Public skepticism greets Yuba College request to form local school facilities district

The Yuba County Board of Supervisors on March 26 declined to move forward with a preliminary request from the Yuba Community College District to begin forming a School Facilities Improvement District, a step that could let the college propose local general-obligation bonds funded by property taxes.

Assistant County Administrator Sean Powers told the board the request is an exploratory step that would let the college draw a boundary that could later be used to place a bond measure before voters; he said the college indicated interest in an election in 2026 but had not finalized projects or maps. "This is to form a custom boundary to start the planning process on what that package would look like," Powers said.

Bond counsel John Kim of Jones Hall told supervisors the action is an early procedural step and outlined the education-code notices and public hearing process that would follow if the college pursues an SFID. "Before the district can designate the improvements, they have to go through public hearing" under the cited education-code process, Kim said.

Multiple public commenters urged the board to delay any approval until the college provides detailed project lists and an accounting of past bond spending. Joanna Lasaga, chair of the Yuba County Republicans, said residents paid for a 2006 bond she said totaled $190 million and that promised repairs to the main Yuba College campus were not completed. "Why should taxpayers be asked to pay again for repairs that we were already taxed for?" Lasaga said.

Connie Walczak, who described investigating the district's past bonds, urged the board to postpone a vote and allow community review at a later meeting. Joe Hendricks also asked the board to either reject or table the request so the college must return with clearer information about previous spending and why a new district boundary is needed.

Several supervisors said the college already has an existing district and can provide calculations without a new SFID; others said it was reasonable to let the voters decide if the college ultimately places a bond on the ballot. Because no second was made on a motion to advance the resolution, the item did not proceed. Board members asked the county and college to return with more detailed information on prior bond expenditures, proposed boundaries and project lists for an April 14 meeting.

The board took no formal action to form an SFID at the meeting; if the college moves forward, John Kim said the district still must provide notice and hold public hearings required by education-code procedures before any election can be called.