Temecula school board authorizes community bond feasibility survey despite objections over timing and procurement

The Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education voted 3–2 on May 13 to contract with True North Research to conduct a community feasibility survey on a possible general‑obligation bond that could help fund school modernizations.

The item asked whether the district should “engage with the community” now to take the public’s temperature about a bond, district staff said. Missus Lash, the district’s facilities lead, told the board the district’s Measure Y bond funds will be exhausted by September and ongoing developer revenue totals about $7,000,000 a year, while a facility master plan lists roughly $1 billion in needs districtwide.

The vote came after public commenters and board members raised two main objections: first, that the governor’s May budget could shift district revenue assumptions; and second, that the district had not issued a competitive request for proposals for the survey provider. George Rapsoitz, a local business owner and federal procurement specialist, asked whether the contract reflected an “unauthorized commitment” because the contract’s service dates preceded its approval and why the district did not competitively bid the work.

Missus Lash said the board was being asked only whether to survey the community; she said the district had used the same vendor in 2022 and planned to build the survey cost into the superintendent’s June budget proposal if the board approved. Adam Bauer, the district’s municipal advisor, explained the ballot timing constraints under state election law and walked the board through sample homeowner cost illustrations a bond could generate, saying the survey phase is the first of a multi‑phase process that would determine structure and size if community support exists.

Board member Joseph Komrodsky argued the district could—and perhaps should—wait until after the state budget is released to avoid asking for community support based on incomplete fiscal information. Komrodsky also asked whether federal or state deadlines required the district to start now. Lash said the district needs roughly a year of preparation to place a Proposition 39 (55% approval threshold) or other bond measure on an even‑year ballot, and the next practical calendar slot would be February 2026.

The motion to approve the contract with True North Research passed 3–2. The roll call was: Trustee Steve Schwartz, yes; Trustee Jennifer Wiersma, no; Trustee Joseph Komrodsky, no; Trustee Emil Barham, yes; and President Dr. Melinda Anderson, yes.

Board members who voted against the contract said they wanted more time to consider a competitive solicitation (RFP/RFQ), to review the district’s facility and fiscal data after the governor’s May budget, and to give all trustees more time for review. Supporters said the survey would be a low‑risk way to learn whether the community would back a bond and that failing to start now would push any bond campaign to 2028.

Next steps described by staff include drafting survey language, a quick sample size target (staff and the vendor suggested roughly 400 completed interviews for a community the district’s size), and, if results are supportive, a six‑month follow‑up survey and further measure design work.

The district’s action authorizes only the survey contract. Any later decisions on ballot language, bond size, or a formal placement on the ballot would require subsequent board approvals.