▁able ▁to ▁borrow ▁ 4 ▁percent ▁of ▁the ▁ass essed ▁value ▁of ▁nearby ▁properties , ▁up ▁from ▁ 2 . 5 ▁percent . ▁The ▁measure ▁would ▁have ▁c apped ▁administrative ▁costs ▁at ▁ 5 ▁percent , ▁or ▁$ 7 5 0 ▁million ▁total . ▁ ▁School ▁districts ▁that ▁were ▁less ▁able ▁to ▁raise ▁fund ing ▁for ▁construction ▁projects ▁or ▁with ▁unders erved ▁student ▁populations ▁( be ing ▁determined ▁by ▁the ▁percent ▁of ▁low - in come ▁students , ▁fost er ▁youth ▁or ▁English ▁language ▁learn ers ▁in ▁the ▁district ) ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁el ig ible ▁for ▁matching ▁state ▁funds , ▁for ▁up wards ▁of ▁ 5 5 ▁to ▁ 6 5 ▁percent ▁of ▁the ▁total ▁project ▁cost . ▁The ▁initi ative ▁required ▁union ized ▁labor ▁for ▁these ▁projects . ▁ ▁Supp or ters ▁said ▁that ▁these ▁improvements ▁would ▁have ▁made ▁public ▁schools ▁sa fer ▁and ▁health ier . ▁O pp on ents ▁said ▁that ▁the ▁actual ▁total ▁cost ▁of ▁the ▁b onds ▁plus ▁interest ▁would ▁have ▁exceed ed ▁$ 2 7 ▁billion , ▁which ▁was ▁more ▁expensive ▁than ▁using ▁funds ▁directly ▁from ▁the ▁regular ▁state ▁budget ▁which ▁had ▁a ▁$ 2 1 ▁billion ▁sur plus ▁at ▁the ▁time ▁of ▁the ▁election . ▁ ▁Result ▁▁ ▁Proposition ▁ 1 3 ▁was ▁defeated , ▁with ▁ 4 7 ▁percent ▁of ▁vot ers ▁in ▁favor ▁and ▁ 5 3 ▁percent ▁voting ▁no . ▁It ▁was ▁the ▁first ▁school ▁bond ▁rejected ▁by ▁California ' s ▁vot ers ▁since ▁ 1 9 9 4 . ▁ ▁Supp