Board Workshop — May 6, 2026

26, 2026 at the District Office Conference Center. Approval of the agenda. Are there any requests or changes to the agenda? If not, I'll take a motion and a second to approve the agenda. So, Dr. Kramarchy. So, let's say we're we're in in our regular meeting. We have items listed under information and reports. So, the public can normally

sign up to speak on an item in information and reports. So, we only have one item in information and reports. So, are we going to allow like we do normally in our open meetings, not a special meeting, are we going to allow the public to speak on the information item in the agenda? Only if it's regarding the

board advisory update regarding the bonds specifically. Right. So, Yeah, we have public comments. But no, it's not public comments. >> I com- you know what I mean. Public comments regarding this information item. Not open to the general comments, but specifically this. Okay, I just wanted to clarify. That's all. Okay, do we have a motion and a second?

Move by Mr. Barham. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Uh Renee, would you mind calling roll? Yes. Yes. Motion adopted 4-0, one absent. Um Public comments on closed session items. The governing board welcomes public comments. This is a time for closed session public comments. We don't have any. Um now we're going to go into a closed

session.

Come in. Then you see, okay. Melissa Chai, secretary of the board Dr. Kimberly Valasnec, executive team, board advisory committee Gary Audi, committee chair Jack Guerrero, Janette Chung, Upneet Dollywalli. Did I get it right? Dollywalli. Dollywalli? And then Alex Dubal. Is it Dubal? Dubas. Dubas, sorry. Guys, I'm really sorry. Okay. Um oh, pledge of allegiance. Anybody on the board want to lead us in

the pledge? Mr. Schwartz. I don't see any hat. Oh, I did see a hat, but it's off. Put your right hand over your heart. Begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated.

Okay. Do we have any comments? We're Obviously, we're on information reports board advisory update. Um do we have any comments? >> Yes, we have one. We have one. Okay, let me read this. For special board meetings, public comments are restricted to agenda items per as per government code um section 54954.3. Public comments are allowed up to a

maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item. Total public comments per agenda item shall not exceed 30 minutes unless extended uh by board consent. Unless the item has been placed on the public agenda in accordance with the Brown Act, no action will be taken. No discussion will be made regarding personnel issues in open session. All public comments are essential part of

the board meeting and are carefully considered by the governing board. With that, um we'll welcome up our first speaker. Okay, sorry. It's a little Excuse me, [clears throat] it's a little different on the screen because my computer's updating, but first up is David Hatch. >> Okay. All right. Hi everyone. My name is David Hatch. Just want to speak up in

favor of this bond. I'm a local community member. I have a kid in TK at Abby Ranke. I volunteered there. I've reviewed the need for improvements in facilities. So, the issue again, it's not the bond itself here that we're discussing, right? It's the parents' rights. It's the right for us to vote on the bond. So, I've talked

to my neighbors. There's a lot of interest in this issue. There's a lot of interest in improving the facilities in this district. I don't see why it's wrong or it's a bad idea to want to improve the facilities. I know maybe some people want to blame Sacramento. Some people want to blame the district. There's a lot of blame to

go around. We can all accept some blame. Not being open to this bond is is a bad idea in my opinion. So, some parents may disagree. Some people on the board may disagree, but it's a parents' rights issue to be able to vote on this bond. So, there's some frustration with me here because this bond issue was

brought up last May at a meeting. There was a meeting to vote on a bond feasibility study. Everyone remembers that, right? It was voted to to pass. The bond majority was different back then. There were two no votes. Dr. Kamroski didn't want to vote because of the real estate market or because of the the government budget. I

don't know. Hopefully that has changed. It's been a year. So, Ms. Wiersma, same thing. There was an issue with releasing the government budget. I you know, I don't know. Hopefully there is a decision made tonight. I really think this the public needs to be able to vote on this bond issue. So, I don't understand why it's taking so

long. This is a good thing for us. This is an investment in our community. This is investment in our future. This is cheap debt. This is like life insurance. The cheapest you're ever going to find life insurance is right now. So, the cheapest we're ever going to find this debt is right now. So, let's be open to

it. It's a good thing. You can even go on the market. You could go to your local Edward Jones. You could buy Temecula Valley USD municipal bonds for retirement. Tax-free income. So, again, this is good. This is not the consumer debt. We're not buying Corvettes with retirement money. We are investing in our future. So, again, I think this is a

good thing. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. >> [applause] >> Thank you. Okay. Um Yes, I'm going to hand it off to the board advisory uh committee for an update. And um well, maybe if one person speaks, we can cycle through. But, I'll let you lead this uh Gary. And then when it comes back to the

board, I'm open for flexibility with the board and and even Mrs. Lash. We're going to have to ask for me it's just straight up because she's going to be the point person for a lot of this. And all I want to do is any board member can go, but maybe we cycle it um through. And maybe have unrestricted

time to just speak on this. Just allowing though all five board members to cycle through. Let's say. And if we lose track of that, we can put ourselves on time limits, but for now I'm saying flexibility and Well, when it works, Mr. Audi, I'm going to hand the floor over to you. Okay. And before we start, we just want to say

we appreciate all of your efforts behind the scene to work on this, multiple meetings to come to advise the board. Okay, before I address you, Dr. Kamroski, you were talking about at the end in terms of comments, are you talking about throughout the presentation? Throughout. Throughout, okay. Um, I I just had one thing on that and you

it's up to you to do it the way you want. Um, but my feeling was that when we get down to the slide on bond language, um, it would be great to have more discussion comments, but um, as we go through the slides, you may have some clarifying questions, too. So, um, I was just hoping to, um,

have that happen and would I guess you could follow your order if if somebody needs a clarification as one of us are describing a slide. >> Yeah, I'm for flexibility with all of that. I just don't want a board member not being able to speak unless say if one has already spoken, you know, we cycle through it, but yeah, flexibility

with all of it. >> Okay. All right, like any presentation, as as we come down to the end, things are going to make a lot more sense. So, um, that's why I just wanted to highlight clarifying questions there. Um, so, President Dr. Kamroski, um, Dr. Velez, board members, um, thanks for having us again tonight. Um, we would really I I

like to reintroduce our amazing team. I know you've already said their names, so I won't restate them, but this team has done some just amazing work, and I want to thank them again for their volunteer service to the community. Um we are very proud of our collaboration to achieve a most informative proposal for tonight that will that we will

present. Um thanks to our staff led by uh Ms. Nicole Nash and and her team, and finally to our um our advisory liaison Vice Clerk Wiersma um for all of this um fantastic work. And we're we're hoping to give you a very This should be a very informative presentation tonight. So, first off, I want to be clear about um what our

purpose is as the advisory committee. Um obviously, the agenda agenda item is whether or not we're to put you are to put a a bond measure on the ballot. So, this advisory team has been tasked to make a recommendation regarding this potential um board approval of a school bond measure on the November ballot. That would help and this would help fund

modern schools, repairing and upgrading facilities. As we brought to you in our previous workshop, and as you will see in the ballot language proposal tonight, uh we will be focusing on um a measure that would fund the upgrade of facilities and facilities only, and the repair and deteriorating roofs, plumbing, gas, and electrical systems that are necessary for basic safety and quality teaching

and learning. Our advisory committee is combri- comprised of board-appointed community members with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. We've completed a thorough examination of facilities facility needs for our students and the community. In our journey, we've garnered information regarding the need of renewed fiscal support for our deteriorating facilities that will provide the upgrades and repair to provide for safe quality teaching and

learning. Though the need for providing support for our students and staff was very obvious to each one of the members our advisory team. Um we were determined to explore the impacts that the bond may measure would have on taxpayers and our community at large also. We were thoroughly educated by consultants who are experts on bond initiatives in California. Our team

members were provided data, legal direction, and were taught about Mr. Jack Guerrero. Each individual member of this committee did extra work to learn more about bond initiatives and the impact of bonds on our schools and community. With this knowledge again through our process, we prepared we are prepared to make a well-informed recommendation tonight. It's our hope that given this well

vetted information, you will be able to make the best decision for our students, staff, and community regarding this proposal. I've had the pleasure along this uh journey to work with um our lead our our actually our committee appointed lead, Mr. Jack Guerrero. Jack has been a tireless advocate for transparency throughout this process. Though he and I have had some opposing

perspectives, we both worked very hard to find common ground, achieve consensus, and model collaboration with our team. Jack's going to start us off tonight by explaining his duties along this um um experience that we've had as the team appointed lead. He will give an overview of his journey this year and then take us through the first set of slides.

Thank you, Jack. Mr. Oddie, just a just a say something that I forgot. Dr. Velez is going to help me lead the meeting. At any time, she can mic up. Melissa, when we get to negotiation or sorry, when we get to more of the deliberations, at any time, you can mic up as long as we cycle through, you

know, all five or six, you're in it with us if you want to speak. Okay, here we go. Excellent. Well, thank you very much for the introduction, Mr. Oddie, members of the board, ladies and gentlemen, members of the public. It's an absolute delight, a pleasure for me to present our advisory committee's recommendation to the board on this occasion. I do want to

thank Mr. Oddie and the rest of the committee members for a very collaborative working environment. It's been my pleasure to work with this committee. I appreciate uh the hard work of every member and the friendships that we've been able to forge between between ourselves. And so, what we're going to present today is a recommendation to the board. On most elements of the bond

proposal, we all agree and that's a wonderful step forward in this process. There are a few elements of the process that we have different views and what we're going to do throughout this presentation is identify those as options for the board's consideration. We'll be very very clear that these are scenarios that you can pursue, uh but for the most part, the principal

elements of the bond proposal are in complete agreement uh between members of the advisory committee. So, that's a wonderful step uh in the right direction. Let's proceed to the first slide. What we have here is just a summary of how we've gotten here and what the purpose of this bond proposal is. Um you can see in the upper

left-hand quadrant that we have an opportunity in this even year to propose a ballot measure to the community of Temecula. That is uh a parameter that uh is prescribed in the government code. Proposition 39 in the year 2000 presented new requirements for bond issuance, and one of those is that uh we can only come to the community during

even-numbered primary or general election years. And so, that's why we have a certain level of urgency to come to the community uh this year and present, because if we uh lose this runway, um our next opportunity to evaluate will be in 2028 during the presidential primary and presidential general election cycle. Um now, what um prompted the uh initial discussion was

uh an evaluation of the need that exists within the Temecula Valley Unified School District. And believe it or not, we started with a total uh assumption or a total um valuation of facility improvement needs at over a billion dollars. And through hard work, a lot of input from this committee and from staff, we've been able to narrow that need from

1 billion and prioritize that list to 400 million dollars as a reasonable uh value of uh urgent um you know, uh and must uh achieve uh enhancements to construction and modernization of facilities. Now, that doesn't mean that that's what we're going to ask the board to uh present to taxpayers in this community. Uh we actually overlaid an additional

layer of discipline uh before coming up with a proposal that we'll present here momentarily. We have a variety of funding sources that uh that board can consider. We've presented these in previous meetings. For example, uh we have school impact fees that are generated by individual development communities, but those are very small. They average about $7 million per annum.

We also have, of course, the general fund, which sources in the most discretionary way spending within the district. If we look at the most recently completed annual audit report for the district, we've got about $75 million in the general fund balance and about half of that is true that we've collectively estimated at about $400 million. Finally, we've got an opportunity at

matching funds from the government, from state government, but those matching funds are limited to very narrow pool of modernization projects that invoke the aging of facilities 25 years in particular, unless they're portables, in which case if they reach the 20-year mark, they qualify for matching funds. So, not all of the $400 million that we're targeting, you know, as as a need

for this qualifies for a match. Only a subset, 90 million in particular, qualifies for a match, and that's extra resourcing, complementary resourcing from state government that we can take advantage of through this bond issuance. So, let's proceed to the next slide, please. Here you go. You can just click it. Okay, perfect. So, I'll make just a few general comments

before we dive in to recommendations. The general obligation bonds are governed on this occasion based on the type of bond that we want to present by Proposition 39. This was a measure approved by voters in California in the year 2000, and it basically changed the rules around how school districts evaluate bonds and present them for consideration before taxpayers. A couple

of notable changes is that for the measure to get on the ballot, it requires 2/3 of the board to agree to place it on the ballot. Because there are five board members, that means we need four of the five board members to agree to place this measure on the ballot. Once it's placed on the ballot, the requisite number of voters to

approve is 55%. That's a lowered threshold from the previous 2/3 requirement for voter approval. There are also a number of internal control and oversight requirements to the bond measure, and we have our colleague Alex who'll present in a few minutes on what some of those requirements are. And um And in terms of timing, just a few general

thoughts. We we do have a very short runway to get this resolution approved by the board and ultimately submitted to the registrar of voters. The law requires 88 days prior to the election. So if you work 88 days before the November general election, that puts us at August 7th, 2026 as the final drop-dead deadline to submit all of the paperwork, which is

expansive, I have to say. It's not just the resolution approved by the board, but it's a number of ancillary documents that are that are required. And we'll talk about some of those in a moment. But basically, we've got a lot of work to do before we get to August 7th. And that work also involves two readings of

the resolution by the board. So we have to factor in several meetings worth of deliberation by the board before we get to August 7th. Let's turn to the next slide here. This is intended to be an example of how the tax rate that we will propose works in practice to homeowners. Um, I guess I'll jump a little bit ahead here to the

punchline, but we'll have a separate slide where we discuss this, but right in the middle on the first column, you'll see the reference to $20. Um, this is the proposal that we're going to make as an advisory committee to uh pursue a tax rate of $20 per $100,000 of assessed value on properties. Um, that is not the same as a market value,

let's make that very, very clear. The assessed value is the basis upon which uh your property tax assessment uh is is uh is generated. And so every year, if you're a homeowner, you you get a property tax bill. Um, that bill with a variety of assessments is based on assessed value. Uh, and that in all cases, in almost all cases, unless you

purchased a home um, recently, uh is uh lower than the fair market value. Means that um, if we uh have an assessed value of $400,000 of in in in a particular home, um, the contribution annually from that property owner will be $40. Uh, let's take another example uh in the middle row, $20 of of tax rate uh per

$100,000 of assessed value. If your home is assessed at $600,000, that means that the annual contribution, if this measure should pass and get approved by the voters, under this scenario, would be $120 as an incremental payment that you make on your property tax assessment. So you can see how the math works. Um, again, the tax rate per $100,000 of assessed

value. Okay. Let's go to uh the next slide. Um, this gives a little bit of perspective of how the $20 of assessed value that we are proposing compares to the neighboring school districts and to all of Riverside County. So, at present, if you look at the very bottom row of this exhibit, you'll see a reference to Temecula Valley Unified School District

where we are currently uh paying approximately $15 on on $100,000 of assessed value for pre-existing bonds. Now, those pre-existing bonds, which were approved over a decade ago, um have already been exhausted. In other words, we've raised the money and we've spent the money or finally allocated the money. So, there's no more wiggle room to tap those for

future needs. However, because it's a long-term bond bond obligation, we still are paying off that bond. And the current assessment is about $15. So, if we overlay the new assessment that this committee is proposing, which is $20 per $100,000 of assessed value, that would bring the total burden per $100,000 of assessed value to about $35. So, that's the $15 plus the $20 that we

are proposing for a grand total of $35 per $100,000 of assessed value. Jackie, to interrupt you, but how long more is the Measure Y we are paying on that 14.98, whatever it is? Cuz it's not necessarily the same as if this bond goes through. How many more years on the way? >> That's a very good point. I'll defer to

Ms. Lash for clarification on that point. I believe it's 2047. Okay, we still have a ways to go. Okay. Yeah, I mean, if you think about it, most bonds are uh averaging about 30-year duration. And if we passed Measure Y just over 10 years ago, um we're we're probably in a 20-year runway, you know, before we exhaust it.

So, that's a a very reasonable uh assumption. Now, what will happen after that time is that the combined $35 of assessment will then drop by $15 from that point forward unless this subsequent board or a board in the future decides to put another bond measure on the ballot. Okay. So, as of right now, $20 of assessed value added to the 15

pre-existing, that puts us at $35 and look where that compares to the rest of the school districts in Riverside County. It actually continues to keep us at the very bottom, which means that relative to our neighbors, we are the least burdened on taxpayers. So, it's a wonderful thing, I think, from my perspective. Yeah. So, let's compare to

the median average, which is $80. And then if you want to be a little more competitive with the neighboring districts, Murrieta Valley Unified is at $86. They are concurrently evaluating a bond measure in their district and they're committed based on last week's communications at a board meeting to preserving the $86 mark as those bonds, the pre-existing bonds, fall off. So, we

are quite conservative with what we're asking the board. This next slide provides a comparison to not just the neighboring school districts, but the neighboring counties. So, on the upper left-hand side, I know it's very small print, but I'll point out the relevant metrics. We can see the San Diego County School District average, which is about $41 per $100,000 of assessed value.

Again, our combined burden on taxpayers would be $35 per $100,000 of assessed value. So, relative to the average of San Diego County School Districts, we are in a more favorable or least tax burden position. On the right-hand side of the slide, you see the Orange County District averages. And in the orange bar in the middle, you see a $32.16

average burden for Orange County School Districts. The proposal for Temecula Valley, once we add the pre-existing tax burden, is about $35. So, we are closer to what Orange County School Districts experience and more favorable compared to San Diego County and certainly more favorable compared to the rest of the school districts in Riverside County. Before you move on, Mr. Guerrero, may I add

something to that statement though? So, I you can see the median home value assessed value in Orange County is 629,000 and in San Diego County it's 534,000. So, remember this is per 100,000 in assessed value. So, even if we're similar at that 35 per 100,000 in assessed value rate, the median home assessed value in Temecula is 477,000.

So, our taxpayers will still pay less than they do in those counties for that same per 100,000 value, if that makes sense. Very good point. Okay, let's go to the next slide. Okay, so this presents our proposal right in the middle row, which is $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. That is less than what we would require to

achieve remediation on the $400 million of need, but it's above the threshold by which we exhaust the matching funds from state government, which would be at 90 million. So, $20 is a good middle point from those two perspectives. But, what you see here on the second column is how much in proceeds in bond proceeds the $20 of assessed value would provide

to Temecula Valley Unified School District $115 million. So, So, very conservative. Again, we started with a billion dollar need, and we worked our way very conservatively to 400 million, and we'll talk more about the basis for that calculation, but of the 400 million, we're proposing a $20 tax rate uh per $100,000 of assessed value to generate 215 million to be

allocated to the most urgent projects. And the determination of what those urgent projects will be um is going to be subject to future board approval and future consultation with uh subsequent generations of students, teachers, and stakeholders. Uh we do have some general parameters over what we expect um the $215 million to be used for, and we'll talk about

that in a subsequent slide. But you can see comparisons uh if we were to reduce the assessment to $10, that would generate half of the proceeds at 108 million. Um if we go a little more aggressively at 30 million, that would generate 323 million dollars for construction and modernization. Let's go to the next slide. And at this point, I'm going to uh

transition over to uh Nicole Lash um for discussion of uh modernization and eligible sites. So, I just wanted to um show the board and the community the sites that will become eligible for modernization just in the next 2 years. So, typically, um we don't have enough facility dollars to modernize facilities as they become eligible, where you can see we're a few

years behind. But just uh in over the next 2 years, we will have 65.7 million dollars in state matching eligibility. So, I know Mr. Guerrero did an job of talking about what state matching um dollars are in that 60/40 split in that the district pays 40% the state will match 60% but we have to pay the entire 100% upfront. So we would have to

pay the total 109.5 million dollars in spending to then submit for reimbursement through state matching dollars to receive that 65.7 million. So these are just the schools that are eligible for modernization from now till 2028 and the list just grows from there. And I just do want to point out in that third bullet when you add all of these

sites in their needs not wants but not nice to have but need to have just these sites alone. That's where we we narrowed down our focus to the need being 426 million dollars worth of needs just for these sites that are becoming eligible in the next 2 years. And with that I believe I'm passing it over to Mrs. Chen.

Thank you very much. So the prioritization of work to be done. I think last time when we had our board presentation we showed a lot of pictures of the portables and we had a little chuckle amongst ourselves that we wish we had a scratch and sniff sticker to be able to let you guys know what the portables experience was when we walked

through them. I think it's very telling that the Temecula Valley High School has 15 million 949 in eligible need. I think that's the best way to put it. Eligible needs to be fixed there. That's where we actually went and did our walk-through. And the prioritization for all of the schools is very important but the one thing that we discussed a lot was the

portables. They're they're becoming at the end of use and the outdated nature of them is can cause and in the future health issues for not only the parents but the student I'm not the the students but the teachers as well. It it it was really concerning to us that we really wanted to make sure that that was a something that was hit

they're very expensive to remove and replace. And so I think that that's a large portion of that $15 just to deal with some portable issues. But the idea would be to reduce the number of classrooms and outdated portable buildings. They said that not all of the portables have classrooms. Some of them are used for other items but those portable

buildings were very outdated. The modernize outdated classrooms and the learning environments. It was a stark contrast when we did our tour from the newer buildings compared to the older buildings and the level of ability for not only lighting but space and the modernization of just even the usage of um of what I'm looking for that word right

there. Projectors, thank you. They had the most sorry guys, it's been a long day. They had really they had an incredible amount of facility improvements in the newer buildings that they cannot do in the older buildings. And so it there was like a big contrast to that and so it it just felt as if one of the things we wanted to touch on

was making sure that the learning environments were something that were suitable for at least restrictive environments especially. Also the repair and replacement of energy management systems, lighting, HVAC and alarms. The repair and replacement of deteriorating roofs, gas sewer lines and electrical systems. The upgrade of technology and furniture to meet 21st century learning needs. I again I touched on that the the newer

buildings and the newer construction is just out of this world and compared to what it looked like when I went to high school in the portables. It doesn't feel like it changed much from when many many years ago. I won't say how long, but many years ago when I went to high school it looked the same. Um but also

add shade when feasible for outdoor eating, learning, and activities. I think that that's really important, especially with the heat that we deal with. Um providing shade for the students, that I think is something that they would really appreciate and be necessary. Improve physical safety of facilities as such as the concrete, asphalt, fire alarms, ingress and egress. In the older buildings, one of

our great concerns was that as you do fire drills, you do um gun safety drills, um and active shooter drills, that there was no ingress and egress. There was one way to get in and one way to get out. And so we have felt like that that was a great concern. We wanted to have added into this as something to

promote for fixing. Um as well as the fire alarms, we were addressed that there was an entire system that's enmeshed with itself. That this system needs to be placed within the rest of the system as well as all of the lighting and the HVAC and the alarms. It's all one system, and when they're not added into it, it does cause

problems and could cause a safety issues. But and then the repair and replace of play equipment. Um I thought that that was pretty important, especially for the younger kids. You know, they really do need to make sure that we have the utmost safety for them. But um I just think that especially the HVAC we were showing on the outside of the portables

where they're sticking out. And so when kids pass by, you know, they can get a little rowdy and not everybody's paying attention. I don't even pay attention where I walk. And there was really pointed corners that can possibly cause concern. And hopefully it hasn't, but it those were things that we we really wanted to pay attention to is that the

air quality especially is something to be thought of, especially in those portables in the older buildings. All right, good evening. Um [clears throat] as Jack alluded to earlier, uh, the focus of this committee hasn't just been on how best to meet the, uh, the needs of the district and its students, um, in terms of facilities, uh, and, uh,

modernization, but also on how to ensure transparency and oversight and accountability, uh, for any such bond, uh, to the members of our community that we're going to be asking to to pay for them. So, uh, this slide covers, um, just four of the pretty significant, uh, ways that, uh, any bond that this board, uh, proposes will, uh, be accountable to the

voters and to the members of our community. Uh, the first is a citizens bond oversight committee. This is legally required under California law. Uh, requires at least seven members specifically representing certain groups, uh, a member of a, uh, citizens, uh, taxpayer organization, a senior citizens organization, a parent, a guardian, um, and the reason for this is to make sure

that no single interest dominates, um, the bond decisions and the oversight, uh, of how any bond monies are are spent. Um, its job is going to be to monitor and ensure that bond funds are spent exactly as they're promised to be spent. The second way is a, uh, mandatory separate annual audit of just the bond. Exactly as it says, uh, apart

from any district audits, um, I'm sure Nicole can give us chapter and verse about what regular district audits look like, but this would be completely separate and distinct from that. And they would include both a financial audit to determine were the dollars accounted for properly, uh, and a performance audit, were the projects actually completed as intended. Um, both of those

audits will be required every year separate from the district's regular budget audit so that any bond spending gets its own independent scrutiny. The third way is uh public contracts um codes and bidding requirements. Um as a lawyer, this is significant uh and I know that our district uh you know already practices this, but just for the sake of one, uh

there's competition that's involved to reduce the risk of any type of favoritism, to reduce the risk of inflated costs, to make sure that vendor selection for these projects are transparent, and uh part of the public record. And then the fourth way uh that we will uh have accountability over any proposed bond is um these legal and ballot constraints, a

project project list. Um needs to be publicly disclo- disclosed. Money can't be spent on unlisted items. This is not a slush fund. This is not something where, you know, the money is advertised for one purpose and then spent for a different purpose. Um I mentioned this during our last um update to the board. Uh this one's significant. No teacher or administrator

salaries uh can be paid from bond funds. No district office facilities, no improvements or uh remodeling of Dr. Velez's uh office is sort of my little joke that I've been using throughout this year. All right, this is solely for our students, for our schools, and for their facilities. Um and then lastly, the uh amount's capped at the ballot amount. So, it's

it's what you see is is what you get. We are not able to spend in excess of what uh a bond measure would would authorize. The the district can't go quietly spend more more what the voters actually approved under the pretext of well, there was a bond that was passed. So, overall taken together, um these measures are uh a way to give

voters confidence that it a yes vote, if it is put to them for a vote, means the money uh that they're asked to spend for the sake of our schools and our students will be spent exactly as uh described with oversight at every level. Okay, quick question. We've cycled through Ms. Dollywala, are you presenting? No. Okay, just to be clear. Okay, good.

Yeah, absolutely. I think it's for Nicole next. Okay, we're handing it off to Ms. Lash. Okay, here we go. So, in our last workshop, the conversation around general fund commitment was raised. And so, uh this slide is to show, number one, the current financial commitment of the general fund towards facilities, and then, um some proposal or conversation for potentially

increasing the board's uh commitment towards facilities. So, currently, we uh contribute 3% of our total expenditures for routine maintenance, which is approximately $12 million a year, and that is to keep facilities uh in working condition. And then, uh so, this is patching roofs and re uh sealing pavement. And we do that over and over and over again until we can no longer do

that, and then we have to replace. So, replacement is more of a deferred project, every call it 5, 10, 15 years, depending on the useful life of something. And so, we uh the board for TVSD uh a few years ago made a commitment to contribute an additional 1% out of our general fund towards those larger projects. So, combined we contribute

every single year $16 million out of our general fund towards facilities within the organization. If we were to continue that commitment through the life of the bond, and let's just say we get the 215 million and that lasts us 8 years. It would likely last us longer, but for a conservative approach, let's say it lasts us 8 years. That would mean that

of our total funds that we spend on facilities over the next 8 years, 37% would come from the district's general fund. And so, that's already committed and we would already be doing that. Uh continuing on with our existing commitments. If the board would like to discuss increasing that commitment to I don't know if the term was have more

skin in the game or or just want to increase that those matching funds. Each percent addition would be approximately $4 million. And if you contributed an additional 1%, that would mean that over the next 8 years the total amount that we spend on facilities, 43% would come from the general fund. If you wanted to do half a percent, it would be, you know,

somewhere in in between those two, so about 40% of total spending over the next 8 years would come from the district's general fund. So, one conversation as we lead into our adopted budget is the board interested in committing additional general fund dollars towards facilities, and if so, what percent? Would it be one-time or ongoing? Those are all conversations for the boards to

have for moving forward. And so we discuss with under under what conditions. And we can just put that little sticker note in there that it's possible that the board is open to 0.5 to 1%. Correct. >> And then we'll circle back. >> Sounds good. Okay, and remember I few slides back we we keep saying that $400 million worth

of needs. So we wanted to provide a lot of clarity and detail. Oh, sorry if you'll go back. Yeah, that one. Sorry. So we we mentioned the schools that were eligible for modernization in the next two years. And if we just looked at each one of those schools and their needs, not their wants, what that would look like if we were if

we had $400 million we wanted to show where that $400 million would go. So and it's broken down by the categories that we've discussed. Right, we talked about how do we move classrooms out of portables? How do we provide shade? How do we repair or replace roofs and HVAC systems? So you can see Temecula Valley High School

alone has about $62 million in needs, not wants, but needs. Remember the slide where we showed you state matching eligibility was only about $19 million. So the the needs far exceed what we're going to be able to do, but it the what the bond would do is it would help us start chipping away at some of these projects.

Um and so you can see we we've both totaled it by school site and by category. So that number all the way to the right, that $68 million, that's just if we wanted to get kids out of portable classrooms. The number all the way to the right, you know, for just getting modernizing existing permanent facilities. And so,

again, it would be left for a future board to determine the priorities, which sites have the greatest needs, and of these projects, which one we would do and which one we would potentially postpone. But, this is to show that when we when we go out for a $215 million bond, potentially, it's not to solve all the facility problems of the district, and

we wouldn't even hit all of these schools. And you'll notice there's a lot of schools not on this list. These are the ones that are just eligible for modernization in the next 2 years. So, we took a highly conservative approach to what the ask would be of our community, being sensitive to the fact that we do want to, obviously,

um not increase taxes to some burdensome extent for our community. But, this is that when we say there's $426 million in needs today, this is what that looks like. If if I could just chime in here real quickly. Thank you very much, Ms. Lash, for this slide. Just a few other points for the public. Our committee actually

looked at the calculations in this display. I'm a certified public accountant, and so the auditor in me just couldn't resist. And so, I matched the build-up to source documentation, namely the master facilities plan, which is professionally produced with credible information about cost. And we also looked at the assumptions inherent in each of these years as we progress over to the right,

and there were assumptions around inflation, around escalation costs on construction. It isn't cheap. I do have to let everybody know that we're looking at construction priced at over $1,000 per square foot. So, we uh included those very realistic, although excessive, assumptions um into the forecast and again sourced um all of the uh primary information to the uh master

facilities plan, which was professionally prepared um uh separately. So, thank you. Ms. Lash. And I will say our executive director and myself are also former auditors, so we were all mind melding for that. I got a quick question for clarity. Uh somebody was saying that the feed went out, Jack, when you first presented and you said something about, hold on.

Just cuz I said I'd ask for clarity. Um about specify half the general fund was going towards something. Can you please clarify that? You made a quick statement and your feed cut out. Oh, half the statement went to the Maybe maybe um you're referring to what Ms. Lash invoked in a previous slide about adding an extra percentage

of support from the general fund um would get us um roughly $4 on an annual basis of additional contributions to construction and modernization. If we went up to 2%, um that would provide um as much as um 8 million um of additional complementary funding uh and on a combined basis a bond and allocations from the general fund, the 2%

incremental contribution would almost equate to 50% support from the general fund and 50% support from the taxpayers through the bond measure. So, if we ever when we get to the point of discussion around shared costs between taxpayer and district, if we want to explore allocating additional percentage points uh from the general fund, um we could get very close, you know, um to um

uh a truly shared uh endeavor. Okay, thank you. And for those of us who are not former accountants or currently accountants, we really appreciated having those math people on our group. We did a lot of math, so um have fun with that board. Uh what I wanted to do on this is just give a quick transition to the ballot

language. So, the slides coming up um Jennette is going to do a really good job of presenting to you the ballot language that our committee came up with. Um and I just wanted to um quickly go over the the law and the bill that we're basing um a lot of this wording on. And so, the history there is in 2015, we

had a bill from a Republican Assemblymember um that passed. And um so, AB 195 made it um a lot less slanted and more factual. But then, the the key here on this slide is the addition to that in 2 years we we we came up with AB 6, um which imposed requirement on bond measures sponsored by local governments

and required that the 75-word explanation be and again, highlighted here, true and impartial synopsis of the proposal in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create a prejudice for or against a measure. So, I I think, you know, as we go through and Jennette explains this language to you, I would really like you to keep that in mind as we go through. Um you

know, not slanting, keeping it impartial, and um I think that'll help us when we're making our decision here on the board um to have that that language. Just wanted to Just one other little highlight of this. Um the Democrats um the Democrat-led bill to um change this back to um a more slanted um version of verbage was

passed in the Democ- Democratic Assembly and Senate, and it was vetoed by the governor. So, um that that went down in um just after 2020. So, we're still with this um really good language that that gives us good direction at keeping our language um not to be prejudice and to keep it neither argumentative or likely to create a prejudice for or against the

measure. Thank you. And we'll go to Janette. So, we have two different ballot ballot language options, and one of the reasons why we have two of them is um we had a a measure um that was I mean, we had ballot language that was created by a survey that went out. And as that went forward, the desire for transparency was

brought up. Um and uh Mr. Guerra had some really good uh presentation on why it was important to be able to have this transparency in here. One of the discussions that we had was where words were placed because sometimes where words were placed, it it brought confusion. I in in how the wording was to figure out how the taxes were levied and what the

taxes were based upon. And so, we did a lot of retooling and working and uh and consulted with legal and consultants just to be able to figure out how we can bring that in. And so, these are the two different ballot language options that we came up with that best um allowed us to have the highest degree of transparency, but also

give the wording that was uh desired in order to be able to give the public exactly what it is that they're voting for in that 75 words. And so, the first option would be to provide safe, modern schools by repairing and upgrading aging classrooms, school facilities, science and career technology labs that support college career readiness in math, science,

engineering, technology, arts, and skilled trades, repairing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, gas, and electrical systems. Shall Temecula Valley Unified School District's measure be adopted authorizing 215 million in bonds at legal rates levying approximately $20 per 100,000 assessed value averaging 13 million annually while bonds are outstanding with citizen oversight audits and all money locally controlled. So, that's one of the options. And this is

the option secondary that we worked really hard on after some really good discussion and some suggestions by Mr. Guerrero. To provide safe, modern schools by repairing and upgrading aging classrooms, labs, and school facilities that support college career readiness in math, science, engineering, technology, and skilled trades, repairing deteriorating roofs, plumbing, gas, and electrical systems. Shall Temecula Valley Unified School District's measure

be adopted authorizing 215 million in bonds at legal interest rates levying up to $20 per 100,000 assessed value averaging 13 million annually while bonds are outstanding estimating 30 years with citizen oversight audits and all money locally controlled. And so, we just really felt like it was very important that the people knew the duration of the bond so that they know

how long they'd be paying for this as well as that their legal interest rates and not just legal rates. That was a very high subject of conversation is that legal rates doesn't exactly say the word interest in it so people don't know that interest is being paid upon this 215 million. However, the $20 per 100,000 assessed does not change. That that

doesn't change there's no increase on that. That is a steady rate and it will be a portion of the um of our taxes for our our taxes for our homes. And so uh the um oh and then and I already said the estimated 30 years but there is legal language that's required in this that we had to work around because there

is some language that you absolutely have to have in here and so it was just moving things around to make sure that it was acceptable. And did you guys have any questions? Is the board advisory committee regarding the bonds advising the latter or the former? Yes, our our board advisory committee um recommends the first option and is providing the second option for

your discussion. Thank you. I have a question. Yes. I noticed that arts is missing from the second In in the second I don't see >> Arts is in the second one. I see it in the Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah in the second in the second one we had to take something out to make this 75 word

count. >> Correct. And that's what >> Taking out arts is well for me is not acceptable. Okay. Um Okay, we got Melinda going. Yeah, at the previous meeting um I discussed how important the language was and I had my I had ideas like or not ideas, there were there's language that is traditionally used in some like I like 20 cents per 100

dollars. I also like to remove certain language, but I feel like this process isn't about what I want. So, I appreciate that the board put together the first both of these and gave us the options for discussion. I like the traditional language that I've read through, which the first one is more consistent with traditional bond language. I've read through as much as I

could. That's why I was like, oh, I really like 10 cents per or 20 cents, but then I'm thinking you you've spent so much time that I think this whole process was so that we could trust your input. Um so, my comments are I prefer the first the first one because it is more aligned with um traditional bond language.

Um and I want to um thank you for all all the time that you've put in. I just I don't have much to say tonight except I just feel very overwhelmed at how grateful I am that this community has the opportunity to have a bond possibly brought forward under these circumstances because I know a lot of school districts

have not had a board advisory committee that did all the hard work for them and and then presented um to them. So, thank you because I I feel like you took a huge burden off of the um off of our backs. Um and that's pretty much what I am going to lean toward now. Thank you. And this is just a point of clarity, the

board does not have to decide outright tonight or give declarative direction. We may, but we don't have to. >> I I that was my main feedback. Yep. Mrs. Anderson We have a comment. I just wanted to say the reason why we chose the $20 per 100,000 was for the very reason that we have some really good mathematicians that are on this advisory

committee, but when I'm sitting there trying to quickly assess what's going on, even though we do get our ballot language way ahead of time. Sometimes it's when you're thinking about it and looking at it. We wanted to make it as easy to calculate as possible at that moment that some people may not have had the time to be able to read through and

at the moment that they're voting, it's a little more difficult to do 20 cents per 1,000 when it's such large numbers. So, we wanted to just make it as easy as possible for $20 per 100,000. >> Yeah, and that's where I realized like this this process was set up so that we trust in your ability to make that

decision. So, it's not about well, I like this better. I So, that was my only yes. And I'll just quickly speak for our committee and and thank you for the trust at this point. Mr. Barham So, I'm going to make a motion. I move that we adopt option number one to go into the uh is is in terms of that is what is going

to be our ballot language. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Barham, a point of clarity. We haven't even got to the master list yet. I can make a motion. It's information. I'm allowed to make a motion and I made it and I got a second. >> [snorts] >> Too premature. We can take a vote. It's just not going to go anywhere. Well,

we'll see. I'm guessing. All right, we'll see. We need Mrs. Wearsman We need to continue discussing this. So Well, yeah. Well, I mean It's a It's a no. Well, yeah. Well, well, let's let's let's let's vote and then we'll Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so um the voting order. I'm not used to call it Dr. Anderson. Uh no, I would like

more time to get everyone's feedback, not just mine. I concur. No. >> Okay. Uh Mr. Barham. Yes. Mr. Schwartz. >> Yes. No. Melissa. I'm not going to vote on this one. Motion not adopted. Um three to two. And we still have much more information to discuss with the master list, and we can put this into um But but uh like I said, point of

clarity, I I think the motion was premature. We haven't even discussed all of the workshop yet. And who's going to be discussing the master list? Yeah, yeah. Okay, good. Okay, got it. So So, this is just one of the more So, to give you some direction on that, we're still on kind of a question and discussion period on the bond language.

Um although I I do understand that a motion can be made. Um so we we would hope we would spend more time on this. Um and and then we'll proceed to the next slides. >> Got you. I do have a clarifying question. So, my question is I definitely have some thoughts here, but would like to defer to you all if you feel like it

would be better to go through the project list and come back, because I'm definitely going to want to discuss this, hear other thoughts, hear from Mr. Guerrero, but I don't want to stymie it if you feel like it's better to continue on with the slides and then come back. You guys okay with moving on? Okay, let's let's move on. I think you have

the clicker. Okay, I'll go. Okay. So, I'll present on this slide, uh which is a tax rate statement. So, when we submit materials to the registrar of voters, remember we've got that 88 days in advance of the election date, um one of the many pieces of documentation we need to submit is this so-called tax rate statement. Um here is a rough draft

over on the left-hand side, which we don't need to probe meticulously. I'll highlight the key points, but what I want to stress is that this is an opportunity uh that um taxpayers will be available to read and uh digest because this document will be presented as part of the sample ballot that gets distributed, mailed out to all of the

voters. And this very detailed tax rate statement explains with a little bit more granularity what um the assumptions are around the bond issuance, the bond issuance costs, um interest calculations, the total um cost of the debt. I'll highlight some of those points now um so that everybody's apprised. And really the key question at the end of the day for the

board is going to be how much of this tax rate statement in terms of material pieces of information are worth or appropriate to bring into the 75 word ballot statement. And we'll have hopefully opportunity to discuss that further um during the meeting. But in the tax rate statement, just want to highlight a few things. Um this is uh

identifying $20 per $100,000 of assessed value as the maximum rate that we are proposing. The total cost of the bond um will be based on current assumptions uh $383 million. In other words, we would raise with this bond $215 million, but it would cost taxpayers over the life of the bond $383 million. So, that difference, if you want to think about

it as a markup is about 80% of the total issuance. So 215 million 80% of that is what we're going to pay an interest over the life of the bond estimated to continue through the year 2056 or 30 years and all of that is very clearly outlined in this tax rate statement. One other point that I'll make is that

it's not delineated in the tax rate statement but just wanted to let the community know to be fully apprised the education code in California law stipulates that our maximum interest rate is 8% there are other elements of the government code that have higher interest rate caps but for purposes of the education code and what this proposed bond is

structured within the 8% is the maximum interest rate on an annual basis that we would commit to. Okay, let me turn it over to the next slide. we now could circle back to bond language. This is pretty much our conclusion right here this slide so um if if the board would um give me some direction I think we can go

I would imagine we wanted to go back to that slide on bond language. Yeah, we're Mr. Wurstman's going to talk then I'm going to talk so yeah Okay, on this particular slide or just overall? Okay, great. Okay. Mr. Wurstman. >> [clears throat] >> First of all, thank you for all your work. It's definitely been a pleasure to

attend some of the meetings and learn a lot. I know Mr. Audi and I talked on the phone about how it drove us to do additional homework, and I appreciated that very candid candid and honest conversation with you. Um there are several perspectives here, so I think it was disingenuous to try to shut it down earlier. It's really

important to talk through some of these aspects, and I think Alex, you mentioned um a few minutes ago that what you see is what you get. And as I analyze this, there are items that are factual, and I think I've been pretty clear with people from the very beginning that we understand affordability is the number one issue today in a bipartisan

way across the state, without a doubt. So, I appreciate that we've crunched the numbers, that we've gone back and forth. I know Jack, you just mentioned 8% um being the capped maximum, and I know at one time you had thought about uh suggesting that for the language, and it it didn't make it here. So, there was definitely give and take.

What I feel like at the end of the day is, you know, consultants, uh lawyers, different perspectives are important, but sometimes you understand that they have a stake in the passage, and it's different to talk to neighbors. And I've kind of run this through friends, relatives, anyone I could talk to who's not necessarily related to the district, but kind of the everyman and

everywoman. And I said, "Are these things material? One, the fact that there's going to be interest, and two, that there is a term with an estimated time that might be as much as 30 years." Every single person said yes, every single one. And for me, when you look at the ballot language, I know that transparency is important to the voter. A lot of

people are struggling. I do love the numbers that I see that it's reasonable. Um the research that I did show that the average home in Temecula, I know there was mention of 400, 500,000. I think it's closer to 750, 830. I mean, it's incredible what rates have done. Again, it might be kind of reasonable to say $300 a year. Um that's on top of

perhaps measure Y. For some districts like our community facilities district, they're going to have Mello-Roos. You know there's going to be city taxes. There's so many things. So, for me, I looked at an isolated number and said, "Okay." Then I pulled back and looked at it in its entirety. And for me, I wish that survey had mentioned

interest and a term because I think it would have given us better data to know where people are at. And as a trustee, I feel obligated to give that information to them so that they can make an educated decision. We definitely can argue about a pamphlet and extra information, and I get that, but I think we're all so busy. So, 75 words is

important. I'm excited about a bond and being able to do what we need to do for safety and um updating things for the kids. But at the end of the day, it's still about the voter knowing the facts. And it's not bias, and it's not leaning one way or the other to say, "Hey, there's going to be

interest and there's going to be a term." And that's what you need to know. Then we need to argue why we're behind it and why it's worth it. So, that's where I'm at at this point, and I would love to hear maybe after other trustees speak to it. Mr. Guerrero, your your experience with uh numbers, your resume, I've I've been

impressed by all of you, but I want to hear your perspective on that, too. Yeah, uh Steve, you spoke or do you want to No, I want to speak. All right, you go first and I'll go after Steve. Um well, uh I'm kind of surprised that anybody who who lives in this society doesn't know what a municipal bond is and that there's an

interest rate and there's a term for it. I mean, it's common knowledge that bonds have even if you buy US savings bonds, you keep them for x number of years and you get x number of dollars of interest. So, I'm just kind of surprised. Um the bottom line for me is this is Mr. Hatch, before you go.

This is up to the people of Temecula. We have to give them the opportunity to vote. Whether anyone on the board is for it or against it, we have to give the people of Temecula the right to vote to improve the schools for their children. That's all I have to say. >> All right. First, thank you, Mr. Oddie. Thank you,

Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Ms. Chung. Thank you, Ms. Dhaliwal. Thank you, Mr. DeVos. Really, thank you. Um for putting this together. I've learned a lot in the last few months. I was skeptical towards the bond, but now I'm looking at something reasonable. I meant what I said in a video that we put out, uh Ms. Warsama and I.

And I think that a lot's been added since the last um board advisory committee that I was in. Jessica could Oh, sorry. Uh Jen couldn't make it. She um had another event, so I was in there. And I And I've seen things um that have been added that I that I really like. For me, since it's reasonable

and I'm not just speaking about me. Like, I can afford this. It's not about I, it's what about what about the community members? I know that we need district repairs. I know that Sacramento is not giving us what we need, so we're having to burden the community. I know it's a tax burden, but I think it might be reasonable,

especially compared to other districts, especially compared to other counties. For me, and I and I really appreciate Mrs. Lash bringing this forward cuz I stressed it a workshop ago and even at the last Board Advisory Committee, that the district is contributing what what what was it? 4% 16 million year. And I said, I would like to see the district

or the numbers of the district contributing a little bit more. If we're going to burden the community, I want the district burden as well a little bit more. And you could use skin in the game or any other um phrase you want and I agree. So, I um you gave the numbers, which I'm really appreciative of. I'm open to 0.5%

or 1%. I'm leaning towards one. And I would be happy >> [snorts] >> with Let me just make this clear. I will not vote this in unless estimated 30 years is in there. But I'm looking at it. Option one, remove Hold on. Sorry, sorry. Option two, remove the word and labs and school. Um you could just say school facilities,

little redundancy there. Take out the word and, put another comma in there, and add art. I'm with Mr. Schwartz. I add art. Keep the estimated 30 years, and guess what? I will stand by this. And when that ballot comes to my house, I will vote for this. There is community buy-in, but there's also board buy-in. See, I've heard things at the Board

Advisory Committee like there's a consultant, you know, this might kill it. Like Lamesch is like, oh, I get I get it. I get it. It's a special interest group, they're for the bonds, they pass the bonds, they have a high success rate, and they give you their parameters and their statistics. I get all that. But there's another overlooked part of

this. It's that if a I say I'll vote for this to go to ballot, and I say I'll vote when the ballot comes to my house, now you have board member buy-in, and I will educate the public as well as the board. And so I think this is a reasonable compromise. And before an analogy, before I buy a

Harley I really miss my Harley everybody. I had to sell my Harley and I I'm I want another one. Anyways, before I buy a Harley, I want the Harley dealership to tell me, "Hey, you're going to have interest on this for this many years you're going to be paying on it." Similarly, I do not want to burden

the community with saying, "Hey, there's a bond, it's great for the schools and all." They say, "Okay, well how long do I have to pay?" Well, that's not in the bond language. Well, that's in the core literally. And I say, "No, no." So for me, I'm willing to compromise, option two, take out and add the word art, keep estimated 30 years, you have

my buy-in, and you need my buy-in. So I'll make a motion for that right now. But we still have to see facilities. We still have to see that list, but I but I'm pretty sure it was detailed. So do I have a second? >> I would second that. Absolutely. But now keep in mind I didn't specify point I didn't Hold on. Let me let me

let me make the motion more clear. But before I make it, let's talk as a board. Is there Is there collective buy-in with 0.5% for the district to contribute more, which is $2 million a year, or 1%, which is $4 million a year? >> I would like to speak I'd like to speak to that. So I am very reluctant

to encumber future boards. I think that they're encumbered enough. But if it can get this on the ballot, I would be willing to do so. Um I don't like There are so many things that can happen in terms of uncertainties, and we are By doing this, we're we're restrict we're restricting more unrestricted funds. That's what we're doing. Um

but to get it on the ballot, I would be okay with half a percent. Um this language in number two is not typical bond language, just like Dr. Anderson said. And that's why when she said, "I'll go for number one." She said she liked number one. That's why I made the motion. I figured, "You know what? She liked it." That's what she

said. Then she votes no. I don't really get it, but uh you know, that's what I did. But, number two to me is potentially defeating the bond. Um the language in a bond should be viewpoint neutral. So, I would like to ask some questions if that's okay. We have Mrs. Lash, and I don't know the answer. But, we have a municipal advisor

involved in this bond process. Does the municipal advisor believe that option number one or option number two is more viewpoint neutral? So, we didn't ask the question on which one was more viewpoint neutral. His his um advice was, "The farther away from what you surveyed, the less likely it is to pass." He has seen other districts include the

word interest. He has only one time in every single ballot measure that he can find scenic term and it wasn't that term. It was through 2055. And that was LAUSD, which is a very different different demographic of voters. As our municipal advisor, he has a fiduciary responsibility to advise us on how we should spend our dollars and he

advises that it would likely be a waste of money putting it on the ballot with us to make it 30 years. Um just that piece. He's He's fine with the word interest. And so his advice would be if you're insistent on including estimated 30 years, then you wait and potentially try to work with the community, do another survey, and go

out in 2028. Um but if if we surveyed the community with the language of estimated 30 years, he believes it would be unfavorable. Okay. So, let me ask you this question. Am I okay to ask another one? Yeah, and then I'll follow up after you cuz I've still got a motion. >> Okay. I Okay. So, we also have legal

counsel involved in this. Correct. >> Okay. So, >> advised against the estimated 30-year language. They advised against the estimated 30-year language. Okay. I want I want to ask which option do you think is more We I'm relying on you as a collective for advice. Which option is more viewpoint neutral in your opinion? You're a lawyer. Well, there's my opinion and then

there's, you know, my legal opinion. Which one do you want? Give me both. Uh well, I'm I can't really give you the second one because you're not my client. >> But give me the first one. >> But um in my opinion, I think viewpoint neutral uh we've talked about this at length within the committee. Um, and you're

absolutely correct and um, Dr. Anderson is absolutely correct that the language in example one uh, is more aligned with the language that we have seen is So, my opinion it it is because it contains the legally required information. That is not my legal opinion. That's certainly not my legal advice, but it is the opinion and advice of the district's retained

attorneys, bond counsel, advisors, uh, and so on and so forth. >> Mr. Dhaliwal, same question. Um, I do have language from all of the bonds that passed uh, in other districts. Like we have 10 of them. I'm going to pass it on if anybody would like to review. And I've marked which ones passed, which ones failed, and the source is listed on

top. And most of the ballot language actually reflects the first option. And I do also have another data study from when AB 195 passed and adding additional language actually does decrease it by almost 11 to 14% the chances of the bond passing. So, we uh, surveyed at about 60% and that puts it at risk. If you'd like

to look at the study. Okay. Mr. Chan. I'm going to be honest and say I don't feel qualified to answer that question. I can understand the viewpoint on both of them and so I'm going to pass. Okay. Mr. Mr. Roddy. >> Yeah, yeah. I want to ask Mr. Roddy. Mr. Barham. >> Mr. Roddy. >> Mr. Barham. I want I want to get the

opinions here. Yeah, you're You've actually been talking for a while. I have a motion on the floor and we'll have post motion discussion. >> I want to finish the discussion. You're not You're not going to get your way here. >> that mic, we can we can call a time out. I just want to go through the process

>> is no. You've been talking for a while. You're questioning the entire advisory committee. >> That's what I'm supposed to do. >> my motion, then we can circle back. Thank you. >> up here. It's been a good meeting so far. I'm the only one that can edit the motion on the floor. My edit would include 0.5% for the district matching, which would

be 2 million ongoing in perpetuity, whatever language there is. To take out, like I said, the and on the second option, put school facilities for labs and school, school facilities, take out the word and, add after technology in the second one, comma arts, and keep the language that is there having the estimated 30 years. That is my edit to the motion.

Do I have a second? I will second that. >> And now we can have Now we can have post Now we can have post motion discussion. >> Excuse me. And now we can have um directed questions now that we have a motion on the table. Mr. Barham, You're dismissing my point of order. >> Oh, okay. Point of order.

>> point of order. When you say that you're the only person that can edit the motion, I made the motion. You are incorrect. When you make a motion, the motion belongs to the legislative body, not to the person making the motion. So, you can rule on the point of order, it's your choice, but I am bringing that point of order that when

you make a motion that you are not the only person that can edit it. Once you make a motion, it belongs to the legislative body. So, go ahead and rule. Okay, so we have an edit to the motion that I made, and we have a second. Now we can have post motion discussion. We also can bring this back to the very

next meeting and by the way I just to let the audience know and the board we only need three out of five board members to vote for this language for the ballot. The next meeting we need a four out of five board members two thirds to make it go to the ballot. We do not have to rush the next stage if we

get three out of five tonight we could bring it back next week at the next regular board meeting or the one in June. There's no rush to that. We actually have time. So if the motion fails so if the if the motion fails right now we have that it's it's not the end of the world. That's what I'm getting at. But Mrs. Wiersma

had questions for Jack after the motion was made. So for post motion discussion I would like to continue down the line. So Mr. Guerrero I'd like to hear from you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address my personal opinion. I appreciate the work of the advisory committee. We've had a very collaborative working relationship and we agree on most of the key points

around the bond measure but very respectfully I have a different view on the bond language and maybe I'm a stickler based on my own experience as a CPA and as a former elected official for an elevated level of transparency. And I'll give you an example. I recently assisted my nephew in purchasing a vehicle and helped him finance that

vehicle and if you've ever purchased a car from a dealership you'll remember dozens of pages of forms that you have to sign but at the very top of the first page all of the material points around the debt are clearly disclosed. How much you're going to pay, what the interest rate is, how long you're going to be

making payments for, what your total amount of of cost will be if you uh according to schedule at the prescribed rate all the way to the end. And uh and any finance agreement, you'll see all of those provisions clearly outlined at the very top. And so, if we think about the bond measure uh and what we're asking

taxpayers to do, we're also asking them to assume debt uh on behalf of the district and for a very good cause. And so, uh my personal view um uh and we've had friendly disagreements within the advisory committee, but my personal view is that we should aim to be very transparent uh on all material financial points. So, what does material

mean? Material means that the average resident would be interested in knowing that point. Um and indeed, I would underscore that the communication from the bond advisor uh the municipal advisor in some of the email correspondence that circulated earlier today um agrees with the general point that um each of these uh important material provisions actually would influence a voter. Um it's something

it's information that a voter would want to be apprised of. Um and if if it moves the needle, that that's clearly evidence that it's it's a material point. And so, for me, the the five important points that I think uh everybody should be able to see on the 75 word ballot language. Now, we have an ancillary document, which is the tax

statement that I described a few minutes ago. Uh that's a very detailed uh document where a lot of this discussion is outlined, but uh the reality is that very few people read that. Um however, the vast majority of people voting on the bond will in fact read the 75 word ballot statement. So, it's very critical that anything material find its way to

the 75 words. And the five points that I think are material from a financial perspective are uh number one, what is the amount that we're asking taxpayers to pay? In this case, $20 per $100,000 of assessed value. That is a cap. That is the maximum. Check. That item appears on both examples in the options on the screen.

The next important point is how much are we authorizing the board to issue in bonds? And the amount is $215 million. That's how much That's essentially the maximum under the authority of the ballot language that we would allow the bond to the board to basically issue. And and so that that cap would be $215 million. Check. Check. It appears on the ballot

language. The next important point for me is what the duration of the payments is. Just like when you buy an automobile, you kind of want to know, well, I'm going to be paying this for 6 years versus 5 years versus 4 years. Vastly different propositions based on the duration. When we as a district put together the tax statement with all

of the assumptions around the cost, there were very practical assumptions that were included in that analysis. One of them being 30 years. It's actually very explicit in the tax rate statement. The reference exists there to the duration ending in the year 2056. So it is a very clear, material, relevant data point that factored into the calculation of the $215 million

authorized based on the $20 of assessed value. So it's important to me that we identify either the last year that we assume the completion of the bond defeasance, which is the year 20 56, or alternatively referencing the number of years, which is in this case an estimated 30 years. Now, we have to say estimated because at the end of the day

it really depends on when precisely we issue the different series of bonds. So it could be a few years after that or a few years before that. Um but in general, it's about 30 years. That's the basis for our estimation. And so, I think that's a very material point that should be disclosed is the 30 years. Uh

the next important point for me is the cost of the debt. How much is this going to cost at the end of the day? Just like when you buy an automobile, uh you're going to be making monthly payments. Uh the full cost of the vehicle is $30,000. You're going to be making $400 monthly payments. But over the life of the of

the loan, you're going to be making $40,000 in payments. Uh that's information that as a as an automobile, you know, uh buyer at the car dealership, I would want to know. And so, I think that that information is is very relevant. In this case, the cost of the debt is $383 million. It's an 80% kind of markup.

Now, we get to that in in both uh options up on the screen because um because both options display the average uh combined collection of the assessed value, which is $13 million. So, if we have the 13 million and the reference to 30 years, roughly that computes to $390 million. So, somebody could back calculate, okay, at the end of the day, based on $13

million collected annually from all of the participating households uh and 30-year duration, approximately that's going to cost $390 million. The point that I think would be uh helpful as a as a voter, as a resident is what the maximum interest rate is. And under the education code in California law, the maximum rate is 8%. Uh I think that's um

important to understand uh for a variety of reasons. One, it's a reasonable interest rate. Uh we're not being price gouged. And also by um formalizing the interest rate in the ballot language, it also is a fixed parameter legally that now the board has to absolutely subscribe to. And so I know that people have concerns about removing some

flexibility from the board, but we also need to have I think some some basic and fixed parameters. And I think having an 8% cap, which is consistent with the education code, makes it very clear that we could never violate the 8% threshold. So those are the the things that I think are I consider material. Now two other

quick points. The attorney that we did consult never told us that that language was not legally permissible. That was never an argument from the attorneys. The attorneys were primarily fixated on the word limitation and the fact that the ancillary documents already provide some of this information. And so from their perspective it could be duplicative, but in terms of legal risk I I did not

discern and I'll allow other members to chime in that there was any legal risk. In fact, including these material points is perfectly consistent with the legally required tax statement that will be part of the sample ballot. >> Mr. Greer, sorry to interrupt you. Thank you so much for the for the detailed explanation. Lenay, I'm going to have

you call roll on that motion in a second, please. Anderson? Wait, where's Mr. Greer? Oh, sorry. Wiersma? Yes. Anderson? No. Barham? No. Schwartz? No. Kamroski? Yes. Motion not adopted. Sorry, student board member? Abstain. Motion not adopted three to two. So now we have two motions. Now you may recommend another motion if that's what you want to do.

Can I can we open it up for more discussion? Yeah, we we can't. Actually, Dr. Anderson, do you want to discuss and then we can circle back cuz she hasn't really said much. >> My question is, does anybody believe we do not need this bond? Like raise your hand if you do not think we need it. Okay. So we all believe that

we need the bond. Um and there are things um Mr. Guerrero, there's things that I want but I think that we all need to compromise on so that we get the bond. One thing I don't want is to have a failed bond part of my legacy as a board member. And if a fiduciary says that we have

decreased our chance of having this bond approved by voters because of language that we're adding and non-traditional language might I add then I think that we need to be very cautious of that. I would rather not be a part of a bond that fails or that has a high a high percentage of failing. I know in 2 years

I can be a part of another bond. So I think I have another chance at this, but I I don't want to send the district up wasting a lot of money and getting to the end game and having a failed bond. That that's going to cost us money that we don't have. Um so I want everyone all four board

members and I I want the entire committee to ask it's to tell themselves we all want things. I think that we are going to go down and each So far everyone has said they want a different word or Steve wants art. Um I don't know if Mr. Bryan said he wanted a different language, but we've all got some I've got a couple things I

want to change. But more than having the language I want I want to get the bond passed. So I'm willing to make concessions. I gave you one example. I actually had a few more. And I realized like it's not about what I want on the ballot. It's about getting the ballot language pop passed. And so, for me, what the fiduciary recommend

I don't Does anyone here work with a fiduciary? I trust my fiduciary with my life, and it's paid off quite well. So, I think it's important they are legally bound to tell us what we don't do and don't want to hear. Um when it comes to being legal and the rest of the board has heard me say this

many times because we talk about is it legal? Well, there's a lot of things that are legal but are not necessarily a good idea. And so, I think that questioning whether or not it's legal or not, that doesn't we shouldn't say, "Well, this is legal, so it's all right." And I won't give my examples, but um that for me, that's not a selling point.

Um anyway, so I want everyone to carefully consider where we're headed even in the next discussion and ask everyone to like are you willing to give up something you want? I I had a whole list of things that I wanted to change, but I think the most important thing is we started this process with the board advisory

committee and I've been told the first language and it's looks like the majority of the board committee the board advisory committee favors the first language. Um I think going with what works might be in our best interest if our end goal is to make sure that we fund our schools. So, I just want everyone to to consider

that as we go into the next discussions. Thanks, Dr. Anderson. I have to get board consensus to extend the meeting so that Ms. Alaj can present our uh master plan facilities plan. And and just for the record, we don't need to take a vote, but if Mr. Barham wants to make a second motion out of this, I certainly can. We just don't

need to tonight. It's not necessary. Okay. No, just consensus. You guys I I'm up for extending it to 7:30 for now tentatively. >> Okay. Dr. Anderson or 7:30. So, um I think on the last slide, we have the um There we go. Sorry if this is a little small. So, this would be the project list specifically listed in the um

ballot measure, and it's two pages, so I'll give you some time to but it mirrors everything that you've seen already on previous slides. Uh and I I apologize. I don't think this is printed as part of your packet, um but it takes those categories that we discussed earlier in that uh $400 million number, and it breaks it down

into further detail. So, when we talk about modernizing of learning environments or when we talk about essential repairs and infrastructure, it's more detail of and at the top of that list every time is going to be reducing the number of kids in portable classrooms. That is our top priority, no matter where which site campus we are talking about. Um and then the classroom

upgrades, what that it would include furniture and technology and uh early education construction or reconfiguration. We talk about major repairs such as HVAC, plumbing, electrical systems, fire alarms, smoke detectors, things like that. Health and safe health, safety, and security improvements, which is ingress and egress, asphalt, concrete, fencing, cameras, all of those systems where we might want when we go to modernize a

campus, we modernize it collectively and look at the greatest needs on a campus-by-campus basis. If you go to the next slide, uh outdoor learning activities, so it's funny our um bond feasibility consultant said "Temecula really values shade uh more than any other community I've seen." Um and uh so he's our community when surveyed and asked both during the

facility master plan project as well as the survey project said as many shade structures or outside learning areas we also like to get kids outside. So any opportunities for outside learning, outside activities along with shade is um desirable from a community perspective. And then fields and grounds, especially at our secondary schools, you know, we utilize those fields constantly. So any

upgrades to those fields, irrigation, things like that. And then of course there's incidental work that will come along with all of those, but that is a breakdown of all of those major categories in more detail that we would include as part of our ballot language. So we wouldn't spend any of these funds on anything outside of this project list.

I want this bond to pass. I think we all I hope we all want it to pass. I believe that there is language in this bond that potentially defeats it before it's even posed to the voters. Um and that would be the word interest and that would include the term of the bond. So, I am going to um

make a motion to reconsider my original motion that we adopt number one um with the half a percent commitment to the general fund. Um for facilities improvements. I have a clarifying question if it's appropriate to ask at this time. This is first vote to go again. Just go ahead and call her. You We can just call roll again. This is

redundant, Mr. Barham, so I'm not sure why, but it's fine. And I think you have it. Let me Let me >> Let me ask for clarity. I got a point of clarity now. >> Okay. Go ahead. This is actually a point of order. Did you change anything from your original first motion to this one? Cuz if you didn't, we can't accept this.

You're a member of the You're not a member of the prevailing party. >> All right. I'm not going to argue with you on that. I get you. I'm not even going to go there. >> Did you change anything? Well, okay. H- Here Here's my Here's Let me go back, okay? So, here are my objections. Here are my objections. You can help me make

the motion if you would like. Okay. Included in option two. Those are my objections. Help me make the motion, okay? Jack, would you like to help me make the motion? May I ask a question first? >> Go ahead. Here's my question. I know that it was discussed that a second survey go out, and there could have been room for

working with the language that was discussed in the meetings. I believe the advisory council ended up dropping that one night. We didn't pursue it and my preference would have been to take the language that was here and send it out. And in that sense have a very transparent understanding of where people are at when they get all the facts, that it is

interest, that there is a duration and a term. I think that could be a fair place to go. I understand everything costs money, but if we have time and we're at this point where we're grappling with it, I think that could be a question to ask. What about going there with a language that's being proposed that I

believe is truly fair to the taxpayer because at the end of the day it's not just about my legacy or yours. We're talking about taxpayers here in the community understanding the full picture and I think we owe it to them. Okay. All right, hold that thought real quick. Jack, this is a million-dollar question from me to you.

Let's say uh >> [snorts] >> I'm going to disagree with interest, but let's say we kept interest and we didn't, that would basically be option two or sorry, what was it? Yeah, I know. I know. But I'm I'm I'm I'm I know where you're going. >> I'm adding to Mr. Barm, okay? >> If we took option two, increased 0.5%

which is 2 million in perpetuity, the district contributes, we take away labs and schools, we have school facilities, we add the word art. Are you okay if the estimated 30 years was gone but that was an included that was included in the analysis of the corollary language that each ballot voter would receive? They would know estimated 30

years. It's just not in the ballot. And I know what you would say, the ballot language is the most critical. But since you have had the majority of the board advisory committee compromise on certain points and add the language, is there anything you'd be willing to give up? And would it be that estimated 30 years in the

actual ballot language? Cuz if that's so, and you have good conscience with this, I might have better conscience with this. The voters still know, it's just not in the language. And what about the second one? A second one. >> John, well let's get the first one. What do you think? Well, at the moment I would be willing

At the moment I would be willing to compromise as an advisor, and I'm just a member of the advisory committee. In a sense, I'm an extension of the public. You know, the board responsibility is ultimately where this decision rests, and I want to be very respectful of the board deliberation process, 100%. I don't want to hold anybody hostage,

certainly not the advisory committee or the board. I'm just providing my personal opinion in the most humble disposition, okay? For me, what's very, very important is reference to the estimated duration, and acknowledgement that there's interest involved. If it were to me >> That's in there. We are just talking about estimated 30 years not in the ballot language, but possibly in the

correlary or the analysis. We have everything else there. We just If that was to be removed, would you in good conscience say, "I think it's fine." At this point, I don't think I could I could get to a comfortable level without the reference to 30 years. The alternative is to come up with language that that doesn't explicitly invoke the

30 years, but could allow a taxpayer or a resident to back calculate its way to a 30-year figure. But that would require a little bit of work around on the existing language. But to answer your question very directly, Mr. Chair, I personally would not be comfortable excluding the reference to 30 years. Dr. Cabrasca, may I be briefly recognized?

>> Absolutely. Uh yeah. Um on that point, and just as a clarifying point, this is not intended in any way, shape, or form. We've already referenced we've had vigorous and healthy discussion about many of these points that we're talking about tonight. Um and we certainly respect uh Jack's uh uh opinion and perspective on the importance of estimated made 30 years.

It isn't just preferential, the reason why we kind of made a conscious decision by presenting paragraph one and paragraph two as options to the board. Um this was based, and this has been alluded to, but I want to put a a finer point on it, on the recommendations of the district's retained municipal advisor. We're not just talking about

the consultant that you hired, the bond consultant, right? Um and whatever concerns you may have about them and a vested interest perhaps in representing uh a district in putting a bond on the ballot. This is the municipal advisor, and more importantly, and again, Mr. Barham, I meant no disrespect when I refused to to give you kind of my legal

opinion on this because I'm I'm not the district's attorney. Um and so there's, you know, issues with with doing that. But, the district's retained bond counsel did give their opinion, um and it was very clear that their recommendation was do not include estimated 30 years uh in that. And it wasn't so much preferential, you can ask uh

Ms. Lash for additional information about the why behind their recommendation. There was concern that within the 75-word constraint that we have, which we all recognize we're operating within, um if you cannot spell out something like a bond term with a sufficient amount of particularity to potential investors, purchasers of that bond, there is um less protection than if you do what

we're already doing, and there is no question about this, in the tax statement, in the included documents, this is fleshed out in painstaking detail where it's appropriate to provide qualifiers saying this is an estimate and so on and so forth. That's the rub. It's not so much that we are, you know, necessarily wanting to die on a

disagreement, the hill of a disagreement over three words, estimated 30 years or not. This was based on a recommendation from the board's retained uh bond counsel. And I have my own car purchase analogy because I just bought one earlier this week. Um right? That I I'm I'm happy to share. I literally have the documents that made the decision about whether we

were going to go forward or not. And it's one page. Um then there's a contract, which me as a lawyer read every page of, which took about an hour, um which I'm sure we're all familiar with. I think with respect to to Jack, it it's the difference between the 75 words being the one-page terms, do I want to spend this much

money or not? And then if I really want to probe deeply, caveat emptor, into the terms of it, there's the contract there for me to read. We will have both. The 75 words is the one-pager. Um the contract is also going to be provided to the voters. Um thank you for your time. Thank you, Alex, for for that, because

that's what I was looking for. Okay? Is that from our own attorney our bond attorney that legal opinion. And I just think that the term including the term dooms the the bond prematurely, but I'm open Dr. Kamroski to you making your to you making the motion that you alluded to. So, let's let's have Ms. Wersma finish out her request. We

can entertain it. Uh I'd say the good news in all this and really thank you for the clarity there. The good news to the audience and the board and everybody listening online and you know, here. The good news is it it really starts to seem now that all five board members are in favor of this. It's just that we're not couple of us we're

not willing to give up certain things. It's not the end of the world. That's our own moral convictions and we have to sometimes stand on those, but like I said, it's not the end of the world. It's actually positive encouragement. Like we have literally pretty much agreed that we want this. How do we get it? So, I appreciate the tension point you

raised with legal municipal, whatever. I I I I appreciate that cuz we're all learning in real time. I just for me, I want fully informed consent and I have appointed Jack to represent me. So, for me for right now, I I I can't break that tension point. I feel convicted that I want to hold the line and not vote this in unless I have that

30-year term. And like I said, we can we have till June. We have actually more than a month to get this on to take another vote. But, Ms. Wersma, you you mentioned this survey to go out again, please And then >> So, so I had a I have to wrap it up. I had a great conversation with the

advisor over the weekend. And I I expressed my viewpoint of ethically wanting to be as above board as possible. We do know different districts do things differently. In LA, he said it doesn't matter what you put on the ballot, they're going to vote through any tax. That's the way they operate. And I said, well, here in Temecula, we

might be different, but I'm not for withholding any aspect of the truth of the math on the table because we're Temecula. Temecula deserves all of the information. And I think that you have to remember there are consultants and attorneys and advisors and I respect them. I respect our advisory, the work they feel they're doing and I'm doing the work I'm called

to do, which is to say I'm taking a little bit of a grain of salt there because that's what they advertise that they successfully pass bonds. So, you have to step back and look at other people and perspectives. What I would like to suggest again is that we put out a second survey that does encompass the language that Dr.

Kamarowski suggested. Originally, there was supposed to be a second survey. It didn't go out. So, why not send that out? Why not continue to have the conversation so that we're educating people as we feel we're called to. Not just to get it passed because we want to get it passed. Nope. I think we should tell the whole truth, all the facts,

then argue why we think it's worth it for the community to collaborate with us and make it happen. >> Let me ask a clarifying question then. Let's say hypothetically, and it would cost money, but we were already prepared to do it in the beginning if we did it, Dr. Velez. Could we cycle that out to how many

voters randomly and then get that back before June meeting, one-way communication each five board member to where we know did it favorably go to the public or not? I I would be open to that. Linae, can you go to the next slide for this discussion? I I need a quick clarifying question. Okay, we'll get to you right after Quick No, I'm just

putting this up for your discussion. Okay, thank you. So, if it comes back that it's unfavorable, my question to you is do you want favorable language or you keep saying transparency, but we're not lying. We're deciding where do we want the language? Do we want it in the supplemental tax or do you want it in the ballot? If we

put it in the ballot, there's a high probability that it fails. People can still see it. Nobody's lying. So, I don't like this transparency, honesty. Like nobody's being dishonest. There's nothing deceitful in the first language. So, I think we need to be careful with the terms that we use. The second the last thing I'm going to say is we need

I want to emphasize we need four board members. So, to make motions to adopt language and have three more members vote on it, that's the bond is dead in the water because there won't be a fourth. So, we've got I I'm not the deciding vote this time. We've got to get these four people. We've got to get

three of these to to come together and decide what they're going to do. Um and the reality is and I'm and this is a hard statement to make, but I would like to see this committee be in charge of the bond. We don't know what 2 years holds. We don't know what this board is going to look like in 2 years.

Mr. Guerrero, I think that you are an expert and if we risk giving this bond up over language that is ethical. It is ethical if it's in the in the supplemental. It's not unethical if we don't put that in the bond language. We're not being unethical. We've got it. The term is laid out clearly, but the question is

do we want this committee to be a part of the bond or are we going to wait for 2 years and who knows what board we get and there may not be no board advisory committee. It may just be a group of I know I'll be a part of it. May just be and Steve will be a part of

it. Maybe me and Steve and who knows the other three. It's so unpredictable where this bond is going to go. This is the best case scenario right now. So, if if three of these people don't come together, then who knows what we're going to get and that's something that I want you to carefully consider when it comes to that language because I can

already see it's very obvious we've got a two-two split here and somehow we're going to have to get every three people together. That's where we're at and that's just the reality of what what we're talking about right now. >> Dr. Anderson, I thank you for that. I agree with everything you said except for one thing. Um because

we stand on the strength of our convictions and we want truth and transparency, that does not mean we're accusing anybody of deception. We're way beyond that. Thank you. Again, we're not we're not saying that because we want this, you're you're like sneaking a fast one. No, no. In fact, I was even open to the possibility of analysis language

stating 35-year estimate. But I don't want to do this in haste. It's not necessary that we do it right now. It could be that the very next board meeting this board advisory committee, and you're going to love this, does bond gymnastics, maybe James Bond nastics, and shows us what ballot language would look like without the 35 years and then

show us the analysis so that the board can actually see this or even what Mrs. Waresma um presenting. But all I'm saying is it's we're we're we're way beyond the polemic of deception. No, no. We're all on the same Could I >> I I apologize, Dr. Kaminski. Then I I misunderstood. >> But Dr. Velez has been Yeah, could I

could I Before Dr. Velez answers that question, I did put up our timeline that we have looked at and and feel like to get to get to that August 7th drop dead date for on the ballot, we would really like to stick to that timeline. So, I'll let Dr. Velez answer that survey question. So, I am a little worried about

timeline. Um I think that the timeline Miss Lash, when we did the first survey, what was the time frame that it was sent out to the community? How long was it out for the community? >> It took about a month to run a survey. Okay. I'm I am concerned about timeline in terms of getting that feedback back,

getting it back to the board advisory, getting it back to this board. Um that's a determination that the board can make, but I do think it tightens our timeline quite a bit to get some really valuable information. Okay, so we all, five of us, maybe we ask the public before the next regular board meet What do you think?

It's a live meeting. We're talking about it. The public can weigh in by email, any one of the board members, or all five board members, or the superintendent. What do you think? If this bond language was to come to your house and it didn't have that in the bond language, but it was in the analysis or the corollary,

what would you think? Let us know. It's not the end of the world. Um and I yield the floor to whoever wants to Okay, well, yeah, I can help you wrap up. I can do that for you. So, I'll take um chair privileges here and just leave you with some thoughts. Um I think I did hear all the board members say

they want a bond passed. They they see the need, they want a bond passed. Um I think I'd like to leave you with that um the dangers if a bond fails, you're putting the district at risk in in the future for future bonds to fail. When you look at the data of that, um so I think that is a big risk when we look at

the experts' opinions on what the wording should be. I want you to think about you have two options that are true and partial, but I want you to think about the part, does it create prejudice for or against? That's That's the thing that I'd like to leave you with that thought. They are both transparent. They are both well

within a conservative law in the state of California that restricts the wording of our sample ballot that was um you know, that that we we are well within that, within both of those um those options except for what Mr. DuVos brought up on the second option with with some legal concerns on the estimated 30 years. So, um we've got those, but I really

want you to think about that. Is it prejudice? Does it prejudice or um cause someone to to go for or against? Um that said, um I I would like to um again draw your attention to the timeline. Um if we have a vote on June 9th and a bond initiative passes to go on the ballot, um we then have um

the the consideration of communication contract at that point. And then um following that, um county council will prepare an impartial analysis. So, there are those steps that have to happen once that vote is taken on June 9th if it passes. Um that's pretty much um what we have and I just want to remind you as again as it's been said

that we've hashed with option one and we do give you the option to look at option two. Um and you do you do have time to go over that. So, I appreciate it. I appreciate the effort. Um I know um Jen and I um had a conversation and we we found that um it's really interesting when you looked

at the wording and compared the districts where some of the wording passed. So, if you look at the second option um it would pass in districts that pass bonds all the time such as Los Angeles Unified School District. They can put any wording and the bond passes. And when we compared some of the wording in our in like districts where Temecula

is a more conservative voter population, um we see that the wording gets tightened up a little bit and so we could kind of see where those expert consultants were coming from on whether a bond would pass or or not pass based on the wording. So, those are all of my thoughts and with that um we're we're ready to wrap up, Mr. Okay, then one

clarifying question. Can you present that data to um sorry, the ballot language with analysis or corollary to show us what it would look like if the estimated 30 is not in the actual ballot language, where would it be? What would it look like? We can put We can put this or even have a one-way communication to board,

probably agenda's next meeting. Let's say it votes and it failed. Well, guess what? We have till June 9th. But, it's it's another I'm I'm optimistic that the board will rally around something. All right, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. We'll Okay, Dr. Velez is going to I'm just go I want to clarify with the board exactly what you're requesting in

terms of feedback from the community. So, I want to make sure I understand. Are we saying that individuals can go ahead and email board members, email the superintendent. I would like uh collectively for all that information to come to one place so we can actually collect the data and be able to share it with the board. And with that being

said, what would be the timeline for that to come back? Are we looking at the June 9th meeting to make sure that we have that information sent to us um in that time frame? Just so I can collect the data and get it back to the board. So, I know the official survey that we were talking about, there's not

enough time, but would it be wise to put together some form of a Google form with questions? Because instead of just relying on emails, we've sent surveys out in the past in communication to families. What about that aspect that it's in-house, so we're not spending the money, but we're soliciting people's opinions and responses based on this workshop and how we further talk to it.

>> You mean like Infinite Campus or something like that? A 2-week survey? Whatever's deemed best for reaching families. I'm I'm open for that. All 29 school sites, all parents of I'm open for that. >> I don't know that we have time for an Infinite Campus, but maybe something on a landing page of a website that that sites could then put into like their

weekly S'mores or something like that. But, >> has to be residents of Temecula. It's not It has to be residents. No, we could send the communication out, um but to build a survey into Infinite Campus, we wouldn't be able to do, is all I'm saying. But, we could get communication out. >> with that, because this is such a

fine-tuned process, is writing questions ourselves and biasing the public before we even put something on the ballot. I mean, if you want me to write all the questions, I would be happy to and put a survey out because Yeah, that's exactly cuz I'm going to put it I'm going to bias those questions. So So that's why I think

What if we give them the two options of the verbiage because that's what we would have put in a second survey had we had the time to do it that way. >> think that's reasonable. I I think there's some legal questions about the Okay, well We're just trying to figure out the best way to get opinions and perspective by giving

the two options of what's already been agendized. So and they can watch this. That's okay. Um Dr. Kamarowski, I do like your first idea. The two options have been made public. And um I think we could ask the public to email us within the next two weeks and we'll see what kind of feedback we're getting. And then we can discuss

it. All right, everyone send it to Dr. Kamarowski. >> And we just say here's two, you know, maybe something like that. But I just want to say something too. Uh just so we wrap up we don't forget. Melissa, did you have any more deliberation you want to weigh in on this? Okay. So from what I'm getting from the

board, I'm understanding the general idea. So what I would like to do is work with my executive team to be able to come up with a format where we can maybe send out some questions or we have a landing page. I will run it past the board just in terms of what that collective decision is. I have to work

within a system that we have. One of the things I'm also hearing from everyone is that of course it needs to be a Temecula resident. Um and how that that creates a little bit of a a struggle for us because if you're not necessarily a parent in our system, it's very hard for us to prove if you're in

uh live in the city of Temecula but don't have a student in our schools. So, what I would ask is that we work with executive cabinet, work with our um IMS department, figure out what we can do, and I can propose some options to the board in a one-way communication about how to solicit some feedback in a timely

manner. >> Do we have consensus from the board to have both both options that they presented? Just straight up, here they are, what do you think? >> I'm just a little concerned about sending out a survey with the no context about ballot language. Normally, when you survey the community, it it's talks about not it priority priorities of the

community and talking about it's a process to say, "Do you prioritize shade? How high of a value do you place on public uh facilities versus roads versus there there is is a whole process." I'm just worried that it if we ask the community, "Do you like option A or option B?" with no context, I don't know what that we're going to get anything

valuable back. There there is if I may, there is a methodology that we've become too familiar with um from you know, someone who has a a doctorate level, I'm not exaggerating degree in surveying statistics and the methodology behind polling the community. So, nobody's asked me that that's the only concern that I have here, not that we don't want community feedback, but

making sure that it's actually representative community feedback. That's all. And could that also be construed as campaigning? I think that's a good point because what you do is because it's out there publicly right now, and when you put it out, it can become anybody's campaign that's one way or the other. So, Yep. And Poway district was fined

$13,000 for this. Yeah. Thank you. Another another option for the board to consider cuz I'm hearing us swaying away from sending any kind of surveys out is that the the governing board can perhaps send back some questions or different tasks to our board advisory to have some further discussion about it and bring back something perhaps at our next

meeting. That could be an option too knowing where our board is landing. Maybe there's some further discussion that we can have in our board advisory committees. So I can do I could take that direction from the governing board as well. Thank you and we know we know we have two things that we landed on. We know we

don't want the work arts to disappear. That's in there. We got two board members solid on that. And we know that we have 5%. But I don't know that that has to Oh yeah. >> [laughter] >> Sorry. Hey, sorry. Half the number five was in there. This is decimal 0.5%. We know we have that. I guess the stickler right now is just

that estimated 30 years and we give you time to wrestle with it. Thank you so much. Is that where I'm hearing consensus from the board that we're landing? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. I am working on And with that the meeting is adjourned on Wednesday, May 6th. Oh. Did we Here we go. Board comments. I'm going to yield my comments. I said

everything I need to at the workshop. Just I'm hopeful that the board will work together for something. Community, please pay attention and maybe if you want to email and give us your insight. Other than that kind of hash it all out. Mr. Weiersmith, if you want to go. I'll make it short and sweet. I just want to thank all of you who tuned in

tonight. I want to thank our advisory council. I think this has been some really good conversation. The one thing that I want to share with my colleagues because I don't know if we hit upon this, but as the liaison in the meetings, I heard this team over here concede to interest. We actually talked about that being something that we could

settle on. So, for those of you that weren't in those meetings, I just want you to know we did work and mediate, and that didn't seem to be problematic. So, to completely sweep that off the plate, I don't think is the right thing to do because that is that's not where they necessarily landed. And I think these

continued conversations are important. We need to elevate all the things. I think we're doing a great job, and I'm confident people will continue to speak into this. So, thank you to everyone here tonight who contributed. Okay, I I actually I'm going to make some quick comments, and I want to give a shout-out to my fellow board members.

Um Dr. Kaminski, I really think this was a great meeting, and I think that as the meetings have been going on, you've done a like you did a good job before, but they're just really getting dialed in. So, I appreciate that you kept us on track, and um Mrs. Wiersma, I can see you did a lot of

homework, and I appreciate that. Always very educational. Um Mr. Barham, thank you for asking the tough questions of Mr. Dubow. And there's something that a lot of people don't see, and that is um Steve in closed session, Steve actually a lot of times stands up as a leader, and always has great um suggestions that the board can rally

around. Um we don't see it because I feel like it happens in closed session all the time, but I want to give a shout-out to Steve, too, because um for the ideas that you've brought to us in closed session. So, thank you to the board. Mr. Schwartz or Mr. Barham? Mr. Schwartz. I will I just re-get reiterate what um I

said before. This is for our community to decide. We we to give them permission to see this, and to let them be the ones who decide, especially those of them those who have children in the schools. I think it's really critical that they be the deciding voice. Thank you very much to the Board Advisory Committee. This was you guys

have worked so hard. This was a great discussion. Um And I'm with Mr. Schwartz. At the end of the day, we have to offer our community the opportunity to decide. They are the ones that are going to weigh the costs of this bond for their personal situation and improving our schools in the long run. Um But it

really at the end of the day, nobody is trying to be deceptive here. And I truly believe that when voters consider this, because the $20 the $20 of each $100,000 of assessed value is going to be in the bond language, they're going to be able to figure it out. We I kind of have a feeling at times here

that we think our voters are dumb. They're not dumb. It's just like Mr. Schwartz said, they've dealt with bonds. They dealt with Measure Y. It's not like we haven't done this before. And at the end of the day, they're going to look at what is my payment going to be. When I look at median assessed values or

average assessed values, this is going to come out to be, in my opinion, between 4 and $20 a month. That's an anniversary dinner, and I'm not trying to be cavalier. That's an anniversary dinner. When you look at the annual payment, it's one tire. It's one tire balanced and installed. So, that's what we have to be thinking about. Okay, it's

what is the cost going to be to me, but that and again, I mean my property taxes are huge because I bought a new build. They're huge and I don't want to be cavalier to anybody, but between $4 and $20 a month to improve our our facilities in the long run when you consider this is for our students.

It's for your property values. >> For your kids. It's for your kids. That to me is a very reasonable cost to assume. But that's up to the voters. That's up to the voters and and they will be able to figure out that payment based on the bond language. And the rest, we're not trying to be deceptive. It will go in the supplementary

disclosures. If they want to see it and they want to investigate it, it will be there. So, again, um I thank you very much for your time and I think this was a good meeting and um I will say good night and thank you. Thank you. Okay, um thank you everybody again and to all the moms out there, happy Mother's Day.

And to my mom in Deutschland, ich liebe dich. Tschüss. Meeting's adjourned Wednesday, May 6th, 2026 at 7:36.