Ontario SD 8C hears options to replace expiring bond; state match could add about $12.25 million

District staff told the Ontario SD 8C school board that the district’s 2010 bond debt will retire in 2027 and outlined two primary options for replacing it.

Deb, a district presenter, said the district can ask voters for the full $18.5 million that currently funds the bond—keeping taxpayers at roughly the same rate they pay now—or pursue a lower local ask that secures a state match. "If we pass that amount, we get that amount from the state," Deb said, describing a tier-one match the district would receive if it secures the matching grant.

The staff presentation laid out two scenarios: seek $18.5 million so the tax rate remains essentially neutral, or seek about $12.25 million in local dollars and capture a $12.25 million state match. Using the example the presenter provided, a home with $150,000 assessed value would see the district’s tax rate fall from about $0.82 per $1,000 of assessed value to roughly $0.54 per $1,000—an annual reduction of about $42 in the example.

Staff emphasized the trade-offs. Asking for the smaller local amount with a state match reduces the immediate tax burden while delivering roughly the same total construction and safety dollars because of the matched funds; asking for the larger amount maintains the current local tax rate but increases the district’s programmatic and capital funding without relying on the match.

Board members asked how certain the state match is and what "rank nine" on the state priority list means. Staff said ranking ninth makes the district eligible for the tier-one match but does not guarantee funding: awards depend on the statewide matrix and on whether districts ahead of Ontario apply for and pass bonds.

Staff also reviewed an associated timeline: the district received a TAP grant to begin roofing and long-range planning work, an external facilities assessment has been completed, and staff would like to have an updated long-range facilities plan available for public review by October so the board can vote in November and submit materials to the state by mid-December (staff referenced December 15 as a submission date). Members discussed the feasibility of completing vendor work by summer or early fall to meet those deadlines and noted the May election calendar would require preparatory steps in March if the board intends to place a bond on a May ballot.

No formal bond vote took place at the meeting. Staff said the board could indicate an intent to pursue a bond now and finalize the long-range facilities plan before approving the specific ballot measure. The next procedural steps staff outlined were completing the vendor’s draft long-range facilities plan, scheduling community meetings for feedback, and returning to the board for a formal vote ahead of any ballot deadline.