Poll shows strong support for bond extension as district maps facility needs

District officials on Nov. 5 gave the La Mesa‑Spring Valley Unified School District board a facilities master plan update and a feasibility report for a potential bond extension that consultants said is likely to pass if the district moves forward.

Dan Young, the district staff member introduced to present the facilities review, said the condition assessment covered 23 sites totaling about 1.1 million square feet and roughly 300 acres. The district’s median school age is 67 years, Young said, and many campuses have roofs, HVAC and electrical systems approaching the end of their useful life. Emerging priorities include modernizing multipurpose rooms (many of which lack air conditioning), improving outdoor learning and shade, and creating inclusive early‑childhood and special‑education spaces.

A financial overview presented to the board described a tax‑rate extension approach that would not increase the rate taxpayers currently pay but would extend it into the future. The district’s financial adviser (introduced to the board as Adam Bauer) showed a funding scenario that could generate approximately $130,000,000 between 2027 and 2033 for capital projects if the board placed an extension on the ballot.

Tim McLarney of True North Research presented the feasibility polling. McLarney said the poll completed 574 interviews with a ±4% margin of error and that the initial ballot test produced 70% support for a measure framed as a bond extension. After clarifying in the survey that the measure would ‘‘not increase current tax rates’’ support rose to roughly 74%, and after testing both positive and negative campaign arguments the final test remained about 70% — well above the 55% threshold required for a Prop 39 school bond in California. McLarney noted that some voters do not parse the ‘‘extension’’ language in the initial 75‑word ballot statement and benefit from follow‑up communications explaining the concept.

Consultant Charles Seath advised the board to begin awareness building and to aim for a November 2026 ballot if the board chooses to proceed; he noted an Aug. 7 deadline as the 88‑day cutoff to adopt a qualifying resolution. Seath said the district can use public resources to educate voters about the facilities plan but not to advocate for the measure; an independent, privately funded campaign committee would need to handle advocacy once the measure qualifies for the ballot.

Board members asked about prioritization in the asset database, possible electrical upgrades tied to solar projects, and the way demographic projections will inform project timing. Officials said the cloud‑based condition database can be sorted by criticality, system and cost; upgrades tied to HVAC or multipurpose room improvements could require additional campus electrical work, but those needs will be confirmed later in the planning process.

Next steps outlined for the board include finishing a draft comprehensive master plan in mid‑spring, developing a prioritized project list and cost estimates, and returning to the board with a draft bond measure and communications plan before any formal decision to place the measure on the ballot.