001I'd like to call our special meeting to order. Laura Lee, will you call the role, please? >> Stu Boyd >> here. >> Denise Chapman >> here. >> Amy Doran >> here. >> Don Kirk >> here. >> Barbara Cruz >> here. >> Alexander Lesum. >> Nancy Rumfelt >> here. >> Thank you, Lorley. And Nancy, if you'll lead us in the pledge. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you, Nancy. Our first item on the agenda would be the approval of the um agenda for tonight for August 6. That's for a special meeting. Are there any additions or to the agenda plan? Hearing none, I will take a motion to
002approve the agenda as printed. >> So move. Okay. Oh, first from Stu, a second from Denise. And Laura Lee, please call the role. >> Stu Boyd. >> I. >> Denise Chapman. >> Hi. >> Amy Doran. >> Hi. >> Don Kirk. >> Hi. >> Barbara Cruz. >> Hi. >> Alexander Lesum. >> Nancy Rumfelt. >> Hi. Mo. Motion passes six to zero. All right. We are our first item of business. Second item of business actually is going on to um discussion action items and it's um considering the resolution calling for an election on November 5th, 2025 for the bond initiative and I'm going to call Todd up for us. >> Yes. Good evening, Madam President, Board of Education and Dr. Heler. Uh Todd Pone, assistant superintendent of operations. So tonight I'm excited to uh present really information
003that we've been reviewing since uh November really December of 24 since the bond election uh 24 was not successful. So in saying that uh just a general overview of the timeline. So really what we've done since June to now um timeline from last November to now uh bond capacity. So I have some friends with us tonight that we'll introduce as we get there. uh that's going to look at the assess valuation and then also the ballot language that is proposed for tonight and then also conversation about just bond items just uh what is in the bond and how are we going to um publicize those. So first is the timeline as we discussed in June the charge of staff this summer was really to create the bond uh language that you have um for consideration
004tonight. So in that is the resolution uh the ballot language proposed ballot language and then obviously the components within the ballot language. Um so that's been a lot of the work over summer is getting that complete. The other piece is just um fine-tuning what is in the bond. Um in the world today with inflations and everything that changes we've spent time kind of fine-tuning what those numbers are and putting them into defined buckets so then we could u push those forward to the community. The other thing Mike and his team has done, Mike House and his team have done is uh communication. We learned um real quick from the last election that communication was something we needed to work on. So his team's been working on communication uh communication up to this point and then
005after tonight, assuming we're um going to pass resolution, then communication moving forward and then transition really to campaign. So, those are the pieces that um it's it sounds like little, but that's a lot of the pieces that have been going on these last several months. Additionally to that, um I know Dr. Heler's calendar is filling up with um community events um which will be this will be a piece of that. So, you know, tonight if this is approved, um staff goes into the fair campaign practice act. So, there's things we can and cannot do. Um but regardless we can share information, factual information about um this init initiative. So from there I will turn over to Maddie and she's going to talk she's the hilltop a little bit about um we've talked about assess valuation
006how we got to the 99 million. Um but you've heard from me I think it's heard good to hear from our professionals we work with that really get to the details of where we're at tonight. So we'll turn it over to Maddie. Good evening. Thank you for having me. Mattie Perdanovic with Hilltop Securities. We are the district's uh financial adviser, municipal adviser. Um I've actually had the pleasure of working with you all since 2015. So we're going on almost a decade here once we get to the end of the year, which is kind of crazy to say. So um uh as Todd mentioned, uh you know, starting in December of last year, we started working with the district on trying to figure out what a capacity would be for a no tax rate increase election.
007Um, and you know to do that in a reassessment year, which 2025 is, is a little complicated, a bit more complicated than if we were talking about doing that last year. Um, the reason for that is obviously assessors are going out and recalculating the underlying property values for everyone. But it's also even more complicated this year because as you are all likely aware, the state has adjusted how they're just calculating assessed values in general depending on what property type you are and which entity is levying the mill. Um, and so that's changing assessment rates uh as well as sort of calculations for actual values that the assessment rate is then applied to, which makes our job even more challenging than it otherwise would be. And so, um, because of that, uh, in May, we started
008reaching out to the assessors for the three counties that you all operate within. So, Larur, Weld, and Boulder, um, to try and get some preliminary estimates. As you might imagine, the assessors are a little, uh, squirmy about giving out estimates that early. Um, they are required to provide a preliminary estimate under statute by the end of August. Uh, and but that obviously isn't certified until December. Um, so we did actually hear back from all three counties. um weld uh is an anticipated slight decrease of approximately 8% of that assessed value and that is mostly related to oil and gas. So those valuations obviously fluctuate um and actually most of what your assessed value is within Weld County is oil and gas. So that does tend to move around a bit. Um Boulder is actually a
009slight increase um probably around 4% four to 5% for that individual um component and then LMER which is obviously the most important one really just given where you all are located um is uh the preliminary estimates that we had was up potentially as high as 20%. That said their assessor was very clear that that was going to be revised down. What we didn't know was exactly how much down. Um, and so what we did is put together a table of options of sort of what the borrowing capacity would be under various aggregate AV growth assumptions. Um, ranging from no growth essentially up to a growth level of 10%. Um, where we landed was the 7 12% assumed growth. That gets you to about $99 million, which is what's in the ballot question. Um, based on
010the preliminary estimates that we have from Weld and Boulder, which I think are a bit more firm than what we got from Lammer County, that would require Lammer's AV to go up by 8.2%. And so, um, you know, that is obviously less than half of the estimated increase that they gave us. And so, um, you know, I think we feel relatively comfortable moving forward with that. Um, the ballot language also just very clearly states that it's not an expected increase in the mill levy based on the assessed value at the time. essentially that it's issued. And so, um, this is all still, you know, we we feel pretty comfortable with the $99 million. That said, it is a very firm commitment that the MIL levy is not going to change, um, for collections in 2026.
011Um, and so if AV does not pan out as we would expect, that would just mean that we don't issue all of the PAR up front, all of that $99 million up front, and would wait for assessed value to continue to grow to be able to issue all of it. That's all I have for prepared remarks, but happy you want to keep going and then I can take questions later. >> And next, I'll invite Kim Crawford up and she'll actually talk about the process um for the resolution that's attached for vote tonight and then the actual ballot language that um that you you've seen. So, >> good evening. Thank you for having us tonight. Um I started working with you last year. So last year was my first election with uh with your district. Um
012but we work with many many school districts and have I've been doing um bond work for 25 years. So um happy to be here tonight and happy to be working with the district. So as Todd mentioned um this process started a long time ago for you. It started actually even before um before November of last year when your ballot questions didn't did not succeed um because you started working on it before then to get to that ballot question and then I think after that um trying to fine-tune and figure out what you wanted to do this year and how you wanted to change things and and how you wanted to proceed with this election. So, I um started working with the district probably in May or June um talking about ballot questions and what you
013want to have in it, what your priorities are as far as um the bullet points because the bullet points are um really we think what kind of draw the eye to the voter. You know, they see the first like the first part which is the taber part and then they see the last part which is the state law part and they're both kind of lumpy sections with things that we need to think that we need to have to give our opinion that the bonds are valid. Um, and then the middle part with the bullets is what you are telling the voters you're doing. Um, so what you're starting out with is without any expected increase. And we do say expected because this is a general obligation bond and school districts can only issue general obligation
014bonds. So you can't do limited tax bonds. And if you said without any increase in our current debt service mill levy, say it's 19 mills, then you would be limited to that 19 mills. So we're saying it's an expected one. And then in the last bigger paragraph, we say notwithstanding the above, you can increase your mill levy rate in an amount sufficient to pay your bonds back. But those numbers are also specified by Taber. So you do have a maximum par amount, a maximum annual repayment cost, and a maximum total repayment cost. And you can never go get above those numbers. So your millie can fluctuate. And the the idea and the intent certainly is that it's not going to fluctuate above what your current debt service mevy is. However, if assess if things go
015really bad and really crazy and your assessed value goes way down, you're going to need to increase your MV levy rate so that you can pay your bonds back. However, that's never going to exceed I think it's 19 million annually. 19 million annually. So no matter what, you're not going to pay more than 19 million annually. So that's going to be a set dollar amount each year. and then a set total um which is the 195 195 million based on 99 million par. Um and then after this we can um if this if this is approved tonight and we move forward then the board um we can start getting ready to certify this to the the county clerks and then Laura Lee and I will work with the counties to get everything taken care of
016so that you can be on the ballot in November. Any questions? >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Okay, on the next slide is the ask. So, it's the the 99 million and what does it include. You can see what's a little different um now than June is the three buckets that um are on the ballot language now match the three buckets you see here. Um but the contents of it is pretty similar. Uh still 99 million, 35 million critical needs. So that's our maintenance needs. 10 million is safety and security and then future planning is both um growth of about 44 millionish. Um and then there's 10 million of educational enhancements in there too. So program enhancements, the pieces that you saw before broke out, but it was recommended to put them because it's in
017the bow language to match this is to one bucket. Um, one thing I'll mention at the bottom here is I think it might be live now, but the website right after we vote the website will go live and it'll have the details. So, this is, you know, this is three general buckets. Um, similar to the 18 bond we went through, I want to say it was 2400 light items with the citizen bond oversight committee that all each specific item in the bond was verified complete that that it aligned with the about language. So, um, here shortly that'll be active and then we'll be able to see the schools will be able to see, okay, here's what it looks like for the school. So, school A will say HVAC repair, um, birth and Ivy, it'll be
018growth and here's what that looks like. Um, so it gets into more of the details. So, then the voters in each school specific can see what's allocated. The challenge there too is um, this is significantly less than what we looked at before. So there's just not, you know, that much spread out as there was before. We're still touching all the schools. Um just not as the magnitude as we did before. So, uh the other piece I'll note in the ballot language is right below the third bullet point is the the note of citizen bond oversight committee. So just a note to the board and community that is a um boardapp appointed committee that oversees the financial spending the process uh bond items and bond language all adhere to and then they report back to the
019board. So that's just good for the board because that's really your like in-depth um view into the bond workings in that that process. The next piece I want to touch on is just the communication piece. So you'll see an example of what the um website's going to look like, but also I think Mike is um working and at the printer now for flyers. So there's there's different pieces of um the literature we're working on. And that's the piece we really reflected on last time. Well, we heard, you know, what how do we need to grow to get hopefully get this successful if it's passes tonight? Um is communication. And so here's just some examples of the work that the communication team has done to really show the community here's the needs, here's the why. And
020then you'll see in the website too, we did uh work on the history. So it's not just about today today's bond, but when 18 what do we do in 2005? What do we do? And building up to a bigger story for the next 5 years of the continual need of of these pieces in the bond. So from there, I know there's a lot of information, uh, obviously some questions, but um, that's all we have tonight. So any questions? So, so I'm sure you're already aware of the questions that I'll ask. Um so again I understand um what you're saying but what I look at when I look at subsection 3C it's very clear ballot the ballot title and our question is we don't have a title should begin shall taxes be increased or shall debt
021be increased. We are increasing debt. It doesn't matter that the 2005 is paid off. We're getting it's like we're going out and getting new loans. So we are increasing debt by 99 million. So we should to comply with Taber start the ballot with shall debt be you know Thompson blah blah blah increase debt by 99 million and then you can go into your blurb about the with no tax increase which in my opinion again is disingenuous because again it's like when you pay off a debt yes you now have that extra cash because you don't have to pay it towards your debt anymore but if you go out and get new debt that money is now consumed again. So, we're asking the taxpayers to forego getting that money back because we're going to go get
022new debt. So to me it should be very clear A, we are getting new debt and B, this is what we're asking them to give because we've never explained or shown the numbers of how much money each person in average like we've done before pays in their property taxes for the 2005 bond payment. What does that look like? Um, and if I understood, were you saying I'm sorry I forgot you >> Kim. Were you saying that from the ma the levy that we'll collect $19 million a year for to pay the debt? >> That's the maximum. >> What on average have we been collecting? You may not know that off the top of your head, Bob. >> District's debt service currently is about $19 million a year. It will drop down to approximately 15.6 6
023million next year after the bonds roll off. And then um what's left there is the 2019 bond issuance from the 2018 authorization which is approximately 15.6 million and run through um 20 calendar year 2038. And then because of the no tax increase structure, we're essentially creating like an interestonly structure up front to minimize the tax impact, right? To be able to keep that mill levy the same. And then the debt service for or the principal uh amortization for this is really occurring between 2039 and 2045 on these bonds. That anticipated debt service sitting here today is about 17.2 million, but we are creating some capacity in the um that maximum annual and the total repayment number. So, for those who are I think you're the one um looking over the ballot language, wouldn't it be
024clearer to the voter if instead of doing the without increasing taxes, we simply said the mill levy rate currently is 3.73 mills and it will be more or less maintained at that unless you know in order to meet our obligation it has to go up. Why not make it clear what the mill levy is now and what it would be going forward like you do in a normal one? Sorry. So these are I mean good questions. So um and we certainly could say that. I mean we could say what the mill is. I think um the hesitancy is that people are going to again moving forward they're focusing on the 3 point whatever mills and it may or may not be that um based on what happens to the res the assessment rates and um
025the assessed values. So it it can go up and down and it'll have to go up and down but it but but we could add that. I mean that could be in the ballot question >> but that's no different than what we did in the 2018 bond language. We put in the mill levy with the same caveat >> and I don't I don't didn't work on that one so I don't have that question with me. Um >> I have Would you like to see it? >> No, it's fine. I believe you. >> Um okay. So, I think as far as questions go, I still think for Todd, um, one of the big issues last time was the voter trust deficit and people have made clear that they want more specificity in what their money's being
026spent on. There's too many times that we've seen it. It just changes constantly. And with what happened last time with the audit, there were a lot of issues with not being able to correctly and accurately tell us what was bond money and how much was spent on each project. I mean, the auditor was pretty clear in her April study session report. And I printed out the plant moram report. >> Yeah, I would say the 149 that was um promised to the voters, all that was 100% complete and done. The audit was the above and beyond, but the ballot language that was promised to voters was completed and checked by the uh citizen bond oversight committee. >> I I don't think you're understanding me. The voters want to know what the money is going to be
027spent on. And I understand you have to put in some escalators, but why not just say 44 million is for Berthood Elementary and Ivy Elementary and Berthood? >> Oh, we >> Why not? Yeah, we >> in the b in in the ballot >> because then then you're held to it. >> A good question. I don't have that answer. What I know is that we are going to be transparent and show that. >> Okay, >> I'm going to move on. Any other questions, Alexandra? >> So, the only question I have is so we're doing the 99 billion. Sorry. I could we can only wish, right? the 99 billion is based on a um like that 7.5% assessed valuation rate. If the assessed valuation rate turns out to be higher, we we don't get to go up,
028right? We're still stuck at that 99 million. Okay? And so theoretically, if the assessed valuation is higher, people's taxes could actually go down um with still incorporating this, right? the I mean theoretically I don't I mean that's all a big but I was just I was just checking that we're not going to like we we're not going to escalate if the if the valuation is higher. We're we're staying where we are. >> Yes, we're staying at the 99 million regardless. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Still, >> it's not a question. Um it's a comment uh based on something that that Nancy said. I looked at the uh ballot language for the 2024 ballot and I didn't have the ballot language for 2018, but it's amazing what you can find on the internet. And
029what I found was that the the ballot language um that we're going to be talking about tonight is quite consistent with the 2018 ballot language with the exception of uh reference to a new school built east of I25 which turned out to be Riverview. Uh the rest of the bond language was rather general in terms of uh the type types of expenditures that would be made relative to facilities and maintenance and so on. So I did want to point out that what I see when I read this particular uh ballot is very consistent both with 2024 and with 2018. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Um, I would take a motion for >> Madam President, >> could you make sure it says November 5th in the motion? Will you make sure it says November 4th? >>
030Oh, okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. I would take a motion to approve the resolution calling for the election on November 4th, 2025. So move >> second. >> First from Stua, second from Don. Further questions. >> Don't we usually go down and do the discuss? >> We did a lot. We did the discussion. >> Robert's rule says after you call for a first and a second before you vote, you do the >> Is there a discussion? >> Is there any further discussion? >> I would like to add. >> Okay. So again, I still firmly believe that this ballot language does not comply with Taber because it does not start with the question, shall the district. That's my firm belief. I understand we need the bottom. I understand we need the bond, but
031that doesn't mean we get to circumvent what Taber says. I also think we should have we should have taken more time to figure out how to get more specifics because the voters have been very clear that's what they want. They want more accountability and transparency. And the final thing is last year we did a study session so all of this could be like hashed out. Then we had the vote at a regular meeting. This time I thought we were going to have a study session discussion and instead it's a special session with no public comment and then we're done. I just think we did not follow our normal protocols for this and I don't think that's okay. >> Are we ready to vote? Okay. Laura Lee, please call the role. >> Stu Boyd >> I.
032>> Denise Chapman. >> Hi. >> Amy Doran. >> Hi. >> Don Kirk. I >> Barbara Cruz >> I >> Alexander Lesam >> I >> Nancy Rumfeld >> no. >> Okay. The motion passes 6 to one. All right. Um that will we will adjourn this meeting and then uh we will be meeting back over at the tables. Um giving Brian a chance to Is it Brian? >> U yes like 10 About 10 minutes. >> About 10 minutes. >> He's requested about 10 minutes. >> Okay. We're going to give him 10 minutes to get everything switched around. Last time we did this, I forgot