Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Feasibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Murrieta Valley board hears bond feasibility plan and timeline for possible November measure
Summary
Consultants presented a bond-feasibility study and recommended a 500+ respondent voter survey to assess whether the district should place a facilities bond on the November ballot; staff outlined Feb.–May decision milestones and stressed community engagement before any ballot determination.
Consultants and district staff presented a bond-feasibility plan to the Murrieta Valley Unified School District Board of Education, outlining the research, timeline and next steps for a possible general obligation bond measure.
Darren Daniels, the district's facilities lead, and Tim McLarney of True North Research said the first task is rigorous community polling to determine whether a November bond is viable. McLarney described a planned stratified sample of likely November voters and said the firm would aim for at least 500 completed interviews using email, text and telephone recruitment. He estimated a margin of error of about ±4.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level for a 500-person sample.
"When you're going to do one of these studies, what you're really trying to address is: is it feasible," McLarney said, adding that the survey will also simulate a likely campaign environment by testing both pro and opposition messaging.
The presenters described a staged timeline: survey design and fielding now, results back to the board on Feb. 10, facility master-plan community results on Feb. 24, a March 24 all-day board workshop to prioritize projects, an April 14 draft project list and a May 12 bond-resolution discussion. If the survey results are favorable, that sequence would support placing a measure on a future ballot; if not, staff will recommend against a placement.
Daniels and Joy Coomer, the district's bond consultant, stressed community engagement as critical. Daniels said the district has held more than 80 meetings to gather input for the Facility Master Plan and that project prioritization will seek trustee-area and community feedback.
Board members questioned survey methods and data sources, including how county voter files are enhanced and how the consultant avoids inflating support (McLarney said materials such as motivational videos are excluded from the survey to avoid bias). Staff also confirmed the polling and future communications will be separate from any campaign activity.
The board did not vote to place a bond on the ballot at the meeting; staff recommended returning the poll results on Feb. 10 and continuing the engagement process so trustees can decide later whether to move forward.
