Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakley council agrees to let voters consider 1% sales tax to back USD 274 $28 million bond
Summary
The Oakley City Council unanimously authorized putting an additional 1% general sales tax on the November ballot, contingent on passage of a proposed $28 million USD 274 school bond; council and outside advisers discussed tax impacts, a 25-year financing term and a proposed city share of 3% of the sales tax.
The Oakley City Council voted unanimously July 21 to partner with USD 274 so Oakley voters can decide in November whether to allow an additional 1% general sales tax to help finance a proposed $28,000,000 school building and renovation bond. The measure is contingent on voter approval of the bond.
The request came from Justin Jenkins, a USD 274 school board representative, who told the council the board “approved on 07/14 to move forward with a 28000000 dollar building and renovation plan for USD 2 7 4 schools.” Jenkins said the plan would replace elementary and middle school buildings, add heavy high‑school renovations and consolidate PreK–12 under one roof to address infrastructure, safety and ADA issues.
District and council discussion focused on cost, timing and tax allocation. Jenkins described the financing term the district favored — a 25‑year bond — and walked the council through estimated household impacts. “So it's a $100,000 home, your tax indication will go up $25.16 per month with the 1% sales tax,” Jenkins said, adding that the bond without the sales tax would raise the same home’s monthly cost to $33.30.
Clayton Kelly of Piper Sandler, who joined the meeting by phone, advised the council that a general‑purpose sales tax typically requires the city to retain a small percentage to cover local costs. “Typically, we see that at anywhere from 3 to 7% of of the 1% sales tax going back towards the city,” Kelly said, and recommended the council consider a roughly 95% allocation to the school and a 3% city retention; council members signaled consensus on 3%.
Council members also addressed legal and administrative next steps. Bond counsel Gilmore & Bell, the city’s bond adviser and the school’s project team will draft election documents; council members were told those documents can be finalized quickly and that the deadline to call the election is about 60 days before the November election, making early September the practical cutoff. City staff said the documents could be prepared for the council to place the question on the Aug. 4 agenda.
The formal motion — “for the city of Oakley to partner with USD 274 to allow the city of Oakley voters to vote on allowing an additional 1% general sales tax for educational purposes in the November election” — was moved and seconded and passed on a unanimous voice/hand vote.
Council members and district representatives also flagged background items that figure in voters’ assessments: an ongoing Office for Civil Rights investigation tied to ADA compliance at district facilities; the district’s view that modernized buildings will help recruit and retain teachers; and survey responses the district said showed roughly 70% of respondents supported addressing the needs identified.
Next steps set at the meeting include completing election language with Gilmore & Bell and the district’s bond advisers and placing the formal election‑call item on a future council agenda.
