Ontario SD 8C hears bond options that could pair state match to fund school projects
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
District finance staff presented bond-timing options and a state matching grant that together could yield about $24.5 million for projects such as Aiken renovations; board members asked about timelines, tax impact and useful-life requirements.
Devin, the district financial presenter, told the Ontario SD 8C board the district's current bond (recorded in the presentation as $18,500,000) runs through June 2027 and carries a levy of 82'cents per $1,000 assessed value. He said the district can sell a replacement bond within a nine-month window and that timing (November 2026 or May 2027) affects interest rates and structure.
The district reviewed options modeled by Piper Sandler, including a 20-year schedule that preserves the current levy and a shorter schedule tied to a state match known in the transcript as the "awesome grant." Devin said the match was shown as $12,250,000; combining a roughly $12.25 million bond with that match could provide about $24.5 million for projects. The board identified the Aiken project as an example need (presenter cited a project estimate near $16 million). "So if we pass a $12.25'M bond, we get those matching funds," Devin said in the presentation.
Board members asked how useful-life requirements would affect the bond and whether furniture or technology could be financed; staff said maximum maturities can be 20 years and that rules now allow some furnishing and equipment uses that were previously disallowed. Devin also flagged interest-rate estimates used in the modeling (presented as roughly 6.08% for a larger, longer option and about 5.14% on a smaller matched option) and emphasized these were estimates.
The presentation included steps the district would need to take to qualify for the matching funds: complete a long-range facilities plan, a facilities assessment (already on file) and meet program submission deadlines. Staff recommended establishing a bond committee and considering third-party support to run a campaign and community engagement. Board members discussed outreach lessons from prior campaigns and the importance of one-on-one voter contact if the board pursues a bond.
The board did not vote to place a bond on a ballot at this meeting; the presentation concluded with board questions and direction to continue planning work on facilities assessments and timelines. Next procedural steps cited by staff were to confirm the long-range facilities plan scope, firm up project priorities, and consider forming a bond committee with possible external support.