District financial adviser walks board through bond, override and lease options ahead of May 9 election

Dr. Jay, the district superintendent, and a district financial presenter, Jeremy, spent the bulk of a work-study session reviewing options for a potential May 9 election that could include bond authorization, capital and M&O overrides, and authority to lease or sell certain district buildings.

Jeremy told the board that under state statute the governing board may enter leases up to 20 years without calling an election, but leases or land sales beyond 20 years generally require voter approval. "If you wanted to do a lease right now, you wouldn't have to call for an election if that lease is gonna be less than 20 years," he said, and added that an election is not required for sale or lease of a building that has been vacant or partially used for at least three years under a related statutory provision.

He explained the tradeoffs between funding mechanisms. A capital override is a pay-as-you-go revenue source that can fund technology and short-life items without interest but has a larger immediate tax-rate impact; a bond spreads costs over time and incurs interest but can produce a more manageable tax-rate payment. "Capital overrides are pay as you go plans," Jeremy said. "Bond is a debt. There is interest tied into the debt."

Board members pressed for numbers and for updated needs assessments. Dr. Jay said the district's most recent needs assessment is four years old and inflation has raised estimated costs; he and staff cited a working target of roughly $25 million as a starting point for scenarios but acknowledged that final project lists and updated cost estimates would need to be included in any voter pamphlet. "If our goal is to get every building up to code and up to speed, it should last for 20 years," Dr. Jay said when discussing the bond horizon.

Board members also raised political considerations: members recounted recent failed ballot measures and expressed concern that voters want clearer, project-based numbers. Several members urged a smaller, well-documented package to rebuild community trust. One board member recommended creating a citizen oversight committee to guide spending and reported that prior bond cycles used a similar citizen group successfully.

The board asked the districts financial advisors to provide multiple scenarios. Speaker 1 instructed staff to request from Stifel detailed tax-rate and repayment scenarios for $20 million, $25 million and $30 million bond packages with 10-, 15- and 20-year repayment options and to provide breakdowns at the May 2 work session.

The board scheduled a focused May 2 work session (4:00 p.m.) to review the Stifel scenarios and to discuss leasing versus sale questions, and left the bond dollar amount to be decided by the May 9 meeting.

Ending: The board did not vote on any bond question at the meeting; it directed staff to return with cost scenarios and project detail for further consideration at the May 2 and May 9 meetings.