood and Beaverton have just been built and opened at HALF the cost proposed by the current PPS.

4. Why Are We So Concerned About This?

1. Waste of Money: Millions spent on half-empty buildings that could be merged or leased out.

2. Misplaced Priorities: District leaders tout a $1.8B new-build spree while ignoring the cost savings from consolidating underused campuses.

3. Eroding Trust: Voters see "declining enrollment" but also see bond proposals for extravagant construction. They wonder why the district won't shut down or repurpose idle facilities first.

5. What's Our Plan to End This Waste?

1. Immediate "Real Estate Footprint" Review

   • Conduct a transparent capacity/utilization study, publicly listing each PPS property's actual usage.

   • Identify the worst 10–20 underfilled sites.

2. Aggressively Consolidate

   • If a building runs at 30% capacity, we propose merging it with a nearby campus.

   • Reinvest overhead savings (utilities, custodial, security) into teacher hires or mental health staff.

3. Lease Partnerships

   • For properties PPS refuses to sell, rent them out to city agencies or nonprofits, recovering partial costs.

   • Reinforce a "no free ride" policy: If it is not used for K–12 instruction, it must generate revenue or close.

4. Prioritize Repairs Over New Builds

   • Postpone any new construction or expansions until existing roofs, HVAC, and safety issues are fixed.

   • Question every extravagant line item in the 2025 Bond for "luxury add-ons" or overbuilt designs.

   • Engage the teams that ran comparable programs for Beaverton's $253 million or Sherwood's $186 million projects.

6. What Actions Will PPS Take Right Now?

1. Publish a District-wide Utilization Report

   • Within 90 days, show each site's capacity vs. actual enrollment.

   • Pinpoint potential closures or consolidations.

2. Set a 'Maximum Building Vacancy' Threshold

   • Start closure or repurpose procedures if a campus runs below 50% capacity for two straight years.

   • The Board is to vote on each case in an open hearing.

3. Amend the 2025 Bond Proposal

   • Strip out the most expensive, overbuilt designs.

   • Divert freed up dollars for essential repairs in the consolidated schools.