top of page
Search

The Fate of the Bond

  • Writer: Lily Schworm
    Lily Schworm
  • Apr 28
  • 2 min read

Last week our Board voted on a proposed CVUSD bond for the November ballot.  To be honest, I was a little embarrassed when I discovered my lack of knowledge on the issue.  I was surprised by the comments made by our advisors at the meeting regarding the differences in limitation of the two types of facilities bonds, and realized I needed to dive deeper. 

There are two distinct forms of (general obligation) school bonds, both unique from other types of taxes.  Based on our bond workshop notes, Board Bylaws, and my Masters in Governance training, I thought the only difference was the number of governing body votes, which affects the required percentage of ballot votes.  But this week has been a learning experience!  In a nutshell, I knew that Proposition 46 bonds require only the approval of a simple majority of the governing board and need a 66.7% voter approval threshold to pass, but learned that they also limit usage to acquisition or improvement of real property.  It was that last part of which I was unaware.  Proposition 39, passed in 2000, issued in the era of a new type of bond that requires approval by a super majority (4/5ths) of a governing board, but lowers the required voter threshold to only 55%.  However, it also expands the uses to include facilities, specifically listing furnishings or equipment.  That difference is key as we move forward.

I support the bond on the ballot, not because our District desperately needs the funds, but because the repairs are desperately needed.  They are, however, for the most part, maintenance concerns that have been deferred, or pushed off.  We should be able to pay for these repairs from our annual budget.  Despite this, my opinion is that if the community wants to pay the taxes for the repairs, then I honor the decision of a majority of voters.  But not at a 55% voter threshold.  It should be a resounding two thirds majority threshold.  The question is, how do we require a 66.7% voter approval with the expanded usage of the Prop 39 bond language? I don't have the answer here.  So I suppose the fate of the bond has yet to be determined.  

 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Welcome Back Breakfast

As one of the final items agendized for this Tuesday's regular board meeting, the Board will be discussing the annual Welcome Back Breakfast held for all District staff. If you have feedback to be co

 
 
Real Property Advisory Committee

Notice of Acceptance of Applications for Potential Formation of Real Property Advisory Committee California school districts considering the sale, lease, and/or other asset management options for pote

 
 
"Rich Learning Experiences" at Vista Grande

I was able to visit Vista Grande this week to see a wonderful variety of quality educational opportunities with Principal Cordero-Bautista. In the primary grades, some students were segmenting words

 
 

Paid for by "Lily" Emily Schworm For School Board 2024  FPPC #1477909

bottom of page