News & Insights

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP

The next generation of California bond programs: preparing for the 2026 ballot

What this year’s bond programs need to get right to win votes

As California looks toward the 2026 statewide ballot, school districts and community college districts have a narrow but critical window to rethink how they approach bond programs. The last several election cycles have delivered mixed results. Some regions have seen strong voter support, while others have experienced disappointing margins and growing scrutiny over how bond dollars are planned, communicated, and ultimately delivered.

The lesson is clear. Passing a bond is no longer just about identifying facility needs and assembling a project list. The next generation of Calif bond programs will require sharper strategy, deeper alignment with community priorities, and a more disciplined approach to execution well before a ballot measure ever reaches voters.

What recent propositions are telling us

Statewide education bond measures and local district bonds over the past decade point to three consistent trends.

• First, voters remain supportive of public education, but they are more selective. Measures that feel generic, overly broad, or disconnected from visible outcomes are struggling to reach required thresholds, even in historically favorable markets.
• Second, accountability matters more than ever. Districts that can point to prior bond success, including projects delivered on time, transparent reporting, and tangible improvements, enter new elections with a credibility advantage. Conversely, districts still working through older bond backlogs or cost overruns face a steeper climb.
• Third, cost pressure is reshaping expectations. Construction inflation, labor constraints, and regulatory requirements mean that bond dollars do not go as far as they once did. Voters sense this tension, even if they do not articulate it in those terms, and they expect districts to demonstrate fiscal realism rather than optimism.

Start with strategy, not a shopping list

Too many bond programs still begin as compilations of deferred maintenance, modernization wishes, and aspirational projects. While these needs are real, the most successful 2026-ready programs are starting with a different question. What outcomes do we want our facilities to support over the next 20 to 30 years?

For K–12 districts, that may mean aligning capital investments with enrollment trends, instructional delivery models, and community use expectations. For community colleges, it often means clarifying the role of workforce development, career technical education, and regional economic alignment.

From there, projects can be sequenced and right-sized. A focused bond program that clearly advances student experience, safety, and instructional relevance is easier to explain and easier for voters to support than an exhaustive list that tries to satisfy every constituency.

Plan for delivery credibility

Voters are no longer persuaded by renderings alone. They want confidence that districts can actually deliver what they promise.

That credibility is built through early feasibility analysis, realistic cost modeling, and an honest assessment of internal capacity. Districts preparing for 2026 should be stress-testing their assumptions now, including delivery timelines, procurement strategies, staffing models, and governance structures.

This is particularly important in California’s regulatory environment, where CEQA, DSA review, and local entitlement processes can significantly affect schedules. A bond program that acknowledges these realities and plans around them signals competence and respect for public trust.

Community engagement is not optional

Effective engagement today is less about persuasion and more about listening. Districts that involve students, families, faculty, and community partners early in the process consistently develop stronger, more defensible bond programs.

This engagement should inform priorities, not simply validate pre-made decisions. When communities see their input reflected in the final measure, whether through project phasing, program emphasis, or shared-use opportunities, they become advocates rather than skeptics.

Importantly, engagement also helps districts refine their narrative. The most compelling bond messages are not technical descriptions of buildings, but clear explanations of how facilities will support learning, opportunity, and long-term community value.

Looking ahead to 2026

The 2026 ballot cycle will reward districts that treat bond planning as a strategic exercise rather than a procedural one. Those that start early, ground their programs in outcomes, and demonstrate delivery discipline will be best positioned to succeed.

For districts just beginning this conversation, now is the time to step back, assess lessons from recent elections, and recalibrate. The decisions made over the next 12 to 18 months will shape not only ballot results, but the quality and resilience of educational facilities for decades to come.

If your district is considering how to position its next bond program, Brailsford & Dunlavey is available to support strategic planning and early feasibility conversations.

Mark Newton is a senior vice president at Brailsford & Dunlavey, with almost 30 years of experience in managing PK-14 development projects and bond programs in California. He can be reached at mnewton@bdconnect.com. Brailsford & Dunlavey is a leading development advisory and program management firm with expertise in the planning and delivery of school projects and district-wide programs across the United States. For more information, visit bdconnect.com.