Districts Celebrate Passage of School Improvement Bonds

Voters this week handed students in six school districts a sweet send-off for summer vacation: the promise of new roofs, new blacktop, fixed-up bathrooms, more classrooms, a new science wing--a wish list fulfilled.

The passage of six school improvement bonds Tuesday means that scores of aging schools will soon undergo major renovation. The work is so overdue that some districts began making construction plans even before the votes were tabulated.

“We were being optimistic,” said Ira Toibin, superintendent of Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, where 79% of the voters approved a $46-million bond.

“We’ve got some projects already on schedule for this summer. It just seems like the whole state has been positively inclined to support education these days.”

Jubilation could be heard in districts throughout the county. Teachers, administrators and parents marveled at what they viewed as voter confidence in schools. They rattled off the election results like proud parents recalling a child’s SAT score.

“We are absolutely elated,” said Ken Manning, who headed a successful campaign for a $100-million bond measure in the Hacienda-La Puente Unified School District. “This was won because our teachers, administrators and classified staff were willing to talk to parents about the needs of the school.”

But the results of Tuesday’s election also raised a perplexing question: Why did most school bonds win approval handily, while one failed?

In the William S. Hart Union High School District, voters once again rejected a $52-million bond that officials said was needed to accommodate a rapidly growing student population. With at least 500 absentee votes still uncounted, the semifinal results were, 66.1% to 33.9%.

Bonds must receive at least two-thirds--or 66.67%--approval to pass.

“It is amazing to me,” said Dennis King, Hart’s governing board president. “How could that many people turn out to choke on [an annual] $34 property tax that is a tax write-off anyway?”

While supporters and opponents agreed that overcrowding at Santa Clarita’s high schools has reached a critical point, they disagree sharply on who should pay to fix it.

Without bond money the district can build only one new junior high school and must abandon plans for three other new schools, officials said.

“The bond would have allowed us to build in the next four to five years,” King said. “Now, it will take us 10 to 12 years. By then, we’ll be so far behind we will never be able to catch up.”

Opponents say they will not support a bond until the district first makes use of all other available funds. “We are not a poor district,” said Cam Noltemeyer of the Committee for Safe Schools and Fair Taxation, which opposed the bond. The district has received $99 million in property from real estate developers, she said.

A number of factors determine whether a bond will succeed at the polls. The economy exerts a major influence, said Bob Blattner, director of legislative services for School Services of California, a private consulting and advocacy group that tracks school bonds.

In good times when people feel a sense of affluence, voters are more likely to approve a school bond. In communities with many school-age children, voters are also likely to be supportive of schools. And conservative areas are typically less likely to approve a bond, Blattner said.

The key is to personalize the campaign, he said, so that each voter can identify with a school and specific problems that the bond will solve.

But the failure--or success--of a bond is sometimes “a plebiscite” on the performance of a local schools, Blattner said. Voters will not vote to spend more money if they are not pleased with what exists.

But even when needs are great and demographics favor passage of a bond, supporters need help from specialists to win at the polls. “Districts are finding, to achieve that remarkably elusive two-thirds vote, you have to bring in a professional,” Blattner said. “It’s pretty tough to get a two-thirds vote with amateurs.”

Even with professionals, there are no guarantees. The Hart campaign hired a consultant and the bond did not pass--unless that result is reversed with uncounted absentee votes. In the Claremont Unified School District the vote was nail-biting close; voters approved a $48.91 million bond, 68.9% to 31.1%.

“We had 2.2% to spare,” said Jeanne Hamilton, co-chair of Yes for Claremont Schools. “But we’re thrilled .”

The money will be used to build a science wing at Claremont High School and a theater for the school’s prize-winning thespians.

LOCAL ELECTIONS

Claremont Unified School Dist.

Measure

Y--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 4,547 69 No 2,052 31

*--*

Glendora Unified School Dist.

Measure

G--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 3,874 77 No 1,136 23

*--*

Hacienda La Puente Dist.

Measure

A--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 5,545 79 No 1,435 21

*--*

Manhattan Beach

Measure

A--Rezoning of former Metlox property to public use.

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 3,133 39 No 4,830 61

*--*

Palos Verdes Peninsula Dist.

Measure

K--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 9,208 79 No 2,417 21

*--*

Rowland Unified School Dist.

Measure

R--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 4,144 84 No 816 16

*--*

Wiseburn School Dist.

Measure

E--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 1,165 76 No 376 24

*--*

Hart Union High School Dist.

Measure

S--School improvement bonds

Requires two-thirds vote

*--*

100% Precincts Reporting Votes % Yes 10,615 66 No 5,443 34

*--*