So, I don't know what the class is for um for apartments, uh what type of assessment class it is, but it's still a commercial property that's owned by an owner that has to pay taxes on it. So, property taxes still have to be paid. So, anybody who is a resident in one of those apartments is going to have their rent be based upon what that owner is going to be paying in property tax as well as the cost of the building. Did you have a question? Um, Shaya, >> no. I'm just doing the >> Oh, >> just I'm doing having the thoughts in my head as you're saying it. >> Okay. So, yes, it's commercial property. It it might have a higher assessed value than residential property. Um, but every class of property is assessed and taxed and it's all included in that overall assessed value growth.
>> Thank you, Gilbert. >> Thank you. So, so, so, so the the point was even with the third proposed sale, the tax rate continues to go down. So, this does provide an efficient way to meet the continued upke upkeep of taxpayer assets well into the future, especially with the fact that we've done this low low time frame of debt. But it also allows us to create that level playing field I was talking to you before about so that we have the capital funding that we need to maintain our buildings for the students that actually attend Gilbert public schools. >> And this this estimated tax rate is only applicable to the principal at that time. >> Right? It's not like if we go if we if the voters approve $136 million bond, they're not paying.83% on $136 million day one. >> That's correct. Because of the because of how we're how we're scheduling the sale of the bonds.
That's exactly right. >> And then also we have existing debt. You can see that the existing debt ends in 2031. So that's another point. But yes, you're exactly right. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yep. So this is the tax rate in real dollars. So on average assessed value, this is from the pamphlet in 2024. So the estimated annual cost at um almost 85 cents per $100 of assessed value is $223.80. Just a reminder that $263,600 is not the market value of a home in Gilbert. It's the limited assessed value. It's really important that that be noticed. And then we did it half time um one half of that and then we also looked at a home that had a limited assessed value of double that and you can see the impact on the taxpayer. So that's just information. So again the same thing long-term strategy for meeting government public schools ongoing facility and equipment needs does include regular bond programs.
It's it's the way that statute allows school districts to fund the um their needed facility improvements. So, it's just putting it out there that it is the future state. We talked about SFD funding. It's very limited. We've talked about unrestricted capital. It also is limited. We have to at least try to meet the needs of our buildings by requesting taxpayer support. And then this is actually another graphical representation where you can see if you look at the existing debt service is that teal blue and then you see so they use it in terms of series A, B and C. So project 2026 they call it project 2026. You can see that first sale is the black and then you can see the second sale is the orange and finally the the third series C is the gray. You can see where we're keeping that debt service level over time as the tax rate is going down.
Again, just comparing to our neighboring school districts, probably not compelling. But Gilbert, because of the fact that we have had such short time frame of our debt, it has resulted in us having the um lowest combined tax rate within our our community here on the East Valley. So, election timeline and costs. This is just a timeline. We shared this before. These costs are also based upon the 2024 cost which was a um presidential election. So they should be very very close to these costs. We do not have the final estimate yet. Um that will be shared though over the next month or so. And then future consideration. This is just another point that as we go through you know our override expires after seven years. It starts going down after year five. So, we're going to be going out for elections for override renewals over time and then again based upon the debt being paid off over time, having opportunities to fill in that date that that um that debt filling in that debt over time allows us to keep that flat tax rate and hopefully a minimal impact on the taxpayer.
So, that's the story. So, we are asking that you approve 9.06 06 and 9.07. I think those are the two action items associated with both the $136 million bond request in November of 2026 as well as the site sale that we know as Pioneer Elementary. And again, just to repeat again, we're just asking for the authority to sell the property. It doesn't mean that we are or that we have to, but that authority never um expires. And that's all I have. And I think that was probably enough. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Then uh is there a motion? >> Can can I ask one question first? >> Do you want to do that before we make a motion? >> Yeah, I do. I do want to because um there was a correction needed on the resolution. So, do we need to make that correction in the motion to make it 136,000 or sorry, 136 million?
I'm not used to talking in millions um instead of 125 million. What? >> Okay, that was my question. >> Uh that would be appreciated if when you make the motion for the bond election, you specifically mention the 136 million so there's no confusion on what the board's approving or at least considering to approve. >> Okay. So then is there a is there a motion to adopt a resolution ordering and calling a special bond election to be held in and for the district and authorizing the associate superintendent of business and support operations to comply with certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code in the amount of $136 million. >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss Humphre. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Brainer. All right.
Is there any discussion? >> Well, I think um I think that the presentation while long was very thorough and transparent. And I think that frankly I might need a copy printed out so I can look at it just so that when I have to answer questions um I'll know the answer. So I really appreciate the hard work that's gone into this. I know it's it is a lot of work. It's important for our students to have um you know buildings that are safe and dry and heated when needed or cooled when needed. and um technology. I mean um be ADA compliant and also buses. All of these things are they're not wants, they're needs. And um I know it's hard to understand now that we have other systems funded in different ways by the state. But this this is why we have bond elections. And I think it's a great opportunity to talk to our um community and help them understand.
But it is challenging. >> Well, I thought the presentation was perfect. Just teasing. >> Um, >> okay. So, I've got some questions and they're more they're not necessarily questions in regard to the presentation, but I think they're questions that the public would like answers to. Um, and I think I I want to try to ask some of those and get get your response tonight. Um, so the issue of a bond is very is very polarizing um in our community and in many communities around here around uh the East Valley. Um, and there are those that oppose a bond just out of principle that no matter what what the need is or what the perceived need is, they'll just they'll just oppose it. And I get that because I think our I I recall the last disc time we had this discussion um and my my main concern was for um the the community's uh financial uh consideration and and what I mean by that is last time we talked about this.
The economy was kind of in the toilet and I think that right now I don't think we're in a much different spot. I think we got better after the last time we had this discussion, but I think that if you just look around at grocery prices, if you look around at gas prices, I think people are probably tightening their belts more now than ever. Um, and I and again, I get that. So, some of the some of the questions that have been asked to me that I would like an answer is why don't we just do more right sizing? Why don't we just can't we just could just closing more schools, putting putting oursel under less of a of a property obligation, could that give us the ability to not have to go after this? go out go out for this bond and then be able to meet all of our all of our needs.
>> So, we have it off. There I am. Okay, there I am. Sorry. Um, so, uh, that's why the site sale is on there. So, um, in order to be able to maintain buildings that are still being used, we still need resources. So, we, let me just use Neely as an example. Um, so we received just under $7 million for that. Um, about about half of it's gone. So, that's some that's some issues there. So, um, so but but yes, so we could maybe we can get 5 to7 million for those two p pieces of property at Madero and uh in Morrison Ranch and um so those would give us about 145 million that's also in there and then the sale of Pioneer maybe another $7 million. So we've got $21 million. Um but the other the other facilities, yeah, we we we would continue doing that anyway.
And I think the other the other conversation is about salary versus capital. This conversation is going to be had in this organization sometime in the future because we're using some one-time money for ongoing costs and so at some point in time there's going to have to give some there has to be some give somewhere. >> So that's part of it. So, is is it realistic to think that if we just I mean, let's say we just close five more schools, >> sell them we'd have to sell. >> So, let's say we let's say we close and sell five more schools. >> Could that take care of could could that it would it would clearly reduce the amount we'd need to go out for a bond. But first of all, is that feasible? is that I mean because those it's not like the it's not like the staff and the kids go along with the sale, right?
They still have to go somewhere. Um and so let's just pretend that we closed and sold five more campuses. Would that negate the need for a bond? >> I don't think it would ever negate the need for a bond. Um but but we've we've shown proof that we're already doing that. We're right sizing as we go and we're still not able to come up with the resources to continue to upgrade our upgrade and and maintain our facilities. >> I don't know. I I I think your point is valid, Bonnie, and I think there's other implications to uh theoretically selling five schools and then you got to redistribute staff, then you'd end up with a rift because uh inevitably if I think if people saw that we were just selling off campuses, people are going to take that as a sign that that that we don't want to be here and so we're going to lose students.
So, I think we keep compounding a problem that really isn't it really isn't our problem in the sense that if we were appropriately funded, and I know people don't want to hear that and they don't want to acknowledge that, but that's the fact that um we have a funding system uh on the district additional assistance side as well as the M side that doesn't keep up with the issues that public education is having. And so that is why there statutes that said we can go to our voters to ask for this funding. And so it's a catch 22, right? And um and then when you sell these things, there's no guarantee that we can't we can't just sell it to anybody. We got to pretty much sell it to the highest bidder. So what if five charter schools come in and buy these campuses? Then we've just pretty much cut our own throat as a public education system.
So that's why when we go through and we close schools, we do it as methodically as we can. >> I appreciate that. So >> Mr. Thomas, I I do want to point something out that >> the districts the districts if we sell a school that money goes back into the p public coffers. It's different for charters and ESA private schools. That money doesn't go back into the public coffers as it does with district schools. >> Yeah. >> So, what about what about our staff? What about is there is there a way that we could just reduce staff? Is there a way that we could I think there's there's a certain percentage of our population that think that we're and I think schools in general are pretty topheavy. Could we just instead of having four assistant superintendents, could we only have one? And do we need all of the people at the district that we have?
>> I do. and it yes we could then your quality of a public education system I think would be hampered. Uh we are an a school district for three years in a row. Um, we are one of the best performing districts in the state. And I think that has to do with the fact that we have people not just at the district site, but at uh all of our campuses that are working in concert to make sure that all of our students in Gilbert public schools are getting the very best quality education that they can. So, um, I've heard that in the past come up. You know, I've had people stand up there years past saying, "We need to get rid of all the principles at the schools." um you know uh that's just not feasible. It's not logical and it's not really um what public education is about.
I think we run as lean and mean as we possibly can. I mean another way could say I guess an argument would be why don't we increase class sizes by five kids? I mean that'll save staff. the staff that you have at the district level in terms of money compared to the staff that you have out at the schools, administrators as well as teachers and support staff is a very small percentage in our entire budget. So, this wouldn't get you the bang for your buck. The bang for your buck would be to reduce the number of staff that we have out in our schools cuz that's where the majority of them are, as well as increasing class sizes. And in this community, I think they don't quite understand, well, some do, some don't, that that is counterproductive to giving our kids a quality education. >> Okay.
Thank you. >> So, also um and administration come out of our separate bucket, which would be our maintenance and operation budget, not um our facilities. We we have the full flexibility to move it back and forth. But >> but if you notice from our staffing savings that we have realized, I mean $20 million over eight years is a pretty significant amount of money. That money all went back into salary increases. So it's sort of that concept of we want to have competitive wages. If we can afford to have competitive wages, then everybody's got to work harder. So, you need fewer staff, but but likely the money would go back into wages and not necessarily be assigned to capital. >> And what would happen if we just didn't have competitive wages? Could we just pay our teachers less? >> We could. That would be an option.
We could then we possibly will have class size class size is very large because we wouldn't be able to hire the teachers. I mean, all those are are truly options. I'd still throw it back at you though is is I still don't I don't quite understand the concept that we don't have a level playing field. I don't understand that stress. I mean the whole idea of bonding was meant to to give us an opportunity to meet our needs where the legislature understands that charter schools need to maintain their facilities. They're giving them $1,500, $2,000 more per student than we're receiving because of the formula. The formula is expecting that we go and do that. It's really hard, Mr. Thompson. It's really hard trying to figure it out. I I feel like in general, we as staff, like whether it's Dr. McCord or us as a cabinet, we have an obligation to at least request it because we have to meet the needs of our facilities.
the vote. I mean, obviously the voter can vote no and then we have to figure out what we're going to do about that. But but shoot, my recommendation would be to keep trying. >> Yeah. I I I appreciate that. I appreciate the answers and and and I think the the the questions that I pose. I think my experience on the board and my involvement in the school district helps me understand those things at a more uh at a at a deeper level than perhaps a lot of people that might just be opposing the bond on principle. Mhm. >> And so for that for that reason because it is such um because it is more nuanced than just a decision based on principle. That's why I believe that this should go to that that this vote should go to the general population. I don't think we as five board members should squash it before the public has the opportunity to to weigh in.