California voters say yes to a $10 billion school construction bond

Californians on Tuesday decisively passed a $10 billion initiative to support TK-12 school and community college construction projects. Proposition 2’s victory will pass the first state bond for school construction since 2016 and replenish dried-up state funding.

After initial results from all precincts, 56.8% of voters supported the bond measure, while 43.2% opposed it. Still to be counted are unreceived and provisional ballots, and support for the bond has broken 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.

Prop. 2 was one of two $10 billion Treasury bonds on the ballot; the other was Prop. 4 to finance efforts to reduce the impact of climate change. Supporters of Prop. 2 were concerned that voters would choose one over the other, but both were easily passed.

“What is clear is that people support it if they understand what Proposition 2 will do and its impact on schools,” said Molly Weedn, a pro-Prop spokesperson. 2 campaign. “People see the need in real time. If you have a leaky roof, it will only get leakier.”

The campaign, organized by the Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), which represents school districts and school construction interests that endorsed the effort, had not issued a statement as of Wednesday morning.

Even with enrollment expected to continue declining in most districts over the next decade, the need for unattended repairs and replacement of aging portable classrooms and buildings has mushroomed. UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools estimates that 85% of California classrooms are over 25 years old; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old and about 10% are 70 years or older.

Climate change has exposed more of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and underscores the need to replace aging or failing heating and cooling systems.

The last Treasury proposal, in March 2020, coincided with the rise of Covid 19, and concerns about the virus contributed to the defeat of Prop. 13 and a majority of local district construction bonds. Districts recovering from the pandemic have been reluctant to ask voters to approve bonds in 2022.

Reflecting suppressed demand for facilities, a record 252 school districts asked voters Tuesday to approve local construction bonds worth a total of $40 billion; another 13 community colleges proposed bonds totaling $10.6 billion. The demand for state aid will therefore far exceed the new financing.

Proposal 2 required a simple majority vote to pass; school bonds require approval of a 55% majority. A quick look at some of the larger proposals indicated that voters were largely behind them, with a $9 billion bond in Los Angeles Unified, a $900 million bond in Pasadena Unified and a $1.15 billion bond in San Jose Unified to upgrade facilities, with $283 set aside for workforce housing.

The share of state funding for school districts will be allocated to projects on an appropriate basis, with the state contributing 50% of eligible funding for new construction and 60% of costs for renovation.

An estimated $3 billion in unfunded school projects from the 2016 bond measure, Proposition 55, will receive first aid in Prop’s new construction and modernization money under existing rules. 2. Some of these projects have already been completed and will receive retroactive financing. This is because districts undertook the projects with the expectation that they would eventually receive state aid.

Once Prop. 2 runs out of money, a new set of unfinanced projects will be formed for the next government bond. The interest and principal for Prop. 2 will be reimbursed from the state’s general fund at an estimated cost of $500 million per year for 35 years, according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Interest and principal for

How the money will be spent

The $10 billion will be distributed as follows:

• $1.5 billion for community colleges
• $8.5 billion for TK-12 districts, distributed as follows:
  • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portables that are at least 20 years old and other modernization work
  • $3.3 billion for new construction
  • $600 million for facilities for career and technical education programs
  • $600 million for charter school facilities
  • $115 million will be set aside to remove lead from school water

The part of Prop. 2 for community colleges will help build new classrooms to provide more job training, renovate facilities and add “essential technology” to learning spaces, said Melissa Villarin, a spokesperson for the system.

“As the leading provider of workforce training in the state, community colleges need classrooms, laboratories and other instructional spaces to prepare students for entry-level employment, professional development and career changes,” Villarin said.

The part of Prop. 2 for TK-12 will reserve 10% of the new funding for modernization and new construction for small districts, defined as districts with fewer than 2,501 students. It will also expand financial distress assistance to small districts whose tax bases are too low to issue bonds. The state will pick up the entire tab for those districts.

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

With the exception of the small district set-aside, Prop. 2 Continue allocating matching funds on a first-come, first-served basis, which favors large districts and small districts with many properties, with their own staff of architects and project managers. adept at navigating complex financing requirements.

It also will not significantly increase state match for districts with low property values; many lack a tax base large enough to issue bonds to meet basic construction needs. Data from UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities + Schools shows that real estate-rich districts, with more taxable properties per student, have received a disproportionately higher share of corresponding state funding over the past 25 years.

One of the outspoken critics of the system is the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates. Its managing partner, John Affeldt, said Wednesday that in passing Proposition 2, “voters recognized the reality that so many facilities need significant modernization. But I don’t think voters are also aware of or approving the underlying distribution of bond funds that send so many more dollars to high-wealth districts rather than low-wealth districts.”

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