Central SD 13J board adopts $90 million bond measure for November ballot

The Central SD 13J Board of Directors voted unanimously on Aug. 5 to adopt Resolution 24‑10 to place a $90,000,000 general obligation bond on the Nov. 5 ballot, accompanied by a ballot title that requires a citizen oversight committee and audits.

Board members made the decision after a presentation from Piper Sandler on levy-rate scenarios and a discussion of four bond-size options ranging from about $23.3 million to $90 million. Piper Sandler estimated the $90 million package, structured over a longer term with some deferred-interest components, would yield an estimated bond levy of about $3.75 per $1,000 of assessed value in the near term, roughly comparable to last year’s levy, while the $23.3 million option was estimated at about $3.10 per $1,000.

Why it matters: the board emphasized that voters, not the board, will decide whether to approve additional debt. The district also stands to receive a state grant of roughly $6 million if the bond total meets the grant threshold, increasing the purchasing power of the package. Depending on final project selection and construction costs, the $90 million option could finance larger projects—up to and including construction of a new elementary school—whereas smaller options would prioritize roofing, HVAC, playgrounds and limited additions.

During the meeting, Piper Sandler’s lead presenter summarized modeling assumptions and trade-offs. "Our mantra is under promise and over deliver," the presenter said, explaining the analysis includes a conservative one‑percentage‑point cushion on assumed interest rates and a flat 3% assessed‑value growth assumption.

A public commenter who served on district planning groups, Shannon Ball, urged the board to give voters more specific, school‑level descriptions in the ballot materials so residents know what will be done. "I encourage the board to provide clear direction ... so voters know exactly what they're voting for," Ball said, arguing specificity builds trust for oversight and improves the chances of passage.

Board members discussed that risk: more detailed promises can help persuade voters but may create constraints if aging buildings reveal costlier-than-expected problems during construction. Legal counsel noted that, in addition to the ballot title (the legally binding contract with voters), the district can submit a 500‑word explanatory statement for the voters' pamphlet (county permitting), and staff emphasized that district employees must limit communications to factual information once the resolution is adopted.

A motion to adopt Resolution 24‑10 (the $90,000,000 option) and the accompanying ballot exhibit was moved by Don, seconded by Steve, and carried 6–0. The ballot question approved for placement reads in substance: shall the district increase safety, construct, repair schools, improve facilities, address overcrowding and issue $90,000,000 in bonds; community oversight and audits required. The board and staff said they will finalize the 75‑word ballot summary, prepare the explanatory statement for the voters' pamphlet if Polk County will publish one, and work at an upcoming board retreat to clarify project priorities and oversight membership.

Next steps: staff and legal counsel said the initial filing with the county is due Aug. 16, with a second filing by Sept. 5; those deadlines will determine the final ballot wording and any voters' pamphlet materials. The board asked staff to prepare clearer project‑level information for outreach and to establish the citizen oversight process following standard practice.

The board adjourned after thanking consultants from Piper Sandler and bond counsel.