SLIDE 1
D38 School Board plan to address current capacity issues at middle school
Mark Pfoff and Chris Taylor
D38 School Board plan to address current capacity issues at middle - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
D38 School Board plan to address current capacity issues at middle - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
D38 School Board plan to address current capacity issues at middle school Mark Pfoff and Chris Taylor The Goal Our goal is not to influence the community; its to listen to and inform our community Current Need Capacity at middle
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Current Need
- Capacity at middle school
- Temporarily resolved for two (2)
years with the addition of modulars at LPMS
SLIDE 4
Current Enrollment at LPMS
- Program Capacity = 850
- Student count as of February 2019 = 891
- Student count as of today = 888
- Currently over capacity by approximately 4%
SLIDE 5
Statements of Fact
- The school board has an obligation to address capacity
constraints and present solutions to the community prior to reaching capacity limits
- Modular units are not a long-term solution for capacity
- The useable space at the Grace Best education center is
being utilized effectively by multiple educational
- programs. Conversion to a traditional elementary school
is not a reasonable option
- Halting all future open enrollment will not resolve
current capacity issues nor is it a long-term solution
SLIDE 6
How we are listening to our community…
- Thought exchange
- School visits
- Community feedback
- Public comments
SLIDE 7
What the community told us…
- Their issues are not with a new school
to address capacity
- Concerns included:
- Non-specific bond Language
- “to include but not limited to”
- “Blank Check” not clear how all the money
would be spent
- Bond funds for various items other than a
building to address capacity
SLIDE 8
- Concerns included (cont):
- Unclear financing terms for bond
- Overall cost of the bond
- Tax increase
- No “pro” statements in blue book
- School Board did not actively promote
bond
What the community told us…
SLIDE 9
Why we are doing this
SLIDE 10
What did the school board do?
SLIDE 11
- Resolved to pursue single purpose
bond this November 2019
- Tasked two board members to oversee
plan and report back to school board
- Multiple meetings held with builder,
architect, financial advisor, bond counsel, and admin formulating plan
School Board Actions…
SLIDE 12
- Non-specific bond language
- “to include but not limited to”
verbiage in bond will be replaced with “solely for”
- Formulating very specific verbiage
around single item bond
Addressing their concerns
SLIDE 13
Bond verbiage
SLIDE 14
- Unclear financing terms for
bond
- Modeled a fiscally conservative
bond which was ratified by the board and published well in advance
- f election
Addressing their concerns
SLIDE 15
Bond Schedule (terms)
Current Debt
Palmer Ridge HS Creekside MS (Bear Creek) Prairie Winds ES
Palmer Ridge HS Debt retired Praire Winds & Creekside Debt retired
SLIDE 16
Bond Schedule (terms)
Proposed Bond
15 year “Wrap”
SLIDE 17
Bond Schedule (terms)
A Bond is a TAX increase
SLIDE 18
Bond Schedule (terms)
Maintains level debt service and school district mills
SLIDE 19
Why did we pick a “wrap” bond?
What are the pro/cons?
SLIDE 20
Advantages of a “Wrap”
- Minimizes overall annual property tax
impact for:
- Residential property owners
- Commercial property owners
- Accommodates existing debt service
requirements
- Helps those on a fixed budget
- Keeps tax mill levies steady or declining
throughout bond term
SLIDE 21
Bond Schedule (terms)
Wrap
15 year level debt service BOND
SLIDE 22
Disadvantages of a “Wrap”
- Extra Interest cost:
- Based on our modeling it is around
$3.8 million
- Note: We dropped the bond term from
the traditional 20 years down to 15 years to help offset the extra interest
- Net difference: ???????
SLIDE 23
Bond Schedule (terms)
20 year level debt service BOND How much more did a 15 year wrap cost than a 20 year level bond?
$45,208,692 - $45,986,040 = (777,348)
We saved the taxpayers 3/4 of a Million dollars by doing a 15 year wrap over a 20 year level bond
Very conservative BOND with minimal impacts to
- ur community
SLIDE 24
Bond Schedule (terms)
SLIDE 25
Construction Costs
SLIDE 26
- 2019 Bond 28.985 Million
- $7.515 million less than 2018 Bond
- Single purpose bond; 1 school only
- Removed Creekside conversion cost
- Lowered bond term to 15 years
- Total bond cost $21.083 million less
than 2018 Bond
Overall Cost of 2019 Bond
SLIDE 27
Tax Increase
Goal: 2019 bond not to increase annual D38 tax burden for residential property owners
Addressing their concerns
SLIDE 28
Bond Schedule (terms)
Tax Difference
SLIDE 29
Why we are doing this
SLIDE 30
- No “pro” statements in blue
book
- Commitment from community
members and school board members to provide “pro” statements
Addressing their concerns
SLIDE 31
- School Board did not actively
promote bond
- Commitment from school board
members to educate and engage with community
Addressing their concerns
SLIDE 32
March 2019
Finalized building and conversion costs April 2019 Finalized informational talking points concerning middle school overcrowding
May 2019
Finalized bond terms and publish to community
August 2019
Voted 5-0 to approve final ballot language for November and submit “pro” statements
Time table
SLIDE 33
Why we are doing this
SLIDE 34