Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance advisor outlines bond sizing options; board warned of Aug. 7 filing deadline and supermajority requirement
Summary
Isom Advisors' Jason List presented bond scenarios (roughly $39.9M at $19, $52.5M at $25, $61M at $29 tax-rate scenarios), noted the district's assessed valuation and bonding capacity, recommended conservative assumptions and warned the board the bond resolution must be filed by Aug. 7 and requires a 2/3 supermajority of total membership to proceed.
Jason List of Isom Advisors presented a bond‑analysis briefing to the Tehachapi Unified School Board on July 21, outlining financing scenarios, voter-demographic considerations and next steps for placing a bond on the November ballot. List used a 12‑year appraisal of assessed valuation and a legal multiplier (2.5%) to show the district's gross bonding capacity; he then modeled three tax-rate scenarios to estimate likely proceeds and recommended a conservative approach to growth and maturities.
"As a unified school district, the state multiplier is 2.5 percent times your current assessed valuation at 6,600,000,000," List said, and he added that the gross capacity under that math would be roughly $166,100,000, though he cautioned the public would not support a bond of that full size. Using more modest scenarios List illustrated proceeds of about $39.9 million (low case), $52.5 million (mid) and $61 million (high) tied to tax rates of about $19, $25 and $29, respectively; he said a $29 tax-rate scenario could be a practical upper bound for the district given demographics.
List walked trustees through tradeoffs between longer maturities and higher interest costs versus shorter debt service and lower total interest, and he recommended filing the bond resolution early to allow county review. He warned the board the legal deadline to file a resolution for the targeted election is Aug. 7 and that any bond resolution requires a supermajority (two‑thirds) of the board's total membership to pass. "If you can turn it in sooner, the better to give the county review," he said, recounting an example of a prior district that lost an election after counties misprinted a figure on the sample ballot.
The board discussed campaign logistics and the role of a bond campaign committee (chair, treasurer and volunteer coordinators), the separation required between district staff and advocacy activity, and the next step of approving a bond resolution at a special meeting. The board indicated consensus to schedule a July 28 special meeting to consider a resolution, with trustees and staff to return with recommended bond‑project lists and resolution language for county review.
