California Legislature likely to ask voters to borrow $20 billion for climate, schools

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Mired in a stream of multi-billion dollar budget deficits, the California Legislature on Wednesday will likely turn to voters for help.

Lawmakers are set to vote on whether to place a pair of $10 billion bonds on the November ballot. If approved by voters, the money would pay for the building of new schools and help communities prepare for the impacts of climate change.

California was swimming in money just a few years ago as budget surpluses totaled well over $100 billion through the pandemic. But the state had to slash spending to cover deficits totaling more than $78 billion over the past two years as revenues declined amid rising inflation and an economic slowdown in the state’s pivotal technology industry.

Money from the bonds would backfill some of those cuts, plus pay for a slew of priority projects up and down the state for years to come.

But the money isn’t free. The climate bond alone will cost taxpayers more than $19 billion to pay off, with annual payments of $650 million per year, putting more pressure on the state’s finances.

Asking voters for permission to borrow large sums of money is always risky, particularly when doing it multiple times in the same election.

RELATED COVERAGE Microsoft will pay $14M to settle allegations it discriminated against employees who took leave Northern California wildfire spreads, with more hot weather expected. Thousands evacuate Movie Review: Eddie Murphy returns to Beverly Hills, which is good enough for everyone

In addition to the two statewide ballots, voters will likely be asked to approve hundreds of local borrowing proposals — including a massive $20 billion housing bond for the nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay.

Recent history suggests voters are tiring of these bonds.

In 2020, despite a history of approving statewide school bonds, voters rejected a $15 billion education borrowing proposal — what would have been the largest in state history. And earlier this year, voters only narrowly approved Proposition 1 authorizing the state to borrow more than $6 billion to help house the homeless — a result widely seen as a warning for lawmakers who were considering taking on more debt.

“I would have thought that the razor-thin margin on Proposition 1 would be a wake-up call on these ill-defined bonds,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Whether it comes to education homelessness or climate, California citizens perceive that they are not getting value for their dollar.”

Supporters say voters are savvy enough to recognize the great need that will be filled — most school facilities are built with a combination of state and local money. But demand for state dollars is so great that there’s a waiting list of projects worth more than $3 billion, according to Democratic Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who sits on the committee that approves the funding.

Much of the climate bond would go to improve water supply and help prepare for wildfires. Statewide, nearly 400 water systems don’t meet state safety standards. Meanwhile, 15 of the 20 most destructive wildfires in state history have occurred in the past decade. Heat waves are getting longer and more severe, placing public safety at risk, and intense winter storms have caused damaging floods in recent years.

“It’s something that’s more tangible for people here and more real because they’ve seen it so much,” said Melissa Romero, deputy legislative director for California Environmental Voters, an advocacy group that supports the bond.

Negotiations over the education bond have been ongoing for nearly two years, and the final result did not please everyone. Money from the bond would only apply to public schools and community colleges, excluding the University of California and the California State University systems.

Plus, some advocacy groups say the bond would benefit wealthier school districts at the expense of poorer districts — something they say has been a persistent problem with the state’s program of funding school facility construction.

“It would continue the status quo, with some nominal equity adjustments that really won’t address the underlying issue,” said Nicole Gon Ochi, deputy managing attorney for Public Advocates, a nonprofit law firm and advocacy group.

Muratsuchi said the bond would make it easier for districts to qualify for the state’s financial hardship program and would help districts with fewer resources navigate the complex process of applying for state grants.

Concerns about the climate bond center on whether $10 billion is enough to make a difference, especially given how the money would be divided up.

“I fear that the money in this bond has been so split up into so many different directions that we’re not going to see the results we need to see,” she said.

Democratic Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia noted that “difficult decisions needed to be made” given the competing priorities for limited funding.

“We also had to consider the dynamics of what voters and members of this House would support,” he said.