Quick Take
If approved by California voters, Proposition 2 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to help schools and colleges to fund repairs and construction. Santa Cruz County superintendents talked to Lookout about what they can expect for their districts.
In the Nov. 5 election, California voters will be asked if they support a $10 billion bond for construction projects for K-12 schools and community colleges and, depending on where you live, you may also be asked if you support a local school district’s bond measure.
California’s public school facilities are aging and, at the same time, facing rising demands as climate change heats up classrooms – many without air conditioning – and brings more severe rain events that worsen leaky roofs.
NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURES: Find Lookout’s local and state coverage here
The state bond measure, known as Proposition 2, would provide matching funds to school districts and community colleges who issue local bonds — $8.5 billion for K-12 school districts and $1.5 billion for community colleges.
In Santa Cruz County, five school districts are asking voters to approve bond measures. School districts across the state have placed more than 244 other bond measures on the November ballot, totaling nearly $40 billion, according to EdSource.
Soquel Union Elementary School District Superintendent Scott Turnbull said aging schools across the state have serious infrastructure needs and limited funding sources.
“Our facility needs are significant,” he said. “I know other school district facility needs are significant. And these are the funding sources that are available to us. That’s why we’re going out for a bond. There’s not another funding source to address the significant facility needs. So, yes, the funds are needed.”
California is one of several states that doesn’t have a dedicated fund for building new school facilities and modernizing infrastructure. Instead, money for those improvements has to come from state and local bonds. Voters most recently approved a state bond for school facilities in 2016, for $9 billion, which has been used up. Voters rejected another state school bond for $15 billion in 2020.
The way local districts get money from state bonds is complicated – and some say it favors larger, wealthier districts. The state pays 50% of the cost of new construction projects and 60% of the cost of renovation or modernization projects, and in turn school districts pay the rest through local bonds.
By state law, the amount of total assessed property value within a school district or community college area limits how much the schools can issue in bonds.
Larger, wealthier districts have an easier time getting local bonds approved, and with higher property values, they also have an easier time raising more money. With a higher bond amount, the state matches that higher total.
Because of this disparity, civil rights law firm Public Advocates has threatened to sue the state, and said Proposition 2 included this “unconstitutional structural flaw.”
“As study after study has demonstrated, over the past 25 years, California’s universal 60% match for modernization funds has delivered more than four times as much state bond funds per student to wealthy districts as low-wealth districts,” the firm wrote in a release.
Public Advocates urged the state to change its matching formula to address the disparity.
Proposition 2 pays a slightly higher share of costs for districts with lower assessed property values and a higher number of students who are low-income, English learners or foster youth. The formula is adjusted for some districts by increasing the state’s share of costs to 55% of new construction projects and 65% for renovation project costs.
The proposition also sets aside funds for smaller districts, like Pacific Elementary School District in Davenport.
Pacific Elementary School Superintendent Eric Gross said he thinks the district will qualify for some Proposition 2 funds if it passes, but he’s not sure how much yet. He said the needs are huge for schools and the repairs need to be done, yesterday.
“The longer you wait, the more expensive it is,” he said. “There’s a desperate need, and the sooner you do it the better, the cheaper.”
He said while the funds are severely needed, and he supports Proposition 2, it isn’t enough.
“I’m in support of Prop 2, but there are drawbacks to it,” said Gross, citing the state’s match formula and how larger, wealthier districts disproportionately benefit from it.
He said his single-school district was limited to raising $1.75 million through local bonds – which it successfully passed in March. Gross said the district has already used up those funds, and more, on projects including replacing the school’s leaky roof, installing a water station and building a walk-in refrigerator and freezer in its kitchen.
The district still has about $8 million in needed repairs – including demolishing two classrooms and rebuilding them. Gross said those projects are already approved by the Division of the State Architect.
“The need that we have would probably be about halfway covered by the already approved plans that would be funded by Prop 2,” he said.
Gross added that he understands that taxpayers might be tired of all the requests for schools. He gets it – he’s a taxpayer, too, and doesn’t want to pay more taxes, either.
“I think we have been inadequately funding schools for a very long time, and so these needs have piled up because we couldn’t afford to take care of them,” he said.
SUESD’s Turnbull said his district’s school board passed a resolution in favor of Proposition 2.
If the proposition passes, the district will likely work with a consultant to figure out how much money it could get in state matching funds. The district is asking voters this November to approve a $73 million bond.
The district passed a $42 million bond measure in 2016 and, after a lengthy application process, received $5 million in matching funds from the state. Turnbull said those funds are helping the district with projects like the New Brighton Middle School athletic fields.
Cabrillo College President Matt Wetstein said his school most likely wouldn’t get any money from Proposition 2, as it doesn’t have any approved local matching funds and the college doesn’t rank as high as others for need.
He said the college’s board of trustees hasn’t had any recent discussions about pursuing a bond: “I don’t see us going for a bond for a while.”
When the college put a $274 million bond on the ballot in 2020 – which was rejected by voters – Cabrillo’s estimated cost for facilities needs was $650 million in 2024 construction estimates.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.