Board hears bond feasibility survey showing majority support; seeks community outreach and tracking poll

Consultants presenting two public‑opinion surveys told the San Bernardino City Unified School District Board that initial community support for a possible school facilities bond is strong enough to consider next steps — but not to place a measure on the ballot yet.

Thomas Pace, the district’s director of facilities planning and development, summarized two surveys the board commissioned and said the work was deliberately designed to capture both likely voters and broader community sentiment. “In total, the two surveys included 1,213 interviews conducted in both English and Spanish,” Pace said. The firms tested a tax rate of roughly $45 per $100,000 of assessed value.

True North Research, which focused on likely November voters, “found approximately 60% of likely voters indicated that they would support a potential school facilities bond,” Pace said. EMC Research’s broader sample showed about 68% community support. True North’s Tim McLarney said the likely‑voter sample is skewed slightly more partisan and therefore more predictive of election outcomes: “Among likely November voters… 48% are registered Democrats, 28% are registered Republicans,” McLarney said, adding that that composition helps explain turnout and voting patterns.

Board members pressed for more detail on priorities, timing and cost. Several trustees said they want clear, transparent information for voters. Ms. Rosas Medina noted visible facility problems at some sites and asked that the district re‑share its needs assessment campus by campus. “We have Porta Potties still at some of our high schools and school sites,” Medina said, urging the board to target the most urgent infrastructure shortfalls.

Other trustees emphasized household financial strain. Mr. Tillman warned that voter support must be balanced against cost sensitivity in a community facing economic hardship: “If you pass the bond for a billion dollars, you’re still going to have a roof that leaks,” he said, arguing the board should be mindful of what residents can bear.

Consultants and district staff answered questions about matching funds and state programs, noting the district qualifies for significant state matching (the staff memo referenced more than $300 million of potential matching funds across different programs) but that some state hardship programs are more restrictive under current rules. Pace urged the board to treat the surveys as a starting point and to plan community engagement to refine priorities and the tax rate.

After extended discussion, the board reached consensus — not a binding vote — to engage a neutral communications consultant, broaden community outreach and run a late‑spring tracking poll to see whether sentiment holds as the board approaches a decision about placing a measure on a future general‑election ballot. The board directed staff to provide additional cost detail and a campus‑level needs link in a Friday update.

What happens next: staff will return with a more detailed cost breakdown and the proposed outreach/tracking‑poll plan; the board indicated it would consider a later recommendation about putting a measure before voters only after those steps are completed.

— Reporting for this article relied on the board presentation and Q&A with Thomas Pace and representatives from True North Research and EMC Research.