Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Beach board orders November bond election to extend $8.85 tax rate; consultants, counsel and residents urge vote
Summary
The board unanimously adopted Resolution 2608 to order a Prop 39 bond election on Nov. 3, 2026, to extend the district’s existing $8.85 per $100,000 tax rate, pursue approximately $81.9 million in projects over multiple issuances, and require the statutory accountability measures. Presenters outlined polling, legal limits on district advocacy, oversight committee rules, estimated homeowner impacts and timelines; dozens of community members urged placing the measure on the ballot.
The Laguna Beach Unified School District Board on July 9 voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 2608, authorizing staff to place a Proposition 39 facilities bond measure on the November 3, 2026 ballot that would extend the current $8.85 per $100,000 assessed-value tax rate and fund priority projects in the district’s Facilities Master Plan.
Superintendent Don Austin emphasized that the board was deciding to allow voters to weigh in on a potential construction bond — not endorsing a campaign — and introduced staff and outside advisors. Communication consultant Jared Bygan summarized polling results (initial favorability at 59%, rising to nearly two-thirds once voters understood the measure would not increase the current tax rate) and emphasized transparency and the district’s public‑vetting steps. Bond counsel Meredith Johnson explained Prop 39 reporting and accountability requirements: a tax-rate statement, required financial and performance audits, and a citizens’ oversight committee subject to the Brown Act. Fiscal adviser Adam Bauer outlined financing assumptions and a projected capacity across four issuances that could generate roughly $81,865,000 under conservative assumptions and discussed the county deadline (109 days before the election) that made the July 17 filing date time-sensitive for a 2026 election.
Board members asked detailed legal and operational questions about what district officials and trustees may say about the measure, the pros-and-cons materials that will appear in voter guides, oversight-committee membership rules (minimum seven members, two-year terms, limits on consecutive terms), and how joint‑use or leased facilities would be evaluated under tax-exempt bond rules. Counsel and advisers said the district may provide objective information and that campaign advocacy must be privately funded; the district may prepare informational materials that include pros and cons and must avoid using public funds for campaigning.
Public comment included more than a dozen speakers representing PTAs, parent groups and community organizations (School Power, PTA Council) who urged the board to place the measure on the ballot, citing aging buildings, seismic and fire-safety needs, TK/kindergarten modernization, nutrition-service upgrades and sustainability projects. Several trustees highlighted wildfire risk at campuses (El Moro, Thurston) and asked staff to pursue interim fire-protection steps in parallel with long-term projects.
After discussion the board adopted Resolution 2608 by roll call, 5–0, thereby asking the county to consolidate the measure with the November election. Staff said the voter information guide will include the full project list and tax-rate statement; if the measure passes the board will appoint a citizens’ oversight committee within 60 days of certification to monitor expenditures.
The board adjourned and scheduled its next regular meeting for July 23, 2026.
