Slide 1

Long Range Master Facility
Planning Committee
NSSD Construction Bond
April 2012


Slide 2

Budget Philosophy and Update
• My personal philosophy as a superintendent
– School districts will develop to their fullest potential only with
stability over the long term
– It is the board and superintendent’s job to create this stability
– Great programs without an approach to how the district will
sustain them will inevitably result in loss of programs in a
downturn
– To achieve that, school districts must plan for the long-term and
realistically account for the entire business cycle
– For the second year in a row, the NSSD will have a full calendar
year. No layoffs or program cuts this year.
– We believe we are sustainable at this level given current levels
of economic growth.

2


Slide 3

Community Engagement
• Philosophy: The district will only reach its
fullest potential through consistent efforts
to engage with the broader community—
not just current school parents
• The district must work with other local
government agencies to balance needs to
build the best communities

3


Slide 4

What is the LRFMP?
• Long Range Facility Master Plan
– Plans for district construction,maintenance
and population growth needs for 15-20 years
– Is based on sound information
• PSU population study
• Heery and Associates Facility Condition
Assessment
• Seattle NW Securities Bonding Estimates

4


Slide 5

LRFMP Committee Members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Gerry Aboud
Randy Cranston
Ted Freres
Jim Huddleston
Tom Lulay
Jennifer Niegel
Jim Reed

Ron Adams
Love Cross
Priscilla Glidewell
Dave Karr
Jay Myers
Mike Odenthal
George Smith

Art Christianson
Dan Fleishman
Daren Goin
Greg Loberg
Alan Kingsley
Alicia Oliver
Mark Valentine

Balanced by area
Emphasis placed on community leaders not connected to schools
(Approximately 30% of area homes have school-aged children)

5


Slide 6

Some history…
The NSSD has proposed bonds several times in
the last few years
• Nov. 2004 $38.2 million
• Sept. 2005 $38.2 million
• Nov. 2006 $50 million
• Nov. 2008 $44 million
Tax rate on the four proposals has been
approximately $3 per $1000 of assessed value
None have been successful with voters
6


Slide 7

Pertinent Facts
• The current bond passed in 1994 will be
paid off in 2013—the district’s construction
bond rate will be zero
• The 1994 bond when first assessed cost
$1.70 per thousand dollars.
– It has been reduced due to growth and the
district twice has re-financed to lower interest
rates
– In the 2011 and 2012 years, the tax rate on
the bond has been $.68 per thousand
7


Slide 8

What’s in the current bond proposal
$22.6 million, $1.26 per thousand
• $3.6 million dollars to re-design and re-model SHS
Auditorium & Foyer
• $3.2 million in seismic (earthquake) upgrades in all
buildings
• $1.9 million multi-purpose room/bldg SES to separate
gym and cafeteria function
• Remove and Replace 600 building @ SHS (portable on
east end of campus)
• 2 KG Classrooms @ SES
• 1 KG Classroom at Sublimity
• Note (Mari-Linn will not need extra KG classroom)
• Re-Model of Science area @ SHS to provide adequate
exits
8


Slide 9

What’s in the bond—Overview
• Moves building roofs to 30-year materials (some
are already improved)
• Re-design of parking, bus lane and pedestrian
crosswalks at SMS
• H-VAC Heating system (Furnace) at M-L
• Windows at Sub, M-L and SES
• Re-surfacing of parking lots @ some schools
• $2.3 million in Heating & Air Flow system
improvements in all buildings
• Painting of all district schools
9


Slide 10

Additional Information
• A Citizen Oversight Committee will meet
regularly to oversee the bond
• The bond will focus on maintaining and
upgrading current facilities
• The Superintendent and Board look at the
bond as an opportunity to earn the
community’s trust through the complete
process
10


Slide 11

Current bond proposal costs
• $.68 current bond costs would be replaced
by a $1.26 bond
• This would be an increase of $.58 per
$1000 of assessed value
• Home value
Cost increase per year
$100,000
$58
$150,000
$87
$200,000
$116
11


Slide 12

Comparing 1996 and 2012
• Portland/Salem Consumer Price Index
shows a 43.8% increase in the cost of
living since 1996. (What cost $1 then now
costs $1.44)
• $1.26 per thousand now is equal to $.87 in
1996.
• Or…$1.70 then would equal $2.44 now

12


Slide 13

Property taxes in Oregon as a
percent of income

13


Slide 14

Where we are right now
• On April 18, the LRFMP Committee reviewed
survey results and recommended to the board
that the bond proposal be placed on the ballot in
November 2012
• The board will receive the recommendations but
will not actively vote to submit the bond until
August (we are restricted in our communications
once we formally vote to submit a bond for
election)
14


Slide 15

Last Thoughts
• The NSSD School Board has been in
attendance throughout the process
• The board has worked together with the
committee, occasionally giving comment
• The committee members were exceptional
in their willingness to hear all viewpoints
• The board and myself are willing to
continue to hear comments, concerns and
ideas
15