Board hears bond feasibility survey showing majority support but questions about cost and tax impact

Board President Myra Ceballos and district staff on Wednesday received results of two independent public-opinion surveys testing voter support for a potential school facilities bond. Thomas (Tom) Pace, director of facilities planning, told trustees the two firms — True North Research (likely voters) and EMC Research (broader residents) — completed 1,213 combined interviews in English and Spanish.

Pace said the surveys tested a tax rate of about $45 per $100,000 of assessed value, roughly 25% below the legal maximum, and that initial support measured at about 60% among likely voters and about 68% among the broader resident sample. "Initial support among likely voters is above the 55% threshold," Pace said, noting California requires 55% to pass general obligation bonds.

The presentation linked community priorities — repairing aging infrastructure such as roofs, plumbing and HVAC; improving campus safety and security systems; upgrading science labs and CTE facilities; and creating more compliant TK and special education classrooms — to respondents’ reasons for supporting investment. Pace and consultants emphasized that the survey is a snapshot, not a guarantee of an election outcome, and that messaging and tax-rate choices matter.

Trustees questioned the scale of need and the distributional effects of asking voters for new taxes. "If you pass a bond for $1 billion, you're still going to have roofs that leak next year," said Trustee Tillman, voicing concern for households already struggling with housing costs. "We need to be mindful of the pain the people will feel that have to make the payment."

Other trustees pressed for concrete cost estimates and for clarity about what the district could afford without placing a bond before voters. Pace and Chief Financial Officer Terry Komnick said staff estimate at least $200 million for critical infrastructure alone and roughly $1 billion in total identified needs across campuses; they said detailed campus-by-campus cost breakdowns were available in the district’s needs assessment and would be provided in a follow-up update. Komnick stressed that the district currently funds deferred maintenance but that single large projects — for example, a single school re-roof — can exceed the annual deferred maintenance allocation.

The board also discussed state matching and hardship programs. Pace noted the district qualifies for a variety of state facility program matching funds (modernization, new construction, CTE, special education) and that the district has identified more than $300 million in potential matching opportunities; he added that the state hardship program is more restrictive and the district does not currently meet those requirements but that staff would research whether any path exists to qualify.

Several trustees urged community engagement before any decision. Trustee Medina asked for a communications consultant and a late-spring tracking poll to monitor sentiment heading into the June deadline for November ballot placement. "This doesn't mean we're putting it on the ballot now," she said. "It means we engage the community and then use a tracking poll to decide whether to proceed."

Next steps recorded by staff included more detailed cost breakdowns, soliciting a communications consultant to lead neutral public education, and a recommendation to conduct a tracking poll in late spring. No final vote or directive to place a bond on the ballot was taken at the meeting.

The board flagged affordability and transparency as central concerns going forward and asked staff to return with more granular cost data, state matching details, and a community engagement plan if the board seeks to advance a ballot measure.