I'm undecided on this. I'm generally for increased school funding, but against obligating funds with no specified revenue source. So, I don't know.
The revenue for the funds is the sale of the bonds. That’s the funding source for these projects. The bonds create a debt that gets paid back by the state over the next few decades. The money for that comes from the general fund which is composed of state taxes. It’s first thing that gets taken care of when the budget gets made for the year. At this point in time Ca has a huge general fund surplus.
I hope there is this much consternation for the billions of dollars Ca voters pass annually for things like.....water infrastructure projects! 🤨
I'm undecided on this. I'm generally for increased school funding, but against obligating funds with no specified revenue source. So, I don't know.
The revenue for the funds is the sale of the bonds. That’s the funding source for these projects. The bonds create a debt that gets paid back by the state over the next few decades. The money for that comes from the general fund which is composed of state taxes. It’s first thing that gets taken care of when the budget gets made for the year. At this point in time Ca has a huge general fund surplus.
I hope there is this much consternation for the billions of dollars Ca voters pass annually for things like.....water infrastructure projects! 🤨
So instead of creating a bond measure to pay for the improvements that will have to be paid back with interest out of the general fund, why can't we just vote to earmark part of the current general fund surplus to pay outright for the school improvements? It would save those interest dollars.
This is not meant to be a snarky question. I don't know enough about the regulations regarding spending from the general fund as others here might.
The revenue for the funds is the sale of the bonds. That’s the funding source for these projects. The bonds create a debt that gets paid back by the state over the next few decades. The money for that comes from the general fund which is composed of state taxes. It’s first thing that gets taken care of when the budget gets made for the year. At this point in time Ca has a huge general fund surplus.
I hope there is this much consternation for the billions of dollars Ca voters pass annually for things like.....water infrastructure projects! 🤨
So instead of creating a bond measure to pay for the improvements that will have to be paid back with interest out of the general fund, why can't we just vote to earmark part of the current general fund surplus to pay outright for the school improvements? It would save those interest dollars.
This is not meant to be a snarky question. I don't know enough about the regulations regarding spending from the general fund as others here might.
Well I don’t think the surplus would cover the full amount proposed. Bonds are necessary to raise revenue for projects that governments don’t have the cash on hand to fund but nonetheless have a public policy reason for needing to do right way. I guess look at it like a mortgage?
I'm undecided on this. I'm generally for increased school funding, but against obligating funds with no specified revenue source. So, I don't know.
The revenue for the funds is the sale of the bonds. That’s the funding source for these projects. The bonds create a debt that gets paid back by the state over the next few decades. The money for that comes from the general fund which is composed of state taxes. It’s first thing that gets taken care of when the budget gets made for the year. At this point in time Ca has a huge general fund surplus.
I hope there is this much consternation for the billions of dollars Ca voters pass annually for things like.....water infrastructure projects! 🤨
The last water infrastructure proposition failed, and I voted against it. So, yeah. I'm not opposed to this bill, but I think voters should think critically about ANY request to spend billions of dollars from the general fund.
It's an opinion piece written by the Co-chairs of the California Coalition for Public Higher Education. That's a pretty biased source.
To answer your question, there is no accountability built in to the ballot measure. I love my state and would never want to live anywhere else, but where school funding is concerned there are several examples of where it isn't spent as intended or voted on. There is a good example of this upthread.
I had said in my post that it is an opinion piece. The measure caps administrative fees at 5%, requires independent auditors, and public hearings. I’m not sure what other accountability measures are needed. I work with public grants and these accountability measures are pretty standard.
I don’t live in California, so all I know is my MIL is going to drive me crazy with the constant pro-Bernie, pro-socialism memes interspersed with fear-mongering about property taxes. She’s a good person, but like the epitome of thinking they’re really middle class despite owning 6 properties, etc.