District finance advisor outlines $50M–$75M bond scenarios as final bond payments near zero; board to form facilities committee and survey voters

Mike LaValle, a public finance adviser with Stifel, told the Casa Grande Union High School District Governing Board on Monday that the district has roughly $145 million in statutory bonding capacity and presented two example bond packages — $50 million and $75 million — that would fund capital projects while keeping near current tax-rate levels.

LaValle walked the board through the district’s 10‑year assessed‑value history, the mechanics of Arizona’s statutory bonding calculation and how remaining principal on older debt affects capacity. “For the record, I’m Mike LaValle. I’m with Stifel,” he said as he began his presentation. He noted the district has only two remaining debt payments and that those payments end on July 1, 2026 — an event that creates an opportunity to maintain a steady bond tax rate if the board pursues new voter authorization now.

LaValle said the district’s current bond tax rate is about $0.31 per $100 of assessed value and that, under a scenario sized at $50 million and structured over 20 years, the district could “structure those bonds in such a way where we keep it at or below 31¢ going forward.” Under a larger $75 million scenario he projected a tax rate rise to roughly $0.35, which he described as only a few cents above recent averages. To illustrate homeowner impact, LaValle calculated the average annual tax impact on a $100,000 tax‑value property at about $21.47 for the $50 million scenario and roughly $33 a year for the $75 million scenario.

Superintendent Jeff Lavender described next steps for the district: “Our next steps will be to organize the facilities committee to look at the needs assessment that [staff] has done. … And then also we’re looking at, we want a survey in the community, and getting some feedback from the community, for on their thoughts of the potential of bond election. And then come back to all of you probably in April with some reports and then looking at possibly asking you to vote in May to take a bond for the November.”

LaValle emphasized timing considerations for a November 2025 ballot and for county deadlines: he recommended calling an election resolution by mid‑June (Pinal County permits later calls but makes logistics tighter) and said the district could stage bond sales or sell bonds in multiple series depending on project timelines. He also noted that if assessed values flatten or fall, the district could adjust project timing after an election to avoid an unexpected tax‑rate increase.

Board members asked questions about valuation trends and market risk; a board member with a real‑estate background noted market values and assessed valuation can diverge and that interest‑rate effects could slow or reduce growth in market values. LaValle responded that the statutory tax values used in the district’s calculations lag market value and that the district had several years of upward growth to absorb modest slowdowns.

The board did not place any bond measure on the ballot during the meeting. Instead the board directed staff to convene the facilities committee, complete or refine project estimates, commission community survey/polling work, and return with recommendations and scenarios (including smaller or larger packages) in April. The board indicated it may consider a request to place a bond election before voters in November 2025, contingent on project estimates, survey results and final timing.

Why this matters: the district’s last major debt will be retired in mid‑2026; electing voter authorization now can preserve a tax‑rate profile that is similar to current levels while funding capital needs, whereas waiting could require a larger tax‑rate increase later if the district’s rate falls to zero and projects remain unfunded.

Details and figures presented by LaValle: - Statutory bonding capacity (illustrative): about $145 million today; projected to rise if assessed values increase. - Two sample scenarios shown: $50 million (three sales over several years, average annual tax impact ~21.5¢ per $100 assessed value), and $75 million (three $25M sales; average impact ≈33¢ per $100 assessed value). - Estimated homeowner impact on a $100,000 tax‑value property: ~$21.47/year for the $50 million scenario; ~$33/year for $75 million (LaValle noted tax‑value differs from market value and voters should review their tax bill).

Next steps: staff to organize the facilities committee, refine the needs assessment and cost estimates, commission community survey work, return with reports in April and consider a board decision about calling an election in May for the November ballot.

Sources and attribution: presentation and direct quotes from Mike LaValle (Stifel) and Superintendent Jeff Lavender during the board’s special meeting.