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; it’s to listen to and inform our community
Current Need • Capacity at middle school • Temporarily resolved for two (2) years with the addition of modulars at LPMS
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%
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
How we are listening to our community… • Thought exchange • School visits • Community feedback • Public comments
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
What the community told us… • 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
Why we are doing this
What did the school board do?
School Board Actions… • 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
Addressing their concerns • 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
Bond verbiage
Addressing their concerns • Unclear financing terms for bond • Modeled a fiscally conservative bond which was ratified by the board and published well in advance of election
Bond Schedule (terms) Praire Winds & Creekside Debt retired Palmer Ridge HS Debt retired Current Debt Palmer Ridge HS Creekside MS (Bear Creek) Prairie Winds ES
Bond Schedule (terms) Proposed Bond 15 year “Wrap”
Bond Schedule (terms) A Bond is a TAX increase
Bond Schedule (terms) Maintains level debt service and school district mills
Why did we pick a “wrap” bond? What are the pro/cons?
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
15 year level debt service BOND Bond Schedule (terms) Wrap
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: ???????
20 year level debt service BOND Bond Schedule (terms) $45,208,692 - $45,986,040 = (777,348) How much more did a 15 year wrap We saved the taxpayers 3/4 of a Million dollars cost than a 20 year level bond? by doing a 15 year wrap over a 20 year level bond Very conservative BOND with minimal impacts to our community
Bond Schedule (terms)
Construction Costs
Overall Cost of 2019 Bond • 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
Addressing their concerns Tax Increase Goal: 2019 bond not to increase annual D38 tax burden for residential property owners
Bond Schedule (terms) Tax Difference
Why we are doing this
Addressing their concerns • No “pro” statements in blue book • Commitment from community members and school board members to provide “pro” statements
Addressing their concerns • School Board did not actively promote bond • Commitment from school board members to educate and engage with community
Time table 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
Why we are doing this
Your Next Step… VOTE!
Recommend
More recommend
