Exploring Potential 2012 Capital Facilities Bond for Board of Education
The Board of Education considers a 2012 capital facilities bond to address unfunded needs, with a focus on property tax limits and voter approval under Prop. 39. Potential bond elements include sustainable technology, energy efficiency, school realignment, and seismic upgrades, among others. Consultation with experts like Larry Remer from Primacy Group is aimed at refining the project scope and estimates to gain public support.
Uploaded on | 0 Views
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Board of Education Meeting November 1, 2011 Lee Dulgeroff, Executive Director Facilities Planning and Construction
Board of Education members have expressed interest in exploring the possibility of a 2012 capital facilities bond Prop. S was limited to $2.1 billion because it extended, but did not raise, the current property tax assessment Approximately $5 billion of facilities needs are not funded under Prop. S. There is a continuing need to relieve pressure on the General Fund. 2
Prop. 39 allows for passage of bond programs with 55 percent voter approval. Prop. 39 restricts the property tax increase to a maximum of $60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation (AV). Initial evaluation by the district s bond advisors determined that a property tax increase between $30 to $40 per $100,000 AV would allow for a $1.5 to $2 billion capital bond program. A new 2012 capital facilities bond would require a tax increase. Presidential elections historically favor school bond measures 3
Potential bond elements could include the following: Major Repair and Replacement Deferred major maintenance i21 sustainability and expanded technology Energy efficiency retrofits/renewable energy projects Neighborhood school facility realignment (new classrooms and facilities in underserved areas) Career Technical Education projects Seismic upgrades/ADA improvements Expansion of air conditioning into climate zone two Portable replacement/certification Site-specific projects (Correia Field Expansion, Patrick Henry theater, Perkins Expansion, McKinley joint-use field) 4
Primacy Group Principal Larry Remer consulted on Prop. MM and Prop. S Scope of Work Explore the viability of new facilities Conduct meetings with key internal stakeholders to develop recommendations for the potential size and scope of a new bond Review the district s stated needs to determine if a bond project list can be developed that is likely to gain public support Conduct public opinion research Conduct community/opinion leader outreach 5
Refine scope and cost estimates Validate and prioritize facility needs list by Board of Education Define additional needs with parent and community input Meet with cluster and community groups Seek voter approval--November 6, 2012, election The board would need to call for a bond election by August 10, 2012 6
