California voters say yes to $10 billion school bond

Californians on Tuesday strongly backed a $10 billion initiative to support construction projects for TK-12 schools and colleges. A victory for Proposition 2 would issue state bonds for school construction for the first time since 2016 and replenish depleted state funding.

According to initial results from all precincts, 56.8% of voters supported the bond measure, while 43.2% opposed it. Mail-in ballots and provisional ballots that have not yet been received remain to be counted. Support for the bonds topped 60% in Los Angeles, Alpine, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Mendocino, Alameda, Yolo, Marin and San Mateo counties. Only counties in the far north of the state opposed it.

Proposition 2 was one of two $10 billion government bonds on the ballot; the other was Proposition 4 to fund climate change mitigation efforts. Supporters of Proposition 2 worried that voters might choose one over the other, but both passed easily.

“It was clear that people supported him when they understood what Proposition 2 would do and the impact it would have on schools,” said Molly Weedne, spokeswoman for the campaign for Proposition 2. “People see the need in real time. If you have a leaky roof, it just gets worse.”

The Campaign organized by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), which represents school districts and school building interests that have supported the effort, had not yet released a statement Wednesday.

Although student enrollment in most districts is projected to continue to decline over the next decade, the need for self-contained renovation and replacement of outdated portable classrooms and buildings has increased dramatically. The UC Berkeley Center on Cities and Schools estimates that 85% of classrooms in California are over 25; 30% are from 50 to 70 years old, and about 10% are from 70 years old and older.

Climate change has exposed much of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and has highlighted the need to replace outdated or failing heating and cooling systems.

The last government bond offering was made in March 2020 and coincided with the emergence of Covid-19; Concerns about the virus contributed to its defeat, as did construction bonds for most local areas. Counties reeling from the pandemic have been reluctant to ask voters to pass bonds in 2022.

Reflecting subdued demand for facility renovations, a record 252 school districts asked voters Tuesday to pass local construction bonds totaling $40 billion; 13 more community colleges offered bonds totaling $10.6 billion. Thus, the demand for government assistance will far exceed new funding.

Proposition 2, funded by the state’s general fund, required a simple majority of voters, while local school bonds, which require increased property taxes, require 55% majority approval. A quick look at some of the larger proposals showed voters largely supported them: They passed $9 billion in bonds for Los Angeles Unified, $900 million in bonds for Pasadena Unified and $1.15 billion in bonds for San Jose Unified for facility upgrades, with $283 allocated for needs. staff housing.

A portion of state funding for school districts will be allocated to projects on a matching basis, with the state contributing 50% of eligible funding for new construction and 60% of renovation costs.

An estimated $3 billion in unfunded school projects from the 2016 bond measure, Proposition 55, would receive the first Proposition 2 money for new construction and upgrades under existing rules. Some of these projects have already been completed and will receive retroactive funding. The rationale is that districts embarked on projects with the expectation that they would eventually receive government assistance.

Once Proposition 2 runs out of money, a new line of unsecured projects will be formed for the next government bond. Interest and principal on Proposition 2 would be repaid from the state’s general fund at an estimated cost of $500 million per year for 35 years, according to an analysis from the Office of Legislative Analysis.

How will the money be spent?

The $10 billion will be distributed as follows:

• $1.5 billion for community colleges
• $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts is distributed as follows:
  • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of laptop computers at least 20 years old and other modernization efforts.
  • $3.3 billion for new construction
  • $600 million for funds for career and technical education programs.
  • $600 million for charter school facilities
  • $115 million to remove lead from school drinking water

The community college portion of Proposition 2 would help build new classrooms to provide more job training, renovate facilities and add “essential technology” to classrooms, said Melissa Villarin, a system spokeswoman.

“As the state’s leading provider of workforce training, community colleges need classrooms, laboratories and other learning spaces to prepare students for entry-level employment, professional advancement and career transitions,” Villarin said.

The TK-12 portion would allocate 10% of new funding for upgrades and new construction to small districts with fewer than 2,501 students. It would also expand hardship financial assistance to tiny areas whose tax bases are too low to issue bonds. The state will bear the full cost of these districts.

The bond would also allow districts to seek additional money to build gyms, all-purpose rooms or kitchens at schools that don’t have them. But contrary to the wishes of early education advocates, it will not provide funding for one of the most pressing needs districts face: adding more classrooms or renovating existing facilities for transitional kindergarten students.

With the exception of the allocation for smaller counties, Proposition 2 would continue to allocate matching money on a first-come, first-served basis, favoring large counties and small, property-rich areas with their own staff of architects and project managers. Able to manage complex financing needs.

It also would not provide significant staffing to low property value counties; many lack a large enough tax base to issue bonds to meet basic construction needs. Data from the UC Berkeley Center on Cities and Schools shows that property-rich districts, which have more taxable property per student, have received a disproportionate share of matching state funding over the past 25 years.

One of the system’s most vocal critics is Public Advocates, a nonprofit public interest law firm. Its managing partner, John Affeldt, said Wednesday that by passing Proposition 2, “voters recognized the reality that so many facilities are in need of significant upgrades. But I don’t think voters either know or approve of the underlying bond fund allocation, which sends many more dollars to rich counties rather than poor counties.

“We will continue to be a voice to make sure the state creates a system that treats all of its students fairly,” he said.

EdSource reporters Michael Burke and Thomas Peel contributed to this article.