Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants tell South Pasadena Unified board a June bond is feasible; recommend $125–$130 million package and quick timeline
Summary
Consultants presented polling showing a feasible Prop 39 bond (initial ballot test 68%) and recommended placing a $125–$130 million bond on the June ballot with a tax-rate design near $45–$50 per $100,000 assessed valuation; the board agreed to return with a resolution on March 3 to meet county filing deadlines.
Consultants presenting a bond feasibility study told the South Pasadena Unified Board of Education that a school facilities bond is feasible and recommended pursuing a June 2026 election.
Tim McClarny, president of True North Research, said the firm completed 482 interviews with likely voters and reported an initial ballot test showing 68% support for the draft Prop 39-style bond statement, with interim and final ballot tests at 67% and 62%, respectively — each above the 55% threshold required for passage under Proposition 39. McClarny cautioned that voter reactions are tax-rate sensitive and that phrasing on the ballot (a change required by AB 195) tends to reduce measured support by roughly seven points compared with older ballot language.
"We saw 68% at the initial ballot test," McClarny said. "When you put price tags on it and explain what that means for the typical homeowner, support shifts, but the package remains north of the 55% threshold we need." He emphasized the importance of connecting facility work to student outcomes when describing bond projects to voters.
A separate consultant presentation recommended a bond sized at approximately $125–$130 million with an estimated tax-rate range in the $45–$50 per $100,000 assessed-valuation neighborhood. The consultants advised immediate informational (non‑advocacy) outreach, rapid preparation of ballot language and a March 3 board item returning with a resolution to place the measure on the June ballot; March 6 is the county filing deadline for the June election.
Board members asked about June versus November timing, and consultants outlined tradeoffs: higher-turnout general elections can bring a broader electorate but are noisier and more crowded, while a June primary offers a quieter ballot where the district can more specifically mobilize supportive voters. Given the study's June and November reads were nearly identical for this district, consultants recommended the June opportunity with a concerted "sprint" to meet calendar deadlines.
The board did not vote to place a measure on the ballot at this meeting; trustees asked staff to return with a prepared resolution on March 3 and to begin informational outreach in advance of a final decision.
Next steps: staff will draft ballot language and a resolution for consideration March 3 and begin the informational activities consultants recommended. If the board moves to place a June bond on the ballot, campaign and logistical deadlines will require an accelerated schedule.
