Nevada Joint Union High School District, California, Bond Issue, Measure B (November 2016)
| Measure B: Nevada Joint Union High School District Bond Issue |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 ApprovedMajority required: 55% |
| Topic: |
| Local school bonds Tax: $19 per $100,000 in value Matures in: Legal limit |
| Related articles |
| Local school bonds on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Nevada County, California ballot measures Other counties |
| See also |
| Nevada Joint Union High School District, California |
A school district bond measure was on the ballot for Nevada Joint Union High School District voters in Nevada and Yuba counties, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of issuing $47 million in bonds to upgrade and improve local high schools. |
| A no vote was a vote against issuing $47 million in bonds to upgrade and improve local high schools. |
A 55 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of this measure.
Election results
| Measure B
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County: | Yes | No | ||
| Votes | % | Votes | % | |
| Yuba County | 113 | 59.5% | 77 | 40.5% |
| Nevada County | 15,775 | 54.18% | 13,342 | 45.82% |
| Totals: | 25,783 | 56.04% | 20,229 | 43.96% |
| Measure B | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 25,783 | 56.04% | ||
| No | 20,229 | 43.96% | ||
- Election results from Yuba County Registrar of Voters and Nevada County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
To upgrade/improve local high schools, retain/attract quality teachers by repairing classrooms/ leaky roofs, updating facilities for career/technical education jobs in science, technology, engineering/math, ensuring safe drinking water/fire safety, replacing deteriorating sewer/gas lines, repairing, constructing, equipping/acquiring education facilities, shall Nevada Joint Union High School District issue $47,000,000 in bonds, at legal rates, require independent audits, citizens' oversight, no money for administrators' salaries/ pensions, all funds used locally?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Nevada County Counsel:
| “ |
This Measure, if approved by 55% of the voters voting on the Measure, would authorize the Nevada Joint Union High School District ("District") to issue and sell up to $47 million in general obligation bonds. The sale of these bonds by the District will raise money for the District and represent a debt of the District. In exchange for the money received from the bondholders, the District will promise to pay the bondholders an amount of interest for a certain period of time, and to repay the loan on the maturity dates. The primary purpose of the bond is to finance the specific school facilities projects specified in the Measure (reproduced in the sample ballot pamphlet). Bond proceeds may be used only for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or replacement of local high school facilities, including but not limited to repair, replacement, and construction of technology infrastructure, underground service lines, electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems, roofs, support facilities, classrooms, and parking areas; acquisition of related furnishings and equipment; and payment for associated design, engineering, project management, and similar expenses. Bond proceeds may only be used for projects identified in the Measure. Approval of this Measure will authorize a levy on the assessed value of taxable property within the District in an amount necessary to pay the principal and interest on these bonds in each year that the bonds are outstanding. The amount of increased taxes each year would depend upon the amount needed to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. The Tax Rate Statement for Measure B in this sample ballot pamphlet reflects the District's best estimates, based upon currently available data and projections, of the property tax rates required to service the bonds. Approval of the bond measure does not guarantee that any particular project will be funded beyond the local revenues generated by the bond measure. California Constitution Article XIIIA exempts from the one percent property tax rate limitation ad valorem taxes to pay the interest and redemption charges on any bonded indebtedness for school facilities, when approved by 55% of the voters, if: (a) the proceeds from the sale of the bonds are used only for the purposes specified; (b) the District, by evaluating safety, class size reduction, and information technology, has approved a list of specific projects to be funded, (c) the District will conduct an annual independent performance audit; and (d) the District will conduct an annual, independent financial audit. The District has made the ballot Measure subject to these requirements. If 55% of those voting on the Measure do not vote for approval, the Measure will fail and the District will not be authorized to issue the bonds. A 'yes' vote is a vote in favor of authorizing the Nevada Joint Union High School District to issue and sell up to $47 million in general obligation bonds. A 'no' vote is a vote against authorizing the Nevada Joint Union High School District to issue and sell up to $47 million in general obligation bonds. The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure B. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Nevada County Elections office at 530-265-1298 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you. [2] |
” |
| —Nevada County Counsel[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[3]
- Lisa Swarthout
- Mike Bratton
- Dan Castles
- Richard Baker
- Richard Werntz
- Terence McAteer
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[3]
| “ |
Our local high schools are in dire need of capital repairs as their aging infrastructure requires upgrading to assist in preparing our youth for the 21st century workplace. The State of California provides our schools with no funding for capital improvements. Fifty-six year old Nevada Union High School requires new water, gas, sewer and utility lines along with new roofing, painting and accessibility upgrades. Likewise, vocational/technical educational programs need new equipment and upgraded facilities to insure job readiness skills. Thirty year old Bear River High School needs new heating and air conditioning systems, new roofing, revamped kitchen facilities and classroom upgrades. Seventy-seven year old Silver Springs High School needs new heating and air conditioning systems, and handicap accessibility issues addressed. All campuses would be retrofitted with computer network infrastructure to complement our one-to-one computer initiative, insuring all youth are technologicall prepared for the modern workplace. Lighting will be retrofitted at all campuses and solar installed where feasible. Finally, modern security systems and fire systems will be installed to insure greater campus security. We are turning to you for your support to help maintain our high quality of education in Nevada County. None of the bond funds can be used for administrative salaries. a citizen oversight committee will be appointed to insure that all of the funds are directed toward infrastructure projects. Nevada County citizens have always taken pride in our outstanding competitive and top-ranked public educational system. We need to continue that excellence. Therefore, we urge you to join the scores of civic, business, parent and retired residents in voting Yes on B. Supoprting our schools helps maintain property values, but most importantly, supporting our local youth is the right thing to do. We ask you to please vote Yes on B. [2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[3]
- Nancy Garcia
- Janice Collins
- Donald Ferreira
- Penny Lucas
- Wade Freedle
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[3]
| “ |
The proposed bond measure of $47,000,000.00 should be rejected for three basic reasons:
In 2000, high school enrollment in all schools was 4,604; in 2015 it had declined to 3,003 or a loss of 35% from peak enrollment. From 2005 through 2015, intermediate enrollment in the schools that feed the future enrollment of the high schools declined from 8,369 to 4,894 or a loss of 42% from peak enrollment. All indications point to a continuation and possible acceleration of this trend. It is evident that the effect of this trend will require the closure of a high school campus in the near future. (www.bearriver.njuhsd.com/njuhsd.com SARC & kidsdata.org) The High School Board has already spent $54,000.00 on consultant fees to lobby the public into supporting this bond proposal. If it is approved by the voters, there will be additional fees of $220,000.00 to issue the bonds, for a total of $274,000.00 in costs to promote and administer this program. The District is proposing to increase the capacity of the high schools despite the fact that enrollment trends indicate that facilities should be reduced. The closure of a major high school campus is inevitable and will probably take place within the next five to ten years. If this bond is passed and millions of dollars of additional facilities are added, then the financial loss to taxpayers will be that much greater when one of the campuses is forced to close.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the governing officials of Nevada Joint Union High School District, California.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Nevada Joint Union High School District Local school bonds. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
|
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Yuba County Elections, "Local Ballot Measures," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Nevada County Registrar of Voters, "Measure B Arguments," accessed September 28, 2016
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
