sfid b u s d easibility tudy - iusd.org · improve safety, security, cameras, communications, fire...

11/17/2015

SFID BOND FEASIBILITY STUDY

CONDUCTED FOR THE

IRVINE

UNIF IED SCHOOL D ISTRICT

CONDUCTED BY

T IMOTHY MCLARNEY PH .D.

22

oDetermine if a bond measure is feasible within updated SFID boundaries

o Identify how to create a measure consistent with community priorities

oGather information needed for communications & outreach

PURPOSE OF STUDY

33

o Telephone survey

o18 minutes

oConducted October 30th to November 5th, 2015

o400 likely June 2016 voters selected at random from within proposed SFID boundaries

oOverall margin of error of ± 4.9%

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

44

IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES

8.0

21.6

13.2

21.8

19.5

18.4

33.6

40.8

21.6

31.2

44.5

39.1

46.5

50.8

40.2

45.4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Completing the Great Park

Preventing local tax increases

Repairing and renovating aging school facilities

Improving public safety

Maintaining local property values

Maintaining local streets and roads

Reducing traffic congestion

Maintaining quality of education in local schools

% Respondents

Extremely important Very important

55

In order to:

oUpgrade classrooms, science labs and career-training facilities with locally-controlled funding that can’t be taken away by the State

oKeep classroom computers and technology up-to-dateoReplace aging roofs, plumbing, electrical systems and inefficient

heating and cooling systemsoAnd improve older schools so they meet the same safety and

academic standards as newer schools

Shall the School Facilities Improvement District Number #1 of the Irvine Unified School District issue $376 million dollars in bonds at legal rates, with independent oversight, mandatory audits, no money for administrator salaries, and all funds benefiting local schools? If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on this measure?

INITIAL BALLOT TEST

66

INITIAL BALLOT TEST

Probably yes

36.3

Definitely yes

27.8

Probably no

7.3

Definitely no

18.5

Refused

0.9

Not sure

9.2

64%26%

77

PROGRAMS & PROJECTS

34.6

39.6

43.7

39.8

45.0

52.5

51.9

46.1

47.5

49.6

45.5

51.8

46.5

54.9

27.1

29.2

27.4

31.4

30.5

25.1

26.0

31.8

30.6

28.5

33.0

27.6

33.5

26.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Keep students safe by adding lockable doors to classrooms

Upgrade classrooms, labs, career facilities w/locally controlled funding

Improve safety, security, cameras, communications, fire systems

Provide modern classrooms, labs that support latest instructional methods

Replace roofs, plumbing, electrical systems, heating, cooling systems

Update instructional tech to improve learning in core subjects

Ensure classrooms, labs, facilities accessible for students w ith disabilities

Upgrade classrooms, labs, career facilities, computers to keep up w/ tech

Keep computer systems, classroom technology up-to-date over time

Improve traffic, safety around schools for students who walk or bike to school

Ensure classrooms, instructional spaces for world class art, music programs

Provide facilities, equip for career, tech to prepare students for college, jobs

Provide students w ith classrooms, labs, to meet standards of newer schools

Improve schools to meet same safety standards as newer schools

% Respondents

Strongly favor Somewhat favor

88

POSITIVE ARGUMENTS

27.8

32.6

24.9

32.4

38.0

35.3

43.1

45.6

39.0

36.7

40.4

38.3

49.4

43.4

48.5

35.3

34.6

42.8

35.5

32.4

37.5

31.0

29.8

36.8

40.3

38.0

41.5

30.6

39.0

34.1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The entire cost of this measure is deductible on state and federal income taxes

Irvine only school in OC that hasn't passed a facility improvement measure

Measure w ill only upgrade oldest schools, no funds w ill go to newest schools

The longer you have lived in your home, the less this measure w ill cost

Measure w ill ensure schools eligible to receive share of State matching money

Measure ensures developers, businesses pay their share to improve schools

District w ill qualify for mil in State matching money that could go to other districts

Money raised w ill be spent on improving school, tech, classrooms

Up-to-date schools w ill continue to attract very best teachers

There w ill be a clear system of fiscal accountability

Measure ensures all students have equal access to modern tech, learning tools

Teachers, parents, leaders support measure; it w ill keep schools among best

Money raised w ill stay in District, can't be taken away

Measure ensures our world class schools continue high student achievement

Protecting schools, quality of life a w ise investment even w ith no children

% Respondents

Very convinc ing Somewhat convinc ing

99

INTERIM BALLOT TEST

Not sure

8.9

Definitely no

16.1

Probably no

10.0

Definitely yes

38.3

Probably yes

26.7

65%

26%

1010

TAX THRESHOLD

23.5

22.9

26.4

27.1

11.7

12.0

12.6

13.1

26.4

27.7

29.0

29.1

5.8

8.5

26.2

33.9

31.1

22.2

4.5

6.3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

$29 per $100k

$33 per $100k

$38 per $100k

$43 per $100k

% Respondents

Definitely yes Probably yes Probably no Definitely no Not sure

42%49%

42%

54%

38%

53%

40%

57%

1111

SUPPORT: AVERAGE OF $180/$122 PER YEAR

22.4

13.6

11.9

25.224.9

6.9 3.8

30.930.9

3.7

21.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Avg $180 per year Avg $122 per year

Tax Threshold

% R

esp

ond

ents

Refused

Not sure

Definitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

@ $180 (Q8)

1212

SUPPORT: AVERAGE OF $15/$10 PER MONTH

18.7

14.6

11.2

26.024.0

3.8 2.7

34.5

7.5

34.5

20.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Avg $15 per month Avg $10 per month

Tax Threshold

% R

esp

ond

ents

Refused

Not sure

Definitely no

Probably no

Probably yes

Definitely yes

Definitely yes

@ $15 (Q10)

1313

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

18.6

30.0

29.2

31.1

20.5

28.5

34.6

30.3

31.9

30.0

43.6

37.6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measure unfairly carves out some property owners while making others pay

Bond means nearly $700 mil in debt with higher taxes for next 40 years

Some property owners already pay over $700 per year in extra taxes, fees

With unemployment, sluggish economy, now is NOT the time to be raising taxes

Largest school measure proposed in OC, should be a more modest proposal

$9 bil available from State next year to improve schools, no need to raise taxes

% Respondents

Very convinc ing Somewhat convinc ing

1414

FINAL BALLOT TEST

Probably yes

30.4

Definitely yes

26.0

Probably no

13.1

Definitely no

23.8

Refused

0.4

Not sure

6.3

56%

37%

1515

KEY CONCLUSIONS

o Is it feasible to move forward with a bond measure in the updated SFID? Yes.oVoters perceive that maintaining the quality of education and

upgrading aging school facilities are more important than preventing local tax increases

oStrong natural support for bond (64%)

oPopular projects

oStrong positive arguments

oAll ballot tests are above 55% required for passage of Prop. 39 bond

1616

CONSIDERATIONS

oPoll is a snapshot in time, not a crystal ball

oPrice tag – important to keep the tax rate in a range that voters view as affordable

oOutreach & education are critical so voters understand the need, the plan, accountabilities, and the benefits to their particular communities

1717

TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS

Adam BauerPresident

Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates949.660.7303 tel

949.295.5735 cell

[email protected]

November 17, 2015

Potential 2016 General Obligation Bond Election

School Facility Improvement District Funding Options

SFID Boundary Map

1

SFID Boundaries and Tax Rates Under Consideration

2

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

ScenarioSFID Boundary

Description

Tax Rate

(per $100,000 of AV)

Total Bonding

Amount

1 SFID Proposed Boundary $29 $251 M


3 SFID Proposed Boundary $38 $329M


Estimated Tax for Median Homeowner

SFID

Scenario

Tax Rate per

$100,000 of

Assessed

Value

Total

Amount for

Projects

Estimated Tax for

Median AV ($419,351)

Single & Multi-Family

SFID Homeowner*

Estimated Tax for

Median AV ($473,234)

Single-Family SFID

Homeowner*

1 $29 $251 M $121.61 $137.24

2 $33 $286 M $138.39 $156.17

3 $38 $329 M $159.35 $179.83

4 $43 $372 M $180.32 $203.49

* Provided by California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 3

Source: Scott Associates

Total Secured Assessed Value for Possible School

Facility Improvement District Scenarios 1-4

Proposed SFID 42,899 $6,191,272,632 $17,538,454,868 $23,729,727,500 $21,184,138,810

*The parcels with the Proposed SFID boundary were provided by Scott Associates.

AV with CFD

86-1 only

AV with No

CFD Overlay

Total

Proposed SFID

AV

IUSD AV

Excluded from

Proposed SFID

Parcels *

4

$29 Tax Rate and 30-Year Maximum Current Interest Bonds

Election of 2016 Potential Tax Rates and Debt Service (Scenario 1)

A successful GO Bond election held in June or November 2016 would allow the School

District to issue new money by early 2017 and issue $254 million in total within 12 years

Only Current Interest Bonds and 3.00% annual growth in Assessed Valuation

(1)Assumes 3.00% growth in AV for FY 16-17 and every year thereafter.(2)Assumes MMD 10-year average ‘AA’ scale per maturity. 5

Series 2017 Series 2021 Series 2025 Series 2029 Total

Issue Date 2/1/2017 2/1/2021 2/1/2025 2/1/2029 -

Par Amount 72,950,000 60,105,000 59,930,000 60,660,000 253,645,000

Project Amount 72,189,350 59,434,265 59,260,490 59,985,380 250,869,485

Final Maturity Date 8/1/2046 8/1/2050 8/1/2054 8/1/2053 -

Repayment Ratio 1.62 1.87 2.00 1.86 1.83

Percentage of CIBs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Percentage of CABs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053Tax

Rate

Uti

lizati

on

(p

er

$10

0,0

00 o

f A

V)

Fiscal Year

2016 GO Bond ElectionEstimated Tax Rates(1)(2)

Series 2017 Series 2021 Series 2025 Series 2029 Max Tax Rate @ $29








Issue Date 2/1/2017 2/1/2021 2/1/2025 2/1/2029 -

Par Amount 83,020,000 68,405,000 68,200,000 68,990,000 288,615,000

Project Amount 82,188,860 67,676,165 67,472,600 68,257,070 285,594,695


Repayment Ratio 1.62 1.87 2.00 1.86 1.83



0

10

20

30

40

2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053Tax

Rate

Uti

lizati

on

(p

er

$10

0,0

00 o

f A

V)

Fiscal Year










Issue Date 2/1/2017 2/1/2021 2/1/2025 2/1/2029 -

Par Amount 95,610,000 78,770,000 78,535,000 79,475,000 332,390,000

Project Amount 94,690,730 77,968,610 77,735,255 78,668,675 329,063,270


Repayment Ratio 1.62 1.87 2.00 1.86 1.83



0

10

20

30

40

50

2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053Tax

Rate

Uti

lizati

on

(p

er

$10

0,0

00 o

f A

V)

Fiscal Year










Issue Date 2/1/2017 2/1/2021 2/1/2025 2/1/2029 -

Par Amount 108,200,000 89,130,000 88,840,000 89,930,000 376,100,000

Project Amount 107,192,600 88,256,090 87,968,120 89,050,490 372,467,300


Repayment Ratio 1.62 1.87 2.00 1.86 1.83



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041 2043 2045 2047 2049 2051 2053Tax

Rate

Uti

lizati

on

(p

er

$10

0,0

00 o

f A

V)

Fiscal Year



Source Data

9Source: Scott Associates

I. 2015/16 Assessed Value for all parcels in Irvine Unified School District: 44,913,866,310$

II. AV Summary by CFD

86-1 & 86-1 & 86-1 & 86-1 & 86-1 & 86-1 &

Parcels CFD 04-1 CFD 04-2A CFD 04-2B CFD 06-1 CFD 08-1 CFD 09-1 Total CFD AV

CFD 86-1 18,522 9,756,461,383 385,642,762 1,139,718,676 958,212,166 518,677,914 131,967,221 3,669,097,129 16,559,777,251

CFD 01-1 3,836 4,797,004,819 4,797,004,819

CFD 04-1 * 400 385,642,762 385,642,762

CFD 04-2A * 1,481 6,300,229 1,139,718,676 1,146,018,905

CFD 04-2B * 987 958,212,166 958,212,166

CFD 06-1 * 606 518,677,914 518,677,914

CFD 08-1 * 2 131,967,221 131,967,221

CFD 09-1 * 6,906 1,033,879,244 3,669,097,129 4,702,976,373

* All or some of the parcels in this CFD are also within the boundary of CFD 86-1.

III. AV of Proposed SFID Boundary

Parcels *

Proposed SFID 42,899 6,191,272,632 17,538,454,868 23,729,727,500 21,184,138,810

* The parcels with the Proposed SFID boundary were provided by Scott Associates.

NOTE

AV with No

Overlay

AV with CFD

86-1 only

AV with No

CFD Overlay

Total Proposed

SFID AV

IUSD AV

Excluded from

Proposed SFID

The 2015/16 Assessed Value shown on this page represents Land Value + Improvement Value - Exemptions + Homeowners Exemption. Unsecured and Personal Property

Values are not included.

sfid b u s d easibility tudy - iusd.org · improve safety, security, cameras, communications, fire...

Documents