Proposition 55, the "Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act," is among four propositions that will be on the March 2nd primary ballot.

If approved by the voters, the measure will allow the state to issue $12.3 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of kindergarten through 12 grade schools and higher education facilities.

The bond measure is designed to provide funding to relieve overcrowding in California's schools, build new structures and repair older facilities.

Funds would be targeted to those areas with the greatest need and would have to be spent according to strict accountability measures.

In order to be eligible for new or modernized facilities, school districts are required to demonstrate the need for new or modernized facilities. Prop. 55 would address a need identified by these districts for both new and upgraded facilities. New construction for nearly one million pupils and modernization of current schools for an additional 1.1 million pupils is needed, according to the school districts.

Proponents of the bond act state that 73 percent of California classrooms are more than 25 years old and are the third most crowded in the nation. They also feel that Prop. 55 is an investment in the future of the state's economy and will produce local jobs.

Opponents feel that, while there is a need for new schools, Prop. 55 would mean more debt for taxpayers by raising taxes. They state that the measure is "fundamentally flawed, poorly drafted, and grossly unfair." They claim that 25 percent of the funds would go to Los Angeles, which only has 12 percent of California's students.

Charles Martin, chair of the Libertarian Party of Siskiyou County, gives "a big no" to Prop. 55. He says, "It would be like me going on a mad spending spree with my Visa card and then telling my kids and grand kids to pay it off."

Dunsmuir Elementary School District superintendent/principal Cindy Rinne is one of the proponents of the measure.

She said DES was able to complete a renovation project during the summer of 2003 thanks to Prop. 47, the November 2002 voter approved $13 billion bond issue.

"We were fortunate to be able to address our needs with those funds," Rinne said. "However, there are a lot of schools who were approved for renovations who are still on a waiting list. This bond measure would be a major boost for rural schools that do not get a lot of the state's pot of money."

Rinne said that even though DES and other Siskiyou County schools are seeing a steady decline in enrollment, she said Prop. 55 would enhance the class size reduction mandate by providing more classrooms and the opportunity to hire additional teachers.

"There are members of my staff who disagree with me," Rinne said. "They don't believe the state should be taking on any more debt. But, until someone comes up with a better way to provide the much needed funding for our schools, I'll back this proposal. Having adequate facilities to meet the teaching needs of our children is vital."

Steve Mitrovich, superintendent of the Mount Shasta and Weed elementary school districts, also feels that the bond measure would benefit rural schools.

Mitrovich said that, with declining enrollment in the two schools and modernization projects having already been completed, he hasn't been following the impact of the measure on local school districts.

"But, my understanding is that if Proposition 55 fails to pass, other state revenues that would go to rural school districts will be diverted to bigger schools to fund their modernization and new construction needs at the expense of the smaller districts," Mitrovich said. "And, to be honest, California school funding is generally not all that great."

Penny Heilman, a Dunsmuir Elementary School teacher and College of the Siskiyous board member, said she does not feel it is appropriate to speak as either a teacher or board member on the topic.

"From a personal standpoint, I think we need it," Heilman said. "But, I don't think it's a good proposition. Nobody wants to put more of a financial burden on anyone. But, I don't see any other way for us to keep up with the needs of our schools. By the time the state becomes financially capable of upgrading our school system, our schools will be way behind.

"I get annoyed with people who say we don't need more money for education," she said. "I would love for these people to come to our schools and see what our needs really are."

As proposed under Prop. 55, allocations of the bond funding would be $10 billion for elementary and secondary schools and $2.3 billion for higher education facilities.

For kindergarten through 12 grade, the funds would be disseminated as follows:

€ $5.26 billion would be available for the purchase of land and construction of new school buildings. A school district would be required to pay 50 percent of these costs unless it qualifies for state hardship funding. Up to $300 million in new construction funding would also be made available to charter schools.

€ $2.25 billion would be available for rehabilitation of existing older school facilities. Local school districts would be required to pay 40 percent of the project costs from local resources.

€ $2.44 billion would be provided for districts with critically overcrowded schools.

€ $50 million would be provided for joint-use projects such as facilities used by both a kindergarten through 12th grade school districts and a local library district.

For higher education facilities, which would include construction of new buildings and related infrastructure, altering of existing buildings and purchasing equipment, the break-down in the $2.3 billion funding would be as follows:

€ $920 for community colleges.

€ $690 million for California state universities.

€ $690 million for Universities of California.

Cost of the $12.3 billion in bonds over a 30 year period are estimated to be about $24.7 billion, based on the current interest rate of 5.25 percent for this type of bond. The average payment for the principal ($12.3 billion) and the interest ($12.4 billion) would be $823 million per year.