By Jondi Gumz
When you see Proposition 13 on your ballot, you might think of the initiative passed in 1978 to limit annual increases of property assessments and prevent senior citizens from being priced out of their homes by high taxes.
This year’s Proposition 13 is something different. Voters will decide whether to authorize $15 billion in state general obligation bonds to build and modernize public education facilities. The money would be split this way: $9 billion for K-12 schools and preschools — $5.2 billion for modernization, $2.8 billion for new construction, $500 million for charter schools, and $500 million for career technical education — and $6 billion for community college and universities, with priority to projects addressing life-safety deficiencies.
Funding rules would change to give school districts and community college districts authority to issue more local bonds, and allow school districts to levy higher developer fees.
If the bond measure passes, individual property owners will not see a line on their property tax bills to repay the bond.
Instead, the state would repay this bond over 35 years, like a mortgage but a little longer, with interest estimated at $11 billion.
The annual payments of $740 million per year would come from the state’s General Fund, which means that money would not be available to fund other needs in California. The annual payment represents about one-half of 1 percent of the current General Fund, according to the state.
The state has $80 billion of bonds supported by General Fund payments, with $42 billion of voter-approved bonds not yet sold. The state estimates about $6 billion annually from the General Fund is used to repay bonds.
The last state bond for education was $9 billion in 2016, and school district applications for funding exceed what is available.
E. Toby Boyd, president of the California Teachers Association, Pamela Kahn, president of the California School Nurses Association, and Brian Rice, president of California Professional Firefighters, signed the ballot argument for the measure. They contend the money will replace deteriorating water pipes, remove mold and asbestos from old classrooms and provide seismic upgrades, security improvements and functioning smoke alarms.
2018 Soquel High Valedictorians and Salutatorians
The opposing argument comes from Sen. Brian Jones, R-El Cajon, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Larry Sand, a retired teacher.
They contend the governor and the Legislature have wasted money on pet projects, such as high-speed rail, which could have been spent to upgrade aging school facilities without going into debt.
As of Feb. 4, the top supporters of Prop. 13 had raised more than $8 million for their cause, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
The California Coalition for Public Higher Education Issues Committee, raised the most, $1.5 million, with the Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee close behind, raising $1.05 million.
Last year, California Teachers Association Issues PAC raised $500,000, to support the measure and the California Democratic Party raised $250,000.
This year, the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee raised $333,333 for it, the Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Issues PAC $330,000, Member’s Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, $250,000, the UCLA Foundation $200,000, and the University of California San Francisco Foundation, $200,000.
No contributions have been reported to the No on 13 campaign this election cycle, according to the FPPC.
A coalition that includes the League of Women Voters of California submitted more than 860,000 signatures on an initiative for the November 2020 ballot to change the 1978 Prop. 13 rules by requiring all commercial and industrial properties to be assessed at fair market value.