Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Survey shows voter support for a possible $250M bond; board advances first reading of resolution
Summary
EMC Research's poll found about 63–64% support for a $250 million bond at roughly $36 per $100,000 of assessed value; the board reviewed a Prop 39 bond resolution (citizens oversight, audits, project categories) and voted to move the resolution forward for adoption consideration at the June 17 meeting after extensive public comment and questions about district priorities and trust.
A district-commissioned survey presented to the Carmel Unified School District board suggests a potential 2026 general obligation bond could be feasible. Emily Goodwin of EMC Research told the board a statistically valid poll of 400 likely voters in mid-May found about 64% of respondents said they would vote yes on a draft $250 million bond measure described at $36 per $100,000 of assessed value. The firm said voters prioritized urgent facility needs such as weatherproofing, plumbing and safety improvements and that providing local oversight and transparency was persuasive to voters.
Chief Business Official Ivon Perez and consultants from Team Civics and bond counsel walked the board through a draft Prop 39 resolution that would authorize a maximum bond issuance of $250 million, a tax-rate statement estimating an average levy of $36 per $100,000 of assessed value and the Prop 39 accountability provisions: an independent citizens' oversight committee and annual performance and financial audits. Staff emphasized the project list in the resolution is deliberately broad and based on the updated facilities master plan; eligible categories include safety and accessibility, learning environments, utilities and infrastructure, building systems and student-support facilities.
Consultants noted the statutory calendar: to put a bond on the November 3, 2026 ballot the district must file resolutions with the county registrar by early August. The board held a lengthy public discussion. Multiple parents and community members urged the board to address concerns about the district's fiscal priorities and longstanding controversies before asking voters to approve a large bond; other speakers said the facilities needs are real and supported a campaign. After discussion and questions about polling margin of error and subgroup results, the board voted to move the draft resolution forward for formal consideration and possible adoption at the June 17 board meeting. The action was not a final placement on the ballot; it authorizes further work toward adoption.
