The University of California is basing its entire construction
budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 on Proposition 47, a bond
initiative worth $13.05 billion ““ though the vote’s
outcome is uncertain.
If passed, the Kindergarten-University Public Education
Facilities Bond Act of 2002 would allow the state to issue bonds
for school construction across all levels of public education,
including UCs.
However, an August field poll found only 54 percent of
Californians favored the initiative, with a margin of error of 5
percent, indicating a near-even contest.
There is no margin of confidence going into this election, said
Senior Vice President of University Affairs Bruce Darling at the
September regents’ meeting.
If the measure does not pass, projects will be delayed at least
one year, said UCLA Chancellor Albert Carnesale.
The UC has no contingency plans if voters reject the
measure.
“There’s no “˜Plan B’ here,” said
UC press aide Michael Reese.
The only project scheduled to be funded by Proposition 47
revenue at UCLA is seismic mitigation in the Engineering 1
building. System-wide, 16 other projects are budgeted under
anticipated bond revenues.
Additional seismic and other projects are tentatively scheduled
for 2003-2004 at UCLA and all other UC campuses.
Over thirty years, the general obligation bonds would be paid
out of the general fund at an estimated total cost of $26.2
billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The
projected annual cost would be $873 million.
The majority of bond revenue would go to K-12 expenses. Higher
education’s share would be $1.65 billion, $408.2 million of
which would go to the UC.
Though there is little organized opposition to the measure,
those against the initiative are concerned it is ill-timed and
unfairly allocates funds.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is against not only
Proposition 47, but all bond measures this election, citing
California’s present budget problems and doubts on the
state’s ability to pay for all of its obligations.
“We owe massively for existing bonds,” said Kris
Vosbergh, executive director of the HJTA.
Californians should wait at least until the March 2004 election
before approving any new bond measures, he said.
In a statement, State Senator William “Pete” Knight,
R-Palmdale, said the initiative unfairly benefits the Los Angeles
Unified School District, since the LAUSD would be allowed to
reserve funds earmarked for critically overcrowded schools as well
as compete for other revenue with schools across the state.
To be considered critically overcrowded, a school must be
overenrolled by 210 percent. Proposition 47 would reserve $1.7
billion for these schools.
The LAUSD could receive 24 percent of bond revenues even though
it only serves 12 percent of California students, Knight
stated.
Proponents of the initiative say a guarantee of funds to crowded
districts makes sense.
“(Overcrowded districts) have problems other school
districts just don’t have,” said Yes on 47 press aide
Scott Macdonald.
For example, areas with overenrollment problems often have a
shortage of available land to build new schools, he added.
After voters make a decision on Proposition 47 on Nov. 5, they
will face a $12.3 billion bond initiative, authorized by the same
legislation as Proposition 47, in March 2004. If Californians
reject Proposition 47, the same measure will appear again in Nov.
2004.