Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fallbrook trustees authorize poll to test support for possible bond, hear $48M–$72M scenarios
Summary
Trustees voted to retain a community survey research firm to test voter support for a potential general obligation bond after a detailed presentation on bond mechanics, tax-rate examples and timing; a single baseline poll was estimated at about $30,000 and a full outreach program at roughly $150,000.
The Fallbrook Union Elementary School District board voted to retain a polling firm to measure community support for a possible general obligation bond and to guide messaging and project selection.
Jin Kim, introduced to the board as the director of education facilities financing, told trustees that GO bonds are intended for facilities work — "Bonds are for facilities. They're not for teacher salaries," he said — and outlined common protections: board approval before each bond draw and a citizens' bond oversight committee to track spending.
Kim presented three illustrative bond-package scenarios tied to tax-rate examples: $20, $25 and $30 per $100,000 of assessed value, producing approximate authorizations of about $48 million, $60 million and $72 million under the assumptions he stated. He noted the $30-per-$100,000 rate is the legal maximum an elementary district may levy for a single bond measure, and that bond draws are frequently phased (for planning purposes he showed a baseline with draws every three years).
Kim recommended beginning with a baseline poll to learn whether the community would support a bond and, if so, which projects voters would prioritize. "So just to do a single poll is about $30,000," he said; he added that a more complete program (baseline plus tracking polls, messaging and community engagement) could cost on the order of $150,000.
Trustees asked about timing and risk. One trustee warned that waiting can reduce purchasing power as construction costs escalate; Kim agreed, saying a 10% annual rise in construction costs could meaningfully erode the bond’s buying power. He also warned that simultaneous or nearby ballot activity (for example, a high school district pursuing a bond) can affect voter perception and turnout. He urged careful community education and testing of language.
After discussion, the board adopted Resolution No. 13-25-26 directing staff to retain a community survey research/polling company. Trustees emphasized the poll would inform decisions but would not bind the district to place a bond on a ballot.
What happens next: staff will work with the selected firm to draft baseline questions and timeline options; the presenter said the San Diego County Taxpayers Association packet (a voluntary review) is due May 1 if the district wishes that review before a June board decision.
Votes at a glance: The board voted to adopt Resolution No. 13-25-26 to retain a pollster (motion moved and seconded; outcome: approved).
