LWVC HOME - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV
ON BALLOT MEASURES:   ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - ELECTION '00 - SMART VOTER

LWV CA Ed Fund LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of

PROPOSITION 14

THE CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2000.

Legislative Bond Act

THE QUESTION

Should the state borrow $350 million through the sale of general obligation bonds to provide 65% of costs of projects for constructing and renovating local public libraries?

THE SITUATION

Public libraries are generally built and operated by cities, counties, and special districts. A similar measure for $75 million, the California Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 1988, funded 24 projects. The funds from that measure are mostly spent.

A California State Library survey in 1998 estimated that $2 billion is needed for 425 statewide library projects over the next six years. Projects would include technological upgrading, seismic retrofitting and structural repairs, and expansion of facilities to keep pace with population growth. The funds from Proposition 14 would meet a portion of those needs.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 14 would:

  • authorize the sale of $350 million in general obligation bonds to fund a library construction and renovation program, with 35% in matching funds from local government agencies
  • give priority to "joint use" projects where libraries serve both the community and schools, and to libraries in areas where schools are in need of infrastructure to access educational technology
  • establish a six-member California Library Construction and Renovation Board to review project applications, with the State Librarian as administrator of projects.

FISCAL EFFECT

The total cost to the state’s General Fund is estimated to be $600 million over 25 years, according to the Legislative Analyst. Local agencies would contribute 35% matching funds. After a project’s completion, the additional annual operating costs could range from several million to more than $10 million for the local agency, depending on the size of the project.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • Proposition 14 invests in our local communities wisely: it does not raise our taxes, the funds cannot be used for local administrative costs, and the 35% matching fund requirement maximizes the use of limited state funding.
  • We need to invest in literacy and life-long learning. Illiteracy is often passed from generation to generation, and adult illiteracy hurts our economic competitiveness.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • Bond financing ties up our taxes for 25 years, even if the technological improvements become obsolete or if the economy collapses.
  • Local governments that cannot raise 35% in matching funds cannot participate, but taxpayers will still pay for projects in other communities through their state taxes.

For more information:

(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
for the March 7, 2000 Election.)


On Propositions: About our Analysis - List of Props - Election '00 - Smart Voter
LWVC Home - Voting Q&As - State Props - About Us

Last updated: January 18, 2000
Send comments and suggestions concerning the content of this page to lwvcprocon@hotmail.com.
Send comments concerning the format or usability of this page to cmwatts@ibm.net
Copyright 2000 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
This page may be linked to or printed in its entirety.