Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Bernardino board hears $800M needs case, agrees to commission independent bond survey
Summary
District staff outlined school modernization and construction needs and potential state matches under Prop 2; trustees asked for more repayment and eligibility detail and gave consensus to solicit independent, stratified community surveys and present qualified firms and sample questions back to the board.
District officials on Tuesday outlined an overview of facility needs and a possible local school bond that could unlock hundreds of millions in state funds. Associate Superintendent Terry Comnick and Facilities Planning Director Thomas Pace told the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board of Education that, with a local match, the state’s Proposition 2 allocations could generate roughly $364 million in modernization eligibility (and broader eligibility that could produce nearly $800 million in combined improvements) across more than 60 campuses.
"With Prop 2 in place, we have identified funding opportunities," Director Thomas Pace said, walking trustees through eligibility categories for modernization, new construction and supplemental grants.
Comnick and Pace presented need in three buckets: residential growth (noting large planned North-end developments and a cluster of at-capacity campuses), educational program needs (portables, libraries, early learning upgrades and special-education environments), and infrastructure that does not qualify for state match (for example, adult-education or community-use facilities). They estimated a local ask of about $330 million could equate to roughly $130 per year for a median-assessed home of $220,000, and described how state share rates (up to 65% for modernization and up to 55% for new construction) alter local match requirements.
Trustees pressed staff on specifics: which campuses exceed 50% of replacement value; the district’s remaining obligations from prior bonds (Measure N, Measure T); developer fee collection and whether those fees are passed on to homebuyers; and how capacity and boundaries on the North End affect eligibility. Trustee Tillman asked for a clear accounting of past bond repayment schedules; Pace said he would provide a full table to the board in a follow-up update.
After extended Q&A, trustees gave consensus for staff to solicit two to three independent survey firms, present firm qualifications and proposed questions to the board, and return with a recommended approach. "If the board gives consensus for a survey... we will find two or three firms for the board to consider," Pace said.
What’s next: staff will bring back firm proposals and draft survey language for board review, and provide the requested bond repayment and eligibility tables so trustees can refine priorities and tax-impact modeling prior to any decision to place a bond measure on a future ballot.
