▁general ▁fund ▁at ▁an ▁annual ▁interest ▁rate ▁of ▁roughly ▁ 3 . 5 ▁percent . ▁ ▁Academ ics ▁said ▁the ▁measure ▁would ▁have ▁helped ▁address ▁a ▁back log ▁of ▁maintenance ▁projects ▁that ▁would ▁cost ▁$ 1 1 7 ▁billion ▁to ▁be ▁fully ▁addressed ▁over ▁the ▁following ▁de cade . ▁The ▁measure ▁would ▁have ▁fund ed ▁as best os ▁removal , ▁se ism ic ▁retro f itting ▁and ▁other ▁capital ▁improvements ▁on ▁various ▁California ▁pr esch ool , ▁K - 1 2 , ▁and ▁college ▁camp uses . ▁ ▁The ▁measure ▁contained ▁prov isions ▁that ▁would ▁have ▁elimin ated ▁school ▁impact ▁fe es ▁on ▁mult if amil y ▁housing ▁development ▁within ▁half ▁a ▁mile ▁of ▁train ▁and ▁bus ▁stations . ▁Education ▁fin ance ▁exper ts ▁said ▁the ▁fe es ▁are ▁essential ▁for ▁properly ▁fund ing ▁the ▁impact ▁of ▁new ▁students . ▁Develop ers ▁said ▁the ▁fe es ▁unnecess arily ▁drive ▁up ▁the ▁cost ▁of ▁new ▁housing . ▁The ▁author ▁of ▁Proposition ▁ 1 3 , ▁Patrick ▁O ' D onn ell , ▁said ▁the ▁effect ▁of ▁impact ▁fee ▁elim ination ▁should ▁have ▁been ▁closely ▁watched ▁and ▁corrected ▁if ▁necessary . ▁ ▁The ▁measure ▁would ▁have ▁also ▁lo os ened ▁limits ▁on ▁local ▁school ▁district ▁borrow ing . ▁High ▁school ▁and ▁elementary ▁school ▁districts ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁allowed ▁to ▁borrow ▁ 2 ▁percent ▁of ▁the ▁ass essed ▁value ▁of ▁nearby ▁properties , ▁up ▁from ▁ 1 . 2 5 ▁percent . ▁Un ified ▁school ▁districts , ▁along ▁with ▁community ▁college ▁districts , ▁would ▁have ▁been