Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Paula Unified outlines $39.9 million bond to rebuild gym, pool and performing arts space
Summary
District staff described a proposed $39.875 million general obligation bond to rebuild Bridal Gym (fire recovery), upgrade pool and locker-room facilities, and construct a performing-arts center and multipurpose spaces; staff said the plan limits levy impact to about $28.11 per $100,000 of assessed value and requires a 55% voter threshold.
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff presented details of a proposed general obligation bond the board intends to place on the November ballot to fund campus reconstruction and new facilities.
Staff described the bond amount the board settled on — roughly $39.875 million — as calibrated to district needs and growth projections and said the figure stays within an estimated average levy of about $28.11 per $100,000 of assessed value. Staff distinguished that total needs were estimated at about $41 million (including escalation and soft costs) and explained the district intends to use existing construction funds, developer fees and insurance to shrink the gap. (District presentation, bond overview)
Projects highlighted for the bond’s initial phases included rebuilding Bridal Gym (fire-related), adding a multipurpose/wrestling room, renovating pool equipment and the pool deck, and building locker rooms to connect to Bryden Gym and the pool. Staff indicated Area 3 would address a performing-arts center and, if budget permits, an additional weights/cardio multipurpose facility. Construction estimates presented were roughly $29 million for hard construction, $8 million for soft costs and $4.3 million for escalation. A timeline presented anticipated work beginning in summer 2027 and concluding around summer 2029.
Staff explained a bond oversight committee is required and typically contains at least seven community members (taxpayer association, retiree community representative, local business/chamber representative, etc.) to monitor expenditures. The board also discussed how legal requirements limit what district employees and board members can say when representing the district around ballot measures — factual informational work is allowed while representing the district but direct advocacy is restricted.
Board members asked why the district did not pursue a larger $48 million measure previously considered; staff said the district wanted to minimize taxpayer burden and present a clear, conservative ask tied to the defined scope of work. Trustees asked whether the $39.875M would cover phases 1–3; staff replied it would, when combined with existing construction funds and insurance.
No final resolution adopting a ballot measure was taken at the meeting; staff said a resolution in favor of the ballot measure is planned for a future meeting (anticipated before June 24) and that the district would need to campaign as permitted (staff and trustees may engage as private citizens to promote the bond but may only provide facts while representing the district).

