Election night brought disappointing news for many California school districts hoping to fund campus repairs, as nearly half of the local school bond measures on last week’s ballot appear headed for defeat — a result that could hit hard in parts of the Inland Empire and beyond.
While election officials continue tallying votes in several counties, early returns show that of the 86 school districts statewide that asked voters to approve construction and modernization bonds — totaling $12.4 billion — only 50 measures were passing or ahead as of Tuesday night. California requires a 55% approval threshold for these bonds to pass, and the total amount sought this cycle was notably smaller than in previous major election years. Two years ago, the statewide bond total was nearly four times higher, and most measures were approved.
“This is a stunning outcome,” said Sara Hinkley, director of policy and research at UC Berkeley’s Center for Cities and Schools. “It leaves some districts with very few options. They have to be deeply concerned right now.”
Local officials largely pointed to economic strain as the culprit behind voter hesitancy.
“Everyone wants what’s best for children, but when gas, groceries and utility bills are squeezing family budgets, people look for ways to cut back,” said Mays Kakish, superintendent of the Beaumont Unified School District near Banning in the Inland Empire. “In the short term, this loss of funding is going to be painful.”
Beaumont is one of the few growing districts in California, and district leaders say they urgently needed the $86 million the bond would have generated. Last year alone, the district reported 138 roof leaks across its campuses, according to district spokesperson Thomas Guzowski. The district also needs to replace 81 portable classrooms that have outlived their usefulness.
Some districts had hoped to tap into Proposition 2, the $10 billion statewide school construction bond approved by voters in 2024, as a backup funding source. But Proposition 2 requires local matching funds — meaning that without their own bond revenue, districts like Beaumont won’t be able to access that state money, Guzowski said.
Even for districts that do qualify, most of the Proposition 2 money earmarked for repairs has already been allocated. Funding remains available for new construction projects and emergency repairs, but there is a lengthy waiting list for the remaining dollars set aside for everyday maintenance needs like leaky roofs.
Inequities in the system
John Affeldt, managing attorney at the public interest law firm Public Advocates, said he wasn’t surprised by the mixed results. Wealthier regions — such as the Bay Area and Orange County — tend to propose larger bond measures that typically pass, allowing those districts to draw down matching Proposition 2 funds. Meanwhile, lower-income communities often seek smaller bonds that are more likely to fail at the ballot box.
“Those who already have more end up getting more,” Affeldt said. “It’s an unfair system, and it reflects a recurring pattern of broken state facility-funding mechanisms.”
Affeldt’s firm has filed suit against the state over what it calls flaws in the Proposition 2 funding formula and is awaiting a judge’s ruling on the state’s request to dismiss the case. Earlier this year, a judge declined to issue an injunction sought by the plaintiffs but acknowledged they had “a reasonable chance of success” on at least part of their claims.
A big win in San Diego
Not every district came away empty-handed. San Diego Unified School District landed on the opposite end of the spectrum, with voters approving its $3.4 billion bond measure — the largest in the state this cycle. The funding will go toward swimming pools, new performing arts facilities, staff housing, upgraded air conditioning systems, security improvements and other campus upgrades. Homeowners will pay an average of $294 a year to help cover the cost.
“It was a fantastic night. I’m still on cloud nine,” said Sabrina Bazzo, vice president of the district’s school board. “This means every student in our district — not just those in wealthier neighborhoods — will have access to top-notch facilities.”
Bazzo credited the bond’s success to broad community backing, including support from local labor unions after the district agreed to hire union workers for much of the construction. Even the local taxpayers association backed the measure, largely because it wasn’t a new tax but a replacement for an earlier 2022 bond.
Stuck in a repair cycle
Not all districts were as fortunate. Visalia Unified School District, near Fresno, appears to be on the losing end of its $158 million bond request, with the measure trailing in early returns.
“The economy is tough right now for a lot of people,” said Superintendent Kirk Shrum. “It’s disappointing to think about everything we could have done — renovating restrooms, buying new furniture — and now we have to wait.”
More than 70% of the district’s buildings are at least 50 years old and in dire need of repair, Shrum said. A districtwide facilities assessment a few years back put the total cost of needed repairs at $600 million — far too large a figure to put before voters. Instead, the district scaled its request down to $158 million, focused only on the most pressing needs.
Without bond funding, the district will have to shuffle existing resources to cover repairs as they arise, but Shrum said that approach will never be enough to catch up.
“When things break, you get stuck in this endless cycle of patching and replacing,” Shrum said. “But a roof can only be patched so many times before it just gives out.”
Original source: CalMatters
