North Clackamas SD 12 outlines maintenance-focused bond plan and seeks board authorization to consider refinancing

At a Feb. 22 work session, North Clackamas School District staff laid out a maintenance-first bond strategy and asked the board to authorize consideration of a refinancing that could preserve the current bond tax rate and increase the district’s borrowing capacity for a future bond.

Staff described five priority categories for a maintenance stewardship bond: safety and security improvements (including upgraded communications and cameras), roof replacements, ventilation and thermal comfort upgrades (staff said chiller/split systems could be used where full HVAC is not feasible; staff estimated ventilation work could affect about 78% of district schools), technology-infrastructure upgrades (cybersecurity, storage and project-based backbone upgrades to support cameras, sensors and cooling systems), and an “automation” category covering boilers, windows and building-envelope repairs. The district’s long-term facility plan (completed April 2023) and a facilities condition assessment (FCA) informed the priorities; staff said they have integrated FCA data into the Incident IQ work-order system to maintain a live inventory of needs.

Staff presented high-level cost estimates: if the district went to bond in 2026 the five categories’ critical and Priority 1 work was estimated at roughly $356,000,000; waiting until 2028 was estimated to increase the total by about $52,300,000 to roughly $408,000,000 because of escalation and additional discovered repairs. Staff said some previously prioritized work could become critical if delayed, further increasing costs.

On financing, Matt, the district’s executive director of finance and business services, outlined a refinancing strategy intended to preserve the district’s current bond tax rate. He said the district’s current tax rate is about $2.37 per $1,000 of assessed value and is scheduled to drop to about $2.00 on July 1 without action. A targeted refinancing could “bridge” future debt and allow the district to ask voters to renew the existing rate rather than request a tax increase. Matt said refinancing can generate additional capacity: his slides showed a 2026 bond with refinancing producing roughly $219 million in capacity compared with about $198 million without refinancing; a 2028 bond with refinancing showed roughly $302.6 million versus about $261 million without refinancing.

Staff stressed market uncertainty and timing. The board was told a resolution to authorize pursuit of refinancing would appear on the board agenda for Feb. 27; that authorization would permit staff to pursue refinancing if market conditions turn favorable but would not, by itself, commit the district to issue debt. Staff said a go/no-go decision would be made by mid-April based on market conditions; if the district proceeded, final details (scope, duration and amounts) would be finalized in the following weeks with implementation reflected in the district budget for the 2026 fiscal year (beginning July 1).

Board members asked about escalation assumptions, the life cycle of prior investments and how the district will prioritize among the five categories if limited funds are available. Staff said the near-term priorities would be safety/security, roofs and ventilation, and that district staff intend to prioritize critical failures within those categories if resources are constrained. Staff also noted plans for community engagement, including a facilities-focused community conversation on March 19 and establishment of an advisory committee in the coming fall.

No formal financing action was taken at the Feb. 22 work session; staff requested authorization to present a refinancing resolution for board consideration on Feb. 27 and to continue market monitoring and outreach.