Sonoma County’s Largest-Ever Education Bond Is on the Ballot

A look at Measure AB, what it would cost, and what it does and does not promise the Petaluma campus.

Measure AB asks voters to approve $830 million for the Sonoma County Junior College District, the largest amount the district has put before voters. It would be repaid through property taxes into the late 2050s.

It lands at a moment when a lot of people are rethinking what education should look like and what it should cost. The measure leans heavily on career technical training: nursing, firefighting, EMT work, auto mechanics, the building trades. Those are the programs that send people into good jobs without a four-year degree, and they are drawing fresh attention as families weigh the price of a bachelor’s and as employers look for skilled workers.

I wanted to know three things: what the money would pay for, what it would cost, and what it would mean for the Petaluma campus. So I read the measure itself, along with the arguments on both sides. Here is what I found.

What a junior college is, briefly

“Junior college” is the older name for what California now calls a community college. SRJC opened in 1918, when the term was standard, and kept it, which is why your ballot says Sonoma County Junior College District.

It is a two-year public school. Anyone can enroll, and tuition costs a fraction of what a four-year school charges. A junior college has two main goals. One is to grant associate degrees that transfer to a CSU or UC, so a student can finish a bachelor’s for far less. The other is to train people directly for work, through the career programs Measure AB would fund.

What is on the ballot

The trustees placed Measure AB on the ballot on June 9. A general obligation bond is borrowed money for buildings and equipment, repaid through property taxes over decades. It cannot be spent on teaching salaries or the day-to-day running of the college.

The district has said it is facing roughly $1.75 billion in identified maintenance and upgrade needs across its campuses. Voters have funded SRJC construction twice before, through Measure A in 2002 and Measure H in 2014, $662 million between them. District officials say the last of it is assigned to projects by the end of this year, even where the spending has not finished. Measure AB is larger than both combined.

Sarah Laggos, the district’s spokesperson, answered my questions by email.

“Since 2008, the state has ceased to provide regular funding to community colleges for capital improvements and determined it is a local issue to address,” she wrote. Since then, local bonds have been close to the only way these campuses get built or repaired.

The district describes the $830 million as what it believes it can responsibly address while holding the tax rate steady, and stresses that it is a maximum authorization rather than money spent all at once.

Some of the need reflects age. SRJC opened in 1918, and the Santa Rosa campus is the old one. Petaluma’s is newer, built out in stages since evening classes started here in 1964, and most recently rebuilt with Measure H money around 2020.

What it would cost taxpayers

Petaluma property owners already pay about $29.50 per $100,000 of assessed value toward SRJC, split between the two older bonds, which finish paying off in 2030 and 2042. Measure AB is timed to pick up as those older bonds pay off, so the total stays about the same.

Its payments do not start until the end of this decade, when Measure A finishes paying off.
From then until 2042, the combined rate projected to stay under $30 per $100,000.
Once Measure H retires in 2042, Measure AB settles at $25 per $100,000, and holds there until 2059.

The ballot language opens “Without increasing tax rates,” and that phrasing is contested. The California Taxpayers Association told the Press Democrat it is biased, since the tax runs decades longer than it otherwise would. Assemblymember Chris Rogers noted that courts have allowed the wording, on the argument that payments do not rise year to year, they simply last longer.

Borrowing also costs money: principal and interest come to roughly $1.76 billion on the $830 million borrowed, about $930 million of it interest, through about 2059. The district calls that a conservative estimate rather than a fixed number, since the bonds issue in series over roughly a decade at whatever rate the market sets. It also argues the comparison cuts both ways, since construction costs rise at least four percent a year, so waiting carries its own price.

What this means for Petaluma’s campus

The short answer is we don't know yet! There is no dedicated Petaluma share and no schedule for our campus. Project lists are written broadly on purpose, because a district cannot know thirty years out which buildings will need the work. The tradeoff is that voters approve the money first and learn the specifics later.

So I asked Laggos directly what we can expect. The intent, she said, is to invest across the district, Petaluma included, but Measure AB "does not establish a predetermined campus-by-campus percentage." If it passes, a public facilities master planning process begins after the election, with discussion and data analysis running through 2027, and that process sets the priorities.

I also asked whether most of the backlog sits in Santa Rosa, given the age of that campus, and how a Petaluma owner should think about paying into it. Laggos said the benefit runs both directions: Petalumans use the fire academy in north county and the nursing program in Santa Rosa, while "students from all over Sonoma County can take classes at the Petaluma campus for things like our carpentry, HVAC, veterinary technician, fashion design."

What the district would not do is put a number on Petaluma. It did not say what share of Measure H came to this campus, how much of the $1.75 billion sits here, or which building most needs the work. Laggos said the district's facilities assessments "are the appropriate place to identify and rank specific building and system needs rather than promising a project before that work is complete."

The case for, and against

Argument in favor: Herman G. Hernandez, Trustee, Sonoma County Board of Education. Gaye LeBaron, SRJC Grad, Historian, Lecturer. Judy Coffey, Registered Nurse. David Pena, Firefighter, and Alumni. Cheryl E. La Franchi, Rancher.

The district has identified about $1.75 billion in repair and upgrade needs.
The money modernizes nursing, firefighting and trades facilities, the programs that train people for local jobs.
Your tax bill does not go up, because the new bonds replace the 2014 bonds as those expire.

Argument against: Andrew J. Smith, Sonoma County Resident.

The $830 million was set by what fits under the tax rate, not by a cost list of projects.
Interest runs about $930 million, roughly 53 cents on every dollar borrowed. Final payments stretch to 2059, tying up the district’s borrowing capacity, and the cost reaches renters through what landlords pass along.

The Press Democrat’s editorial board endorsed the measure, and headlined that endorsement “with caution.” The district’s answer on renters is that property taxes are paid by owners, while allowing that landlords may factor their tax and operating costs into what they charge.

The measure does carry accountability requirements:

Annual and independent audits
A ban on spending bond money on administrator salaries
Public disclosure of spending
A Citizens’ Oversight Committee of community members, excluding district employees and vendors

That committee is how the public finds out, after the fact, where the money went.

What happens if it fails

The district says the needs do not go away, projects get delayed, and deferred maintenance gets more expensive the longer it waits. Without bond money for urgent repairs, it says it would have to look at the operating budget, which pays for instruction and student services, and that growth would stall in programs already turning students away, naming welding, nursing and public safety.

Where to look further

The full text of Measure AB includes the project list and the accountability provisions, and the measure summary page carries both official arguments. Your Sonoma County voter guide has the same material, along with any rebuttals.

♦️♦️♦️♦️♦️

Thank you to Sarah Laggos, Executive Director of the SRJC Foundation & District External Relations for taking the time to answer our questions.

A look at Measure AB, what it would cost, and what it does and does not promise the Petaluma campus. Measure AB asks voters to approve $830 million for the Sonoma County Junior College District, the largest amount the district has put before voters. It would be repaid through property taxes into the late 2050s. It lands at a moment when a lot of people are rethinking what education should look like and what it should cost. The measure leans heavily on career technical training: nursing, firefighting, EMT work, auto mechanics, the building trades. Those are the programs that send people into good jobs without a four-year degree, and they are drawing fresh attention as families weigh the price of a bachelor’s and as employers look for skilled workers. I wanted to know three things: what the money would pay for, what it would cost, and what it would mean for the Petaluma campus. So I read the measure itself, along with the arguments on both sides. Here is what I found. What a junior college is, briefly “Junior college” is the older name for what California now calls a community college. SRJC opened in 1918, when the term was standard, and kept it, which is why your ballot says Sonoma County Junior College District. It is a two-year public school. Anyone can enroll, and tuition costs a fraction of what a four-year school charges. A junior college has two main goals. One is to grant associate degrees that transfer to a CSU or UC, so a student can finish a bachelor’s for far less. The other is to train people directly for work, through the career programs Measure AB would fund. What is on the ballot The trustees placed Measure AB on the ballot on June 9. A general obligation bond is borrowed money for buildings and equipment, repaid through property taxes over decades. It cannot be spent on teaching salaries or the day-to-day running of the college. The district has said it is facing roughly $1.75 billion in identified maintenance and upgrade needs across its campuses. Voters have funded SRJC construction twice before, through Measure A in 2002 and Measure H in 2014, $662 million between them. District officials say the last of it is assigned to projects by the end of this year, even where the spending has not finished. Measure AB is larger than both combined. Sarah Laggos, the district’s spokesperson, answered my questions by email. “Since 2008, the state has ceased to provide regular funding to community colleges for capital improvements and determined it is a local issue to address,” she wrote. Since then, local bonds have been close to the only way these campuses get built or repaired. The district describes the $830 million as what it believes it can responsibly address while holding the tax rate steady, and stresses that it is a maximum authorization rather than money spent all at once. Some of the need reflects age. SRJC opened in 1918, and the Santa Rosa campus is the old one. Petaluma’s is newer, built out in stages since evening classes started here in 1964, and most recently rebuilt with Measure H money around 2020. What it would cost taxpayers Petaluma property owners already pay about $29.50 per $100,000 of assessed value toward SRJC, split between the two older bonds, which finish paying off in 2030 and 2042. Measure AB is timed to pick up as those older bonds pay off, so the total stays about the same. Its payments do not start until the end of this decade, when Measure A finishes paying off. From then until 2042, the combined rate projected to stay under $30 per $100,000. Once Measure H retires in 2042, Measure AB settles at $25 per $100,000, and holds there until 2059. The ballot language opens “Without increasing tax rates,” and that phrasing is contested. The California Taxpayers Association told the Press Democrat it is biased, since the tax runs decades longer than it otherwise would. Assemblymember Chris Rogers noted that courts have allowed the wording, on the argument that payments do not rise year to year, they simply last longer. Borrowing also costs money: principal and interest come to roughly $1.76 billion on the $830 million borrowed, about $930 million of it interest, through about 2059. The district calls that a conservative estimate rather than a fixed number, since the bonds issue in series over roughly a decade at whatever rate the market sets. It also argues the comparison cuts both ways, since construction costs rise at least four percent a year, so waiting carries its own price. What this means for Petaluma’s campus The short answer is we don't know yet! There is no dedicated Petaluma share and no schedule for our campus. Project lists are written broadly on purpose, because a district cannot know thirty years out which buildings will need the work. The tradeoff is that voters approve the money first and learn the specifics later. So I asked Laggos directly what we can expect. The intent, she said, is to invest across the district, Petaluma included, but Measure AB "does not establish a predetermined campus-by-campus percentage." If it passes, a public facilities master planning process begins after the election, with discussion and data analysis running through 2027, and that process sets the priorities. I also asked whether most of the backlog sits in Santa Rosa, given the age of that campus, and how a Petaluma owner should think about paying into it. Laggos said the benefit runs both directions: Petalumans use the fire academy in north county and the nursing program in Santa Rosa, while "students from all over Sonoma County can take classes at the Petaluma campus for things like our carpentry, HVAC, veterinary technician, fashion design." What the district would not do is put a number on Petaluma. It did not say what share of Measure H came to this campus, how much of the $1.75 billion sits here, or which building most needs the work. Laggos said the district's facilities assessments "are the appropriate place to identify and rank specific building and system needs rather than promising a project before that work is complete." The case for, and against Argument in favor: Herman G. Hernandez, Trustee, Sonoma County Board of Education. Gaye LeBaron, SRJC Grad, Historian, Lecturer. Judy Coffey, Registered Nurse. David Pena, Firefighter, and Alumni. Cheryl E. La Franchi, Rancher. The district has identified about $1.75 billion in repair and upgrade needs. The money modernizes nursing, firefighting and trades facilities, the programs that train people for local jobs. Your tax bill does not go up, because the new bonds replace the 2014 bonds as those expire. Argument against: Andrew J. Smith, Sonoma County Resident. The $830 million was set by what fits under the tax rate, not by a cost list of projects. Interest runs about $930 million, roughly 53 cents on every dollar borrowed. Final payments stretch to 2059, tying up the district’s borrowing capacity, and the cost reaches renters through what landlords pass along. The Press Democrat’s editorial board endorsed the measure, and headlined that endorsement “with caution.” The district’s answer on renters is that property taxes are paid by owners, while allowing that landlords may factor their tax and operating costs into what they charge. The measure does carry accountability requirements: Annual and independent audits A ban on spending bond money on administrator salaries Public disclosure of spending A Citizens’ Oversight Committee of community members, excluding district employees and vendors That committee is how the public finds out, after the fact, where the money went. What happens if it fails The district says the needs do not go away, projects get delayed, and deferred maintenance gets more expensive the longer it waits. Without bond money for urgent repairs, it says it would have to look at the operating budget, which pays for instruction and student services, and that growth would stall in programs already turning students away, naming welding, nursing and public safety. Where to look further The full text of Measure AB includes the project list and the accountability provisions, and the measure summary page carries both official arguments. Your Sonoma County voter guide has the same material, along with any rebuttals. ♦️♦️♦️♦️♦️ Thank you to Sarah Laggos, Executive Director of the SRJC Foundation & District External Relations for taking the time to answer our questions.