Riverside County School Districts Voice Support For Proposition 2

Voters across California will be asked whether they support issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund construction and modernization of public education facilities this November.

If approved, Proposition 2, the public education facilities bond measure, would allow the state to issue $10 billion in bonds, with $8.5 billion dedicated to elementary and secondary educational facilities and the remaining $1.5 billion for community college facilities.

“Proposition 2 is a long awaited opportunity to build more schools and expand schools in fast growing areas of the state and to modernize or bring up to date and repair the schools that are aging all across the state,” Nancy Chaires Espinoza, a legislative advocate for the Coalition for Adequate School Housing, said.

Of the $8.5 billion for elementary and secondary schools, $4 billion is to be used for the renovation of existing buildings, $3.3 billion is to be used for new construction, $600 million is to be used for career and technical education facilities and the final $600 million is for charter schools.

The proposition also seeks to increase how much the state will cover for projects in certain school districts that have lower assessed property values or a higher number of students who are low income, English learners or foster youth. It also allows school districts unable to raise at least $15 million from local bonds to apply for additional state funding.

It would also allow up to $115 million of renovation funds to be used to reduce lead levels in water at public school sites, additional funding to build or renovate classrooms that will be used for transitional kindergarten and, in some cases, provide extra renovation funding for districts looking to expand or build a new gymnasium, multipurpose room, library or school kitchen.

“In fast growing communities, I think it’s easier for folks to understand the need to build new schools or to expand schools, but there’s sometimes a perception that in other parts of the state where enrollment or growth is flat or even declining, that there should not be a need to spend on school facilities,” Chaires Espinoza said.

However, she said that maintenance and modernization needs remain high even in school districts that are not seeing growth in enrollment and the cost for those types of projects can often be higher than the cost to build a new facility.

Both Moreno Valley Unified School District and Jurupa Valley Unified School Districts voted unanimously to adopt a resolution in support of the proposition.

“State facility funding and local facility funding kind of work hand in hand, so the district must have local facility funding to apply for or have the ability to access state facility funding, but if there’s not state facility funding available, then [the district] would not be able to access that,” Paula Ford, assistant superintendent for business services at Jurupa Unified School District, said at the Aug. 12 meeting. “For this reason, the administration is recommending that the board adopt the resolution in support of Proposition 2.”

The boards of both Beaumont Unified School District and San Jacinto Unified School District are set to discuss similar resolutions at their meetings this week. Last month, the Palo Verde Unified School District Board of Education declined to take action on the resolution.

“There was no consensus or vote; the Board stated they wanted to do more research,” Janenne McBride, executive assistant at Palo Verde Unified, said in an email to The Riverside Record. “At this time, there is no plan to bring the item back for a vote.”

And while local school bonds are paid for by property tax revenue, state bonds are paid through the general fund. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the nonpartisan fiscal and policy advisor for the California State Legislature, Proposition 2 would cost the state an additional $500 million per year for the next 35 years from the general fund.

“This would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget,” the agency said. “Since the state has to pay interest on the money it borrows, the total cost of the bond would be about 10 percent more (after adjusting for inflation) than if the state paid up front with money it already has.”

Voters in March 2020 rejected a $15 million bond effort that would have provided $9 billion for elementary and secondary schools, $4 billion for universities and $2 billion for community colleges. It was the first statewide education-related bond measure to fail since 1994.

“The opposition we saw with the last school facilities bond that went to the ballot was really the exception to the rule,” Chaires Espinoza said. “Californians have historically been overwhelmingly supportive of school facilities bonds.”

Supporters of the proposition include the California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, Association of California School Administrators, California Builders Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, California Retired Teachers Association, Community College League of California and the League of Women Voters of California.

Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy organization that opposed the bill that created the proposition, has since softened its stance to say that it has taken no position on the measure.

“Given that we believe it maintains an unconstitutional structural flaw, Public Advocates cannot support Proposition 2,” the organization said in a statement posted to its website. “We are, however, also not taking a formal position in opposition to the Proposition given the tremendous, long-unaddressed need for additional capital support for facilities in California.”