Poll shows Laguna Beach voters likely to pass an $83 million bond extension; board discusses next steps

Dr. Tibba Clarny of True North Research told the Laguna Beach Unified School District board on April 9 that a bond extension pitched in a 75‑word ballot statement tested at 59% support in an initial ballot test and rose to 66% once the poll explained it would be a tax‑rate extension rather than a new tax.

"At the initial ballot test, we had 59% of respondents say that they would support this proposal," Dr. Clarny said. After explaining the bond‑extension concept, she added, "support jumps up to 66%." The firm reported an interim test at 70% and, after testing a series of negative arguments, a finished test of 64% — all above the 55% threshold required for passage under California's Proposition 39 rules.

Why it matters: the poll was designed to simulate the information and arguments voters would hear in an election. Dr. Clarny said the study surveyed 547 likely November voters drawn from a district universe of 18,041 likely November voters; she reported a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Board members and staff used the presentation to probe details the public would see if the board moves forward. Trustees asked how the district would write a project list, whether bond funds could be used for asbestos abatement, and how the tax‑rate extension works. Ryan, the district facilities staff member, said the district posts a mandatory asbestos survey (last completed in 2023 and scheduled for 2026) and that abatement work is typically included in a project list so funds can be used when hazardous material is encountered during renovations.

Financial adviser Adam (identified during the meeting) explained the extension mechanics the poll tested: the proposed amount in the survey was roughly $83 million, modelled as an extension of an existing $8.85 per $100,000 assessed‑value rate rather than a new tax increase. The extension approach meant, the consultant said, voters could authorize new authorization without increasing the actual tax rate most property owners pay today.

Public comment at the meeting was strongly tilted toward approving a bond measure: former board member Kelly Osborne, parent groups and community advocates described the measure as a way to keep facilities safe and modern without raising current property‑tax rates. "This proposal is especially compelling because it does not increase the tax burden on residents," Kelly Osborne said during public comment.

Caveats and next steps: Dr. Clarny cautioned the poll is a snapshot, not a guarantee of an election outcome. She and staff said the board must still finalize a facilities master plan, a project list in a resolution, and a communications strategy; staff flagged an administrative deadline in August for placing a measure on the fall ballot and said the district must weigh whether to pursue an earlier June window if timing requires it. The superintendent and fiscal adviser described a parallel path: finalize the facility master plan, draft the project list and resolution with legal counsel and the fiscal adviser, and recruit an independent, non‑district campaign organization if the board places a measure on the ballot.

What the board did: the presentation was an information item only; no vote was taken. Trustees asked staff to continue work on the facility master plan and discuss whether to bring a bond resolution forward at upcoming meetings. The board also discussed the practical window for a tax‑rate extension and options for both a 2026 and 2028 filing timeline.