Hillsboro board hears $312M–$380M bond scenarios, consultant outlines levy and state-match limits

At a board work session, Lauren McMillan of Piper Sandler briefed Hillsboro School District directors on the mechanics and possible size of a future general obligation (GO) bond and on an alternative — a local option levy.

McMillan said a GO bond is repaid by a dedicated property-tax levy and optionally backed by a full faith-and-credit pledge. She told the board the district’s assessed-value base jumped this year—driven in the presentation by changes tied to Intel—and that jump materially lowers a projected levy rate for a given borrowing amount.

Using conservative assumptions including a 1.5 percentage-point cushion above current market rates, McMillan presented two example packages: one benchmarked to this year’s lower levy rate that would generate about $312 million, and a higher‑rate scenario that could generate roughly $380 million. She added that, using a different averaging method, an alternative could reach about $411 million. McMillan estimated total borrowing costs under her cushion assumptions in the mid‑5 percent range (about 5.4–5.5 percent), saying the district could likely borrow for a 20-year term in that vicinity.

On the state matching program referenced in the presentation (the transcript uses the term “awesome grant”), McMillan said the district’s eligibility was roughly $6 million under the current biennium’s ranking and funding formula; she noted that districts are ranked and grants are awarded in tiers and that Hillsboro’s rank (given competing applicants) made landing a top-priority match unlikely in most cycles.

Board members pressed for practical impacts: how levy-rate estimates translate to household bills, how the recent assessed-value spike could reverse, and whether declining enrollment affects credit ratings. McMillan advised the board that assessed-value changes are set by the county assessor and that future depreciation of large properties could compress growth; she recommended working with the county assessor on scenarios and noted the district will receive a new credit rating when bonds are actually sold.

McMillan also walked through the local option levy option — a tool to raise operating dollars — and explained that local option levies are subject to compression under Oregon law, are approved for five-year periods, and that district collections depend heavily on the mix of property classes in the tax base. Earlier internal estimates presented to board committees suggested a local-option levy near $1.25 per $1,000 could raise roughly $15 million in operating revenue, though presenters cautioned those figures predate this year’s assessed-value change.

Next steps described to the board: further refinement of levy-rate and tax-collection models using county assessor data, packaging prioritized capital asks (the bond development committee previously estimated a $640 million universe of capital needs), additional committee review and polling, and returning to the board with 2–3 ballot-package options for a December meeting prior to community outreach.

Why this matters: a district GO bond or a local-option levy would affect taxes for property owners across the district, fund capital or operating priorities, and — depending on state grant awards and assessed-value changes — materially change how much the community is asked to pay and what projects the district could finance.

Representative quote: “Because the bond levy is repaid with a property‑tax levy, there are some really key concepts we want to understand from the beginning,” Lauren McMillan said during her explanation of levy-rate mechanics.

What’s next: district staff and the bond development committee will refine estimates, evaluate project priorities and polling, and present narrowed ballot-package options to the board for further direction.