A student sits in the hallway of San Juan Unified’s El Camino Elementary High School in Sacramento.

Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

Californians on Tuesday decisively passed a $10 billion initiative to support construction projects for TK-12 schools and community colleges. Proposition 2’s victory would allow the first state bond issuance for school construction since 2016 and replenish depleted state funding.

According to preliminary results from all precincts, 56.8 percent of voters supported the bond measure, while 43.2 percent opposed it. Mail-in ballots and provisional ballots that have not yet been received will still be counted. Bond support broke 60% in Los Angeles, Alpine, Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Mendocino, Alameda, Yolo, Marin and San Mateo counties. Only the state’s northernmost counties opposed it.

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

“What is clear is that once people understand what Prop. 2 will do and the impact it will have on schools, they support it,” said Molly Weedn, a pro-Prop spokeswoman. 2 campaigns. “People see the need in real time. When you have a leaky roof, it leaks even more.”

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

Although enrollment in most districts is projected to continue declining over the next decade, the need for unattended repairs and replacement of aging portable classrooms and buildings has increased rapidly. The Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley estimates that 85% of California’s classroom is over 25; 30% are between 50 and 70 years old, and about 10% are 70 or 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has exposed much of the state to unprecedented levels of heat and unhealthy air and has highlighted the need to replace outdated or failing heating and cooling systems.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 in March 2020 coincided with the emergence of Covid 19, and concerns about the virus contributed to the defeat of Proposition 13 and the majority of localities’ construction bonds. Districts recovering from the pandemic have been reluctant to ask voters to pass bonds in 2022.

Reflecting pent-up demand to address facilities, a record 252 school districts asked voters Tuesday to pass local construction bonds totaling $40 billion; An additional 13 community colleges offered bonds totaling $10.6 billion. Thus, the demand for state aid will far exceed the new financing.

Proposition 2 required a simple majority vote to pass; school bonds require 55% majority approval. A brief look at some of the major proposals showed voters were largely supportive; 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 for facilities improvements, with $283 earmarked for investments. housing for staff.

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

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

Once the money in Proposition 2 runs out, a new set of unfunded projects will be created for the next government bond. The interest and principal on Proposition 2 would be repaid from the state’s general fund at an estimated cost of $500 million annually over 35 years, according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Interest and principal

How will the money be spent?

$10 billion will be divided as follows:

• $1.5 billion for community colleges
• $8.5 billion was allocated to TK-12 regions:
  • $4 billion for repairs, replacement of portable devices 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 allocated to remove lead from school water

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

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

The TK-12 portion of Proposition 2 would allocate 10% of new funding for modernization and new construction for small districts with fewer than 2,501 students. It would also expand financial hardship assistance to small counties whose tax bases are too low to issue bonds. The state will pick up the entire bill for these districts.

The bond would also allow districts to seek additional money to build gyms, multi-purpose rooms or kitchens in schools that lack them. But contrary to the wishes of early education advocates, it will not allocate funds to add more classrooms or renovate existing space for transitional kindergarten students, some of the most pressing needs facing districts.

Other than the allotment for smaller districts, Proposition 2 would continue to allocate matching money on a first-come, first-served basis, favoring large districts and property-rich smaller districts with a staff of in-house architects and project managers. Adept at handling complex financing requirements.

It also wouldn’t significantly provide a larger state match for areas with low property values; many do not have a large enough tax base to meet basic construction needs. Data from the Center for Cities + Schools at UC Berkeley shows that property-rich districts with more taxable property per student have received a disproportionately higher share of matching state funding over the past 25 years.

One outspoken critic of the system is the nonprofit public interest law firm Public Advocates. “Voters have recognized the fact that many facilities are in need of significant modernization,” managing partner John Affeldt said Wednesday in passing Proposition 2. “But I also don’t think voters are aware of and approve of the underlying distribution of bond funds, which sends far more dollars to high-wealth areas than to low-income areas.”

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