Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District explains how school bonds work; board asks for prioritized needs and tax impacts
Summary
San Bernardino City Unified officials gave an informational briefing on how general-obligation bonds are repaid, potential homeowner impacts, and the district's prior use of bond and alternative funding; the board requested a follow-up presentation with prioritized project costs and effective-tax-rate comparisons.
Thomas (Tom) Pace, the district's director of facilities, told the board that a school bond is "a financial tool that we use to fund large capital projects like schools," and walked trustees through how bonds appear on a property tax bill.
The presentation, given as an informational item by Associate Superintendent Terry Komnick and Pace, illustrated tax impacts using a median assessed home value of $210,000 and said a new bond could raise a typical homeowner's annual tax bill by about $63 to $126, with renters potentially seeing a $5 to $10 monthly pass-through. Pace also said the district has matched local bond dollars with other sources at a rate of roughly $3.26 for every dollar raised and described prior use of Certificates of Participation, grants, solar credits and three previous bond refinancings that saved taxpayers an estimated $23 million.
Board members focused questions on the district's remaining Measure N authority and the projects still funded by that measure. Komnick said Measure N's bond authority has been exhausted after a January 2025 sale but that capital remains in accounts for projects under contract, including theater and music work at Pacific High School and bleacher replacements at several high schools. He also confirmed a citizen oversight committee reviews expenditures and that the district is pursuing eligibility under state facility funding (what the presenters identified as Proposition 2) and has about $350 million of potential state eligibility across sites over the next 10 years.
Trustees asked for more detail on need and cost. "I would like to see them in stages," Miss Rosales Medina said, asking staff to present a high‑needs list, a mid‑level package and a full-build scenario with the associated tax brackets. Komnick and Pace agreed to provide the effective tax-rate comparisons for neighboring communities, a prioritized list of needs and a Friday update with the requested figures. The board gave consensus to bring back a fuller presentation so trustees can weigh whether to pursue a ballot measure.
The presentation was explicitly informational; no bond sale or ballot question was proposed for approval at the meeting.
Next steps: staff will provide the effective-tax-rate comparison, a prioritized needs list with staged cost estimates, and a district follow-up presentation as requested by the board.
