Los Banos board reviews $99 million Prop 39 bond plan, debates whether to highlight new elementary schools

At a July workshop, the Los Banos Unified School District board heard consultants present outreach and polling findings and reviewed a draft Prop 39 facilities bond measure sized at $99,000,000.

Clifford Moss communications lead Amanda Clifford told trustees the district’s scientific polling showed roughly 55.4% support in a final test and that a separate two‑way mailer reached about 14,251 voters with 170 responses. "We were right there at the level you need to be," Clifford said, adding that community priorities from the research emphasized repair and modernization over new construction and that tax‑rate sensitivity is a key risk.

The consultants said the draft bond project list includes 11 bullets that the district could use bond proceeds for, among them ‘‘repair and replace deteriorating roofs, plumbing, gas and sewer lines,’’ modern multiuse classrooms and labs, accessibility upgrades, and "construct a new elementary school to relieve overcrowding." Bond counsel Daniel Maruccia (Lozano Smith) explained the legal constraints under Prop 39: the measure must include a project list, annual independent audits and a citizens oversight committee, and the board must adopt a resolution ordering the election by five yes votes.

Board members pushed back on how the measure is described in the short (75‑word) voter statement. "I feel very disillusioned ... I thought this bond was for building a new school," Board member Isabelle Dale said, summarizing a concern several trustees raised that the voter‑facing language does not make new elementary construction prominent enough. Trustee Laurie Gattuso and others said the community recognizes overcrowding in areas such as Grasslands and would welcome clearer wording that signals new school capacity is a priority.

Consultants cautioned that the exact phrasing of the 75‑word statement was not tested in polling and changing tested language could reduce support. "If we start changing that too much, our risk goes up in terms of are we still in that 55% and above support or are we starting to drop?" Clifford said.

Financial advisor Jason Shaba (Fieldman Rollup) presented the proposed $99,000,000 authorization and a maximum tax rate of $32 per $100,000 assessed value. Using the district’s median assessed value (about $306,000), he said the maximum rate would translate to an annual cost of just under $100 for the median homeowner under the worst‑case tax assumption; the board could sell the bonds in roughly four to five separate tranches over about 15 years to meet spend‑down rules and market timing.

Maruccia and staff also flagged procedural and legal limits: the district may provide fair, impartial information about the measure but may not use district resources to advocate for the ballot measure; board members may volunteer for independent campaigns but may not solicit campaign contributions in a way that violates the Levine Act.

Trustees agreed they need more time to refine the project list and ballot language. Chair said the board will schedule a special meeting before the county’s recommended July 24 filing date (statutory deadline Aug. 7) to decide whether to order the election and finalize the ballot materials.

Why it matters: The board is close to the 55% approval threshold required for Prop 39 bonds. How the district frames the measure — whether it leads with repairs and modernization or highlights new elementary construction to address overcrowding — could affect voter support and the district’s ability to secure state matching funds for major projects.

What’s next: The board will reconvene in a special meeting before the county filing window closes to vote on ordering the election and adopting final ballot text and the project list.