Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds Measure A topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs staff to pursue larger Measure A bond scenario to complete West Park and fund Oakmont projects
Summary
Trustees directed staff to develop a mid‑range/full bond issuance option under Measure A to finish West Park High (theater/classrooms) and advance Oakmont priorities (pool, classroom modernization), while asking staff to return with boundary and transfer analyses in March.
Trustees of the Roseville Joint Union High School District on Tuesday signaled support for pursuing a larger bond issuance under Measure A to finish construction at West Park High School and advance a prioritized set of projects at Oakmont High School.
The decision followed a staff presentation on the ESID (school facility improvement district) that covers the West Park attendance area and a separate briefing from the district's financial adviser, Chris Hayatt. Hayatt explained the difference between current‑interest bonds and capital appreciation bonds and warned the board the district is operating under a State Board of Education waiver that expires at the end of 2025 and affects the district's debt capacity.
In presenting options, staff outlined five scenarios ranging from a modest issuance (roughly $16 million) to selling the remaining Measure A capacity (about $51 million). The district estimated a theater and classroom construction package at West Park would likely cost in the $30–$40 million and $20–$30 million ranges respectively; Oakmont's highest priority was a new pool, estimated at about $10 million. Staff emphasized those figures are preliminary and would be refined with architects and bond counsel.
"We were looking at potentially issuing more bonds for Measure A," Chris Hayatt, the district's financial adviser, told trustees, adding that whether the district sells bonds now or later depends on projected assessed-value growth and statutory debt limits. She noted the existing waiver and the need to keep projected tax rates near earlier voter estimates.
Board members raised equity and capacity concerns — including whether Cluster One (a developing area) could be removed from the ESID, and whether ESID payers would be guaranteed attendance at West Park. Staff said removing an area from the ESID might be possible but would require State education office approvals and could reduce future bonding capacity.
Several trustees argued the board should balance speed (to avoid rising construction costs) with fairness to taxpayers. One trustee urged exploring a districtwide refinancing so tax burdens could be equalized rather than leaving a class of taxpayers paying higher ESID rates.
On the record, multiple trustees expressed comfort with a larger issuance option (discussed on the dais as “Scenario 4/50M”) and a motion was made directing staff to develop that scenario in greater detail. Staff said a formal bond resolution and more detailed financial modeling would be returned to the board in the coming months and reminded the board that the earliest realistic election to place a bond on the ballot would likely be 2026.
Next steps: staff will return in March with scenario analyses that include potential attendance-boundary changes, transfer data, and refined bond-issuance details; the board requested architects' cost estimates and a plan to avoid delaying Oakmont's prioritized projects while finishing West Park.
