Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Bond Measure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews draft November 2026 bond measure; trustees seek explicit language ensuring no overlapping tax levies

Rocklin Unified School District Board of Trustees · May 28, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff presented a revised draft resolution proposing a general obligation bond for the Nov. 3, 2026 ballot to address aging facilities. Trustees requested clearer language in the resolution and full text to make explicit that any new bond levy will not overlap with existing series and that taxpayers should not see a tax‑rate increase.

Deputy Superintendent Jennifer Stahlheber introduced a revised draft resolution (Res. 25‑26/43) to call a general obligation bond election for the November 3, 2026 ballot to fund classroom modernization, health and safety improvements, career technical education upgrades, technology infrastructure, and critical systems replacements across the district.

Bond counsel described the required legal language, the project list (included as Appendix A in the draft resolution), and the 70‑word tax‑rate statement (Appendix B). Counsel said the district is in a position where older bonds are maturing and the measure is structured so that the proposed tax rate would not increase — in some cases it would be lower than current rates.

Trustees who reviewed the draft asked staff and bond counsel to add explicit language in the resolution and full text that the tax levy on any newly approved bonds will not overlap with the levy on existing bonds, responding to community concerns about overlapping debt and tax impacts. Bond counsel agreed to add clarifying language; trustees also discussed removing wording they felt might overpromise given remote possibilities in out years and emphasized voter education about the project list.

A member of the public asked several budget and need questions; staff offered to follow up after the meeting and also described substantial infrastructure needs (millions for roofs, electrical, sewer) that appear on the project list. The board did not vote on the resolution and directed staff to return with revised language for formal action at the June 10 meeting.