Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell Perris Union High trustees a $187 million bond extension is narrowly feasible, urge robust outreach
Summary
Consultants told the Perris Union High School District board that a $187 million bond extension tested just above the 55% Prop 39 threshold in polling and recommended aggressive community outreach, a facilities advisory committee and careful project packaging to preserve support.
Tim McLarty, a consultant with True North, told the Perris Union High School District board on Feb. 11 that a bond-extension measure framed as an extension of the district's current $20 per $100,000 tax rate tested narrowly above the 55% threshold required for a Prop 39 school bond.
"We had 56% of voters say they would support this proposal," McLarty said during a presentation of the survey results. He said support rose to 61% after the research team explained how a bond extension differs from a new bond and reached as high as 65% when respondents heard positive project descriptions. After the presentation of opposition messaging the final balance test landed at about 55% — the minimum for passage under state rules.
The polling tested a $187,000,000 package and a mix of projects grouped into tiers. Career technical education (CTE) facilities and STEM upgrades ranked among the most popular items; work on aging classrooms, roofs and systems also polled strongly. Athletic projects and site‑specific major facilities — such as a new building limited to a single campus — showed weaker support, McLarty said. He cautioned that attaching projects to a single site can erode district‑wide support.
Joy Coomer of TeamCivics, who worked on outreach messaging for the survey, said the community showed clear interest in classroom and career‑readiness investments. "It was actually very much a priority for your community," she said, noting the survey also measured reactions to concise ballot language and fuller explanations about how funds would be used.
McLarty recommended the board consider moving forward but stressed the outcome is not automatic. He outlined a month‑by‑month timeline that would include formation of a superintendent's facilities advisory committee, development of non‑advocacy informational materials, coordination with bond counsel and the district's financial advisor, and a campaign timeline that assumes the board would have to take a vote to place a measure by Aug. 7 to meet the Nov. 3 election deadline.
Board members asked about sequencing and whether match or state facilities grants would affect priorities; staff said the district has submitted facility grant applications for CMI and is updating its facility master plan and deferred maintenance inventory to inform the project list. McLarty said bond proceeds are typically issued in tranches tied to project readiness and the district can structure a package that touches all sites to maintain broad support.
The board did not vote to place a bond measure on the ballot at the Feb. 11 meeting. McLarty and team urged the district to expand outreach and form a stakeholder advisory group before any formal decision to move forward.
