Ontario Packet - California`s Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Transcription

C.A.S.H. Workshop:
Planning for 2016 Local Bond Success
Friday, April 24, 2015
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ayres Hotel & Suites (New Location)
1945 East Holt Blvd.
Ontario, CA
AGENDA
9:00 a.m.
Welcome and Introductions
Alex Parslow, C.A.S.H. Board of Directors, HMC Architects/school Advisors
9:05 a.m.
Californians for Quality Schools
Dave Walrath, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes
9:15 a.m.
The Power of the State and Local Bond to Meet Local Needs
John Fairbank, Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, & Associates, Inc.
9:30 a.m.
Consultants & Roles
Tova Corman, C.A.S.H. Board of Directors, Long Beach USD
10:15 a.m.
Planning for Your Next Bond
Jim DiCamillo, WLC Architects
Estuardo Santillan, Norwalk-La Mirada USD
Tom Duffy, Murdoch, Walrath, & Holmes
11:00 a.m.
Break
11:15 a.m.
Funding Sources/Financial Feasibility/ Polling & Setting Project Priorities/Political
Feasibility
John Baracy, Stifel
Bonnie Moss, Clifford Moss
12:15 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 p.m.
Successful Bond Case Study
Nancy Nien, Downey USD
2:00 p.m.
Legal Issues with Bond Campaigns
Mark Kelley, Dannis Woliver Kelley
2:45 p.m.
Q&A
3:00 p.m.
Adjourn
CALIFORNIA’S COALITION for ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOUSING
1130 K Street, Suite 210  Sacramento, CA 95814  Phone (916) 448-8577  Fax: (916) 448-7495  www.cashnet.org
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ayres Hotel & Suites
Ontario, CA
C.A.S.H. State School Bond Initiative
Dave Walrath
Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes
1130 K Street, Suite 210  Sacramento, CA 95814  Phone: (916) 448-8577  Fax: (916) 448-7495  www.cashnet.org
Handout materials are available online after the workshop. To download the materials, visit
www.cashnet.org/meetings and click on the link labeled “Workshop and Conference Handouts.”
4/17/2015
StateSchoolBondInitiative
Why an Initiative?
• C.A.S.H.believestheSchoolFacilityProgramisan
effectivestate/localpartnership.
• C.A.S.H.believestheStateofCaliforniahasa
Constitutionalobligationtoensureallstudentshave
accesstoadequateschoolfacilities.
• TheinitiativewillcontinuethesuccessfulSchool
FacilityProgramandmeetthestateobligation.
1
4/17/2015
Why an Initiative?
• TheSchoolFacilityProgramhasmorethan$2.0
billioninprojectsthatcannotbefunded.
• ThatpipelinewillgrowbetweennowandNovember
2016.
• IfthereisnoStateSchoolBondontheNovember
2016GeneralElectionStateBallot,morestudents
willbedeprivedofaccesstoqualityschoolsuntil
2018orlater.
WhatisintheInitiative?
•
•
•
•
•
$3.0billionforNewConstruction
$3.0billionforModernization
$500millionforCareerTechnicalEducation
$500millionforCharterSchools
AllfundedpursuanttoChapter12.5asitreadon
January1,2015
2
4/17/2015
QuestionsandAnswers
• Howmuchmoneyisneeded?
– $2.4millionforCalifornian’sforQualitySchoolstodoallof
therequirementstoqualifyaninitiativeandpreparefora
campaign.
• WillC.A.S.H.andCBIAbealone?
– Weareworkingtobroadenthecoalitionforthecampaign,
butweexpecttobealoneduringqualifying.
3
4/17/2015
SignatureGatheringProcess
• Noinitiativeinthepast20yearshasqualified
withoutusingpaidsignaturegatherers.
• C.A.S.H.hasretainedatopflightsignature
gatheringfirmwhohasneverfailedtoqualify
aninitiative.
• Theprocessforproperlygatheringand
validatingthe563,000signaturesneededto
qualifytheinitiativeisexceedinglyprescriptive,
andsubjecttostrictprotocolsanddeadlines–
toensuresuccessthisactivityisbestleftto
professionals.
4
4/17/2015
5
4/17/2015
GovernorBrownandtheSchoolBondInitiative
• TheGovernorhasstatedthathedoesnotsupport a
schoolbond‐ whichisnotthesameasopposing.
• ThebondcanpassiftheGovernorisopposed‐ Our
pollingindicatesthatvotersstillsupportaState
SchoolBondbyalmost60%.
• TheCaliforniaConstitutionprovidesthat,once
qualified,neithertheGovernornortheLegislature
cantaketheinitiativeofftheballot.
6
4/17/2015
RelationshipBetweenStateAnd
LocalSchoolBonds
• Localbondsaremoredifficulttopasswhentherearenot
statematchingfunds.
• Taxpayerswillgrowwearyofpaying100%ofschool
facilitycoststhroughlocalpropertytaxes.
• Whenthereisastatematch,twicetheprojects(indollar
volume)canbedone.
ContributionInformation
• Threewaystocontribute:
– VisittheC.A.S.H.IssuesCommitteewebsitefortheState
SchoolBondInitiativeat:
www.cashissuesstateschoolbond.com
– Fillouttheenvelopeinyourpacketandmailit– no
postagenecessary!
– FillouttheContributionForminyourpacketandmailor
emailtoadalen@m‐w‐h.com.
7
4/17/2015
ThankYouContributors!!
TripleDiamond
DoubleDiamond
($50,000andGreater)
($40,000‐ $49,999)
Architects
PJHMArchitects,Inc.
ConstructionManagers
TildenCoilConstructors,Inc.
ConstructionManagers
BalfourBeattyConstruction
NeffConstructionInc.
ConsultantsandPlanners
Murdoch,Walrath&Holmes
SchoolFacilityConsultants
Questions?
• ContacttheStateSchoolBondCampaignFinance
Committee– rosterislocatedinyourpacket.
• ContactC.A.S.H.staffat916.448.8577or:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
DaveWalrath:dwalrath@m‐w‐h.com
AlexMurdoch:amurdoch@m‐w‐h.com
TomDuffy:tduffy@m‐w‐h.com
GregGolik:ggolik@m‐w‐h.com
RebekahCearley:rcearley@m‐w‐h.com
IanPadilla: ipadilla@m‐w‐h.com
AnnaFerrera:aferrera@m‐w‐h.com
AileenDalen:adalen@m‐w‐h.com
8
Insert blank
divider, same
color as cover
sheet
THANK YOU!
2016 STATE SCHOOL BOND CONTRIBUTORS
Triple Diamond
($50,000 and Greater)
Architects
PJHM Architects, Inc.
Construction Managers
Balfour Beatty Construction
Neff Construction Inc.
Consultants and Planners
Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes
School Facility Consultants
Updated April 2015
THANK YOU!
Double Diamond
($40,000 - $49,999)
Tilden Coil Constructors, Inc.
Diamond ($30,000 - $39,999)
Architects
DLR Group
HMC Architects/School Advisors
LPA, Incorporated
NTD Architecture
Ruhnau Ruhnau Clarke
WLC Architects Inc.
Consultants & Planners
California Financial Services
Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. Inc.
Financial Institutions & Consultants
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
UBS Securities, LLC
Furniture & Equipment Suppliers
Virco Mfg. Corporation
THANK YOU!
Platinum
($25,000 - $29,999)
Architects
Ghataode Bannon Architects
Construction Management
TELACU Construction Management
Gold ($20,000 to $24,999)
Attorneys
Dannis Woliver Kelley
Silver ($10,000 - $19,999)
Architects
Perkins + Will Architects
Trittipo Architecture & Planning
Attorneys
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
Construction Management
Vanir Construction Management Inc.
XL Construction
Contractors & Developers
Clark & Sullivan
McCarthy Building Companies Inc.
Environmental / Geotechnical Consultants
Placeworks
THANK YOU!
Bronze
($5,000 - $9,999)
Architects
Architectural NEXUS, Inc.
NAC Architecture
BCA Architects
Rainforth Grau Architects
Carmichael-Kemp Architects
S.I.M. Architects, Inc.
Darden Architects
Stafford - King - Wiese Architects
DC Architects
TETER LLP
Lionakis
Westgroup Designs, Inc.
Bernards
Blach Construction Company
California Construction Management
C.W. Driver
Financial Institutions & Consultants
Koppel & Gruber Public Finance
We need your help to qualify the
State School Bond Initiative for the 2016 Ballot!
C.A.S.H. believes the School Facility Program is an effective state/local partnership and that the State has
a California Constitutional obligation to ensure all students have access to adequate school facilities. The
initiative is the only way to guarantee a 2016 State School Bond is on the ballot and contains:
•
•
•
•
•
$3.0 billion for New Construction
$3.0 billion for Modernization
$500 million for Career Technical Education
$500 million for Charter Schools
All funded pursuant to Chapter 12.5 as it read on January 1, 2015.
If we raise the money, we can get the signatures; we will place a State School Bond Initiative on the ballot.
Donate Online at www.CASHISSUESSTATESCHOOLBOND.COM
C.A.S.H. State School Bond Campaign Finance Committee
Co-Chairs of Finance Committee
Southern California
Joe Dixon, Chair
Central California
Jenny Hannah, Vice-Chair
Northern California
Cathy Allen, Past-Chair
Finance Committee Members
Architects
Attorneys
Mike Fennacy
Darden Architects
(559) 448-8051
mikef@dardenarchitects.com
Patrick Gunn
Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud &
Romo
(562) 653-3200
pgunn@aalrr.com
Alex Parslow
HMC Architects
(909) 989-9979
alex.parslow@hmcarchitects.com
Jim Kisel
LPA
(949) 261-1001
jkisel@lpainc.com
Steve Newsom
LPA
(916) 772-4300 ext. 3521
snewsom@lpainc.com
Laura Knauss
Lionakis
(916) 558-1900
laura.knauss@lionakis.com
Charlene Yarnall
PJHM Architects, Inc.
(949) 496-6191
char@pjhm.com
Marilyn Cleveland
(415) 543-4111
mcleveland@dwkesq.com
Constantine Baranoff
Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann &
Girard
(916) 321-4500
cbaranoff@kmtg.com
Jerome Behrens
Lozano Smith
(916) 329-7433
jbehrens@lozanosmith.com
Michael Spencer
Harris Construction Company
(559) 251-0301
mspencer@harrisconstruction.com
Ed Mierau
Neff Construction Inc.
(909) 947-3768
ed@neffcon.com
Dick Cowan
XL Construction
(916) 282-2900
dcowan@xlconstruction.com
School District Consultants
Dave Doomey
David Taussig & Associates
(949) 955-1500
davidadoomey@mac.com
Eric J. Hall
Eric Hall & Associates
(760) 602-9352
eric@erichallassociates.com
Mike Vail
NAC | Architecture
(949) 498-8993
mgvailsanclemente@sbcglobal.net
Pamela Johnson
Pamela Johnson – Consultant
(562) 299-8696
schoolmanagementgroup@gmail.com
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) –March 11, 2015
School District Consultants
Modular Manufacturers
Terry Bradley
School Business Consulting, Inc.
(559) 251-3517
tbradley@sbcons.com
Bill Meehleis
Meehleis Modular Buildings, Inc.
(209) 334-4637
wtm@meehleis.com
Consultants and Planners
Roofing
Matthew Pettler
School Facility Consultants
(916) 441-5063
matt@s-f-c.org
Jordan Miller
Tremco, Inc.
(323) 587-3014
jmiller@tremcoinc.com
Environmental Consultants
Dwayne Mears
PlaceWorks
(714) 966-9220
dmears@placeworks.com
Financial
Consultants/Institutions
Heather Steer
Capitol Public Finance Group
(916) 641-2734
hsteer@capitolpfg.com
David Taussig
David Taussig & Associates Inc.
(949) 955-1500
dtadavid@taussig.com
Lyn Gruber
Koppel & Gruber Public Finance
(760) 510-0290
lyn@kgpf.net
John Baracy
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc.
(213) 443-5025
jbaracy@stifel.com
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) –March 11, 2015
2015 State School Bond Contributor Benefits
All Contributors at the Triple Diamond Level ($50,000 and greater) will receive:
x Logo for use on your letterhead, advertising materials and website showing your support until
December 31, 2016.
x Recognition from the podium at 2015 and 2016 Fall Conference opening sessions.
x Recognition from the podium at the 2016 Annual Conference opening session.
x Recognition in the 2015-16 C.A.S.H. Membership Directory.
x Recognition at monthly general meetings through November election.
x Listing in materials at monthly workshops through November election.
x Picture in State School Bond CASH Register article.
x Listing on C.A.S.H. website, the CASH Register California School Facilities News website with URL link
during bond campaign and in the post-bond Thank You article.
x Listing in materials for 2015 and 2016 Fall Conferences and Triple Diamond nametag ribbons for all
attendees of firm.
x Listing in materials for 2016 Annual Conference and Triple Diamond nametag ribbons for all attendees
of firm.
All Contributors at the Double Diamond Level ($40,000 - $49,999) will receive:
x
x
x
x
x
Recognition in the 2015-16 C.A.S.H. Membership Directory.
Recognition at monthly general meetings through November election.
Listing in materials at monthly workshops through November election.
Picture in State School Bond CASH Register article.
Listing on C.A.S.H. website, the CASH Register California School Facilities News website with URL link
x Listing in materials for 2015 and 2016 Fall Conferences and Double Diamond nametag ribbons
for all attendees of firm.
x Listing in materials for 2016 Annual Conference and Double Diamond nametag ribbons for all
attendees of firm.
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) –Revised March 11, 2015
All Contributors at the Diamond Level ($30,000 - $39,999) will receive:
x
x
x
x
Recognition in the 2015-16 C.A.S.H. Membership Directory.
Recognition at monthly general meetings through November election.
Listing in materials at monthly workshops through November election.
Listing on C.A.S.H. website, the CASH Register California School Facilities News website with URL link
x Listing in materials for 2015 and 2016 Fall Conferences and contribution level nametag ribbons for all
attendees of firm.
x Listing in materials for 2016 Annual Conference and contribution level nametag ribbons for all attendees
of firm.
All Contributors at the Platinum Level ($25,000 - $29,999) will receive:
x Recognition at monthly general meetings through November election.
attendees of firm.
of firm.
All Contributors at the Gold Level ($20,000 - $24,999) will receive:
attendees of firm.
of firm.
All Contributors at the Silver Level ($10,000 - $19,999) will receive:
x Listing in materials for 2015 and 2016 Fall Conferences and contribution level nametag ribbons
for all attendees of firm.
x Listing on home page of C.A.S.H. website.
All Contributors at the Bronze Level ($5,000- $9,999) will receive:
x Listing on home page of C.A.S.H. website.
x Listing on the CASH Register California School Facilities News website with URL link during bond campaign
and in the post-bond Thank You article.
All Contributors ($1 - $4,999) will receive:
x Contributor button.
Coalition for Adequate School Housing (C.A.S.H.) –Revised March 11, 2015
COALITION FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOL HOUSING
ISSUES COMMITTEE
FPPC I. D. NO. 980478
Contribution Request Form
Please take a moment and contribute to the Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee.
$5,000
$10,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
Other Contribution Amount:$_________________________________________________________________________
Contributor Company:
Contributor Contact Name:
Street Address:
City, State Zip:
Phone Number:
Email:
If Contributor is an individual, please include:
Occupation:
Employer:
To contribute by credit card, please provide the following information:
Cardholder:
Card Number:
Visa
MasterCard
Signature:
Is this a personal credit card or a company card?
Personal Company
Expiration Date :
Otherwise, please include this form with a check to be deposited and mail or messenger to:
Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee
Steven S. Lucas, Treasurer
2350 Kerner Blvd. Suite 250
San Rafael, CA 94901-5546
(415) 634-6871
To expedite recognition for your contribution on the C.A.S.H. websites and at C.A.S.H. events,
please fax a copy of this form to (415) 388-6874 or email to dsmith@nmgovlaw.com.
Contributions to the Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax
purposes. Moreover, contributions are for the purpose of influencing voters on ballot measures and are regarded as payments for “grassroots
lobbying” which are not deductible as a business expense (IRS Regulation 1.162-20 [b], [c]). Contributions from foreign principals may not be
accepted.
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
The Power of the State and Local Bond to Meet Local
Needs
John Fairbank
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, & Associates, Inc.
4/17/2015
The Power of the State and
Local School Bond Measures
to Meet Local Needs
Understanding the Opportunities for
the 2016 Election Cycle
Presented by:
John Fairbank
Voters’ State of Mind
toward Public Education
and School Bond Measures
 Despite a healthier state budget and the passage of Prop. 30 in 2012, voters
continue to think K-12 schools and community colleges have major funding
needs.
 Voters recognize that basic repairs must be made to classrooms and
schools that are outdated, deteriorating, and do not meet current health and
safety standards.
 Voters also prioritize access to quality career education/vocational training
programs, science labs and classroom technology to help prepare students
for college, the workforce and to help returning veterans transition to civilian
life.
 Local school bonds help provide local economic to residents, many of whom
may not have school-age children, by strengthening local property values
and promoting investments that benefit local small businesses.
2
1
4/17/2015
Voters’ State of Mind
toward Public Education
and School Bond Measures
 Local school bond measures across the state continue to pass at a high
rate, especially in Presidential cycles, with most passing well above the
necessary 55% level of support.
 Statewide education measures (e.g. statewide school bond; Prop 30
renewal) help local school bonds by strengthening the message of investing
in schools and education.
 Districts considering a G.O. bond measure should take steps to
prepare for placing a measure on the ballot as soon as possible as the
2016 election cycle provides the best opportunity for passage over the
next several years.
3
Compared to the past several years,
the number of voters who think schools have a
“great” need for funding has increased.
Great Need
Some Need
Dec. 2014
California’s K-12 grade
public schools
53%
Your local public schools
22%
48%
27%
2012
47%
32%
2011
47%
31%
48%
Jan./Feb. 2014
23%
38%
33%
2012
46%
32%
2011
42%
34%
Dec. 2014
50%
Jan./Feb. 2014
0%
2. Generally speaking, would you say that ___
funding?
22%
42%
20%
30%
40%
Great/
Some Need
5% 13% 8%
75%
6% 11% 8%
75%
7% 9% 5%
79%
6% 8% 7%
78%
No Need
Jan./Feb. 2014
Dec. 2014
California’s community
colleges
Little Need
60%
DK/NA
5% 12%
12%
7% 9%
13%
7% 7% 9%
6%
7% 10%
6%
14% 8%
7%
13% 8%
80%
71%
71%
78%
76%
72%
72%
100%
__ have a great need for additional funding, some need, a little need or no real need for additional
4
2
4/17/2015
The higher perception of need is reflected in a
significant increase in the number who “strongly”
agree that many schools need repairs and upgrades.
Strng. Agr.
Many schools and community
colleges throughout California are
old, outdated and need upgrades
to meet current health and safety
standards, including retrofitting for
earthquake safety and the
removal of lead paint, asbestos
and other hazardous materials
Smwt. Agr.
Dec. 2014
Strng. Disagr.
57%
DK/NA
Total Total
Agr. Disagr.
15%7% 12% 8% 73%
19%
Jan./Feb. 2014
35%
35%
11% 14% 5%
70%
25%
2012
35%
33%
13% 12% 7%
68%
25%
68%
29%
19% 16% 62%
36%
20% 16% 61%
36%
Dec. 2014
Repairing and upgrading
neighborhood schools and
community colleges is a top
priority that must be funded
despite the state’s fiscal problems
Smwt. Disagr.
17% 10% 20%
51%
Jan./Feb. 2014
28%
2012
33%
0%
20%
34%
28%
40%
60%
80%
100%
6c & d. I am going to read you a list of statements. I’d like you to tell me whether you generally agree or disagree. Split Sample
5
Districts considering a general
obligation bond should prepare for
the 2016 election cycle – the presence
of one or more statewide education
measures on the ballot will benefit local efforts.
Prop. 39 School Bond
Measures Passed
Passage
Rate
Total Bonds
Funds Raised
November 2014
91
81%
$9.8 billion
June 2014
32
74%
$2.4 billion
November 2012
90
81%
$13.3 billion
June 2012
25
74%
$2.0 billion
November 2010
47
75%
$3.62 billion
June 2010
15
75%
$1.35 billion
November 2008
87
92%
$22.2 billion
June/February 2008
56
79%
$5.94 billion
Election
Source: Data on Local Ballot Measures is compiled from the website: Californiacityfinance.com
6
3
4/17/2015
Statewide School Bond Measure
Summary Statement
KINDERGARTEN-COMMUNITY COLLEGE PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
BOND ACT OF 2016. To provide safe and up-to-date local neighborhood public
schools and community colleges throughout the state by repairing deteriorating
classrooms, bathrooms, leaky roofs, removing mold and other hazardous materials,
retrofitting older school buildings to meet state earthquake safety standards;
upgrading wiring and electrical systems for new technology, labs, and libraries;
improving student/returning veterans’ vocational and career education training
opportunities; and for the acquisition and construction of public local K - 12 schools
and community colleges; requiring annual independent financial and performance
audits, no money for administrators’ salaries or pensions, all funds raised controlled
by neighborhood schools and local community colleges, not the state government.
Should the state sell $9 billion in general obligation bonds?
Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $16 billion to pay off both the principal -$9 billion -- and interest -- $7 billion -- costs on the bonds. Payments of about $600
million per year when fully issued.
3. If the election were today and this measure was on the ballot, would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose this measure?
7
Overall support for the school bond
is consistent, but intensity is up 7-points as
nearly four-in-ten vote “definitely” yes.
$8 Billion Bond
January/February 2014
Definitely yes
31%
58%
Probably yes
27%
Undecided, lean yes
6%
3%
Undecided, lean no
9%
Probably no
Definitely no
18%
Undecided
$9 Billion Bond
December 2014
Total
Yes
64%
17%
Total
Yes
63%
8%
5%
Total
No
30%
Total
No
33%
8%
21%
4%
6%
0%
38%
55%
20%
40%
60%
0%
20%
40%
3. If the election were today and this measure was on the ballot, would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose this measure?
60%
8
4
4/17/2015
Support for a statewide bond is connected to funding
local school improvement projects as six-in-ten
oppose ending the state matching grant program...
Do you support or oppose eliminating state government’s
responsibility for providing matching grants to local school districts
to fund school and classroom improvement projects?
Strongly Oppose
49%
Somewhat Oppose
11%
Somewhat Support
13%
Strongly Support
21%
Undecided
Total
Oppose
60%
Total
Support
34%
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
9
…and two-thirds regard the “matching grants”
argument as a persuasive reason to vote in
favor of a statewide school bond.
(MATCHING GRANTS) Passing this statewide bond measure maintains statewide
matching grants, which provide our neighborhood schools and community colleges
with an essential source of funding. Also, making state matching grants available
to local school districts reduces the need to raise local property taxes to fund
school construction projects.
Very Convincing
30%
Somewhat Convincing
35%
Not Convincing
21%
Don't Believe
9%
Undecided
5%
0%
13.
Total
Convincing
65%
20%
40%
60%
10
5
4/17/2015
Case Study:
Downey USD Measure O
November 2014
11
While voters regard Downey USD as offering a high
quality education, three-quarters see a need to
upgrade local schools, classrooms and technology.
I would like to mention some statements about education and public schools. Please tell
me if you think each of the following statements is accurate or inaccurate.
Very Acc.
Smwt. Acc.
Smwt. Inacc.
Very Inacc.
Total Total
Acc. Inacc.
DK/NA
People live in our community in
order to send their children to
Downey schools
39%
38%
9%
The Downey Unified School
District offers a higher quality
education than school districts
in surrounding communities
38%
40%
6%
11% 77%
15%
12%
78%
7%
Classrooms and school
campuses need upgrades to
ensure student safety and
security
35%
42%
10% 9%
77%
19%
Our local schools need more
money in order to upgrade and
repair schools, classrooms and
technology
34%
42%
9% 9%
75%
18%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
6%
100%
Q8. Split Sample
12
6
4/17/2015
The survey helped Downey USD to identify voters’
priorities for use of bond measure funds.
Ext. Impt.
Very Impt.
Smwt. Impt.
Not Too Impt.
DK/NA
Ext./Very
Impt.
Upgrading fire safety systems including
safety doors, smoke alarms and detectors
34%
47%
11% 5%
81%
Fixing leaky roofs
32%
49%
13%
81%
^Improving education at neighborhood
schools
33%
48%
13%
80%
Improving accessibility for disabled
students
33%
47%
14%
5%
80%
5%
79%
Upgrading science labs to provide projectbased hands-on learning
26%
54%
14%
Updating classroom technology for 21st
century learning
27%
50%
14%
78%
5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9. I am going to read you some of the projects, improvements and provisions that might be included in this school bond
measure. Please tell me how important it is to you that each project, improvement and provision be included. ^Not Part of Split
Sample
13
The survey also tested bond measure
provisions to help the district effectively
communicate key accountability provisions.
Ext. Impt.
Very Impt.
Smwt. Impt.
Prohibiting Sacramento from taking
any of the funds raised
Not Too Impt.
53%
Requiring all bond measure funds be
used locally
38%
Requiring no money be used for
administrators’ salaries or pensions
37%
Making local schools eligible for
millions of dollars in state matching
grant funds
35%
46%
33%
43%
29%
Requiring citizens’ oversight of funds
23%
0%
40%
6%
88%
12%
84%
8%
70%
5%
72%
18%
18%
49%
20%
Ext./Very
Impt.
DK/NA
19%
60%
80%
72%
100%
9. I am going to read you some of the projects, improvements and provisions that might be included in this school bond
measure. Please tell me how important it is to you that each project, improvement and provision be included. ^Not Part of Split
Sample
14
7
4/17/2015
The survey results guided revisions to the
75-word ballot label summary.
Feb. 2014 BENCHMARK SURVEY:
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CLASSROOM
REPAIR/SCHOOL
SAFETY, AND COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS MEASURE.
To repair
classrooms and rundown bathrooms;
upgrade school security/fire safety
systems;
update
wiring,
electrical
systems and classroom technology for
21st century learning; upgrade science
labs, libraries and career/vocational
training; and repair, construct, and
acquire educational facilities, sites, and
equipment; to improve education at
neighborhood schools, shall Downey
Unified School District issue $218 million
in bonds, at legal rates, requiring
independent audits, citizens’ oversight,
no money for administrators’ salaries or
pensions,
p
, and all funds used locally?
y
JUNE 2014 TRACKING SURVEY:
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CLASSROOM
REPAIR/SCHOOL
SAFETY,
AND
COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS MEASURE.
To improve
education for each student by upgrading
classrooms, science labs for 21st
century
technology
and
career/vocational
training;
improving
school security/fire safety; repairing old
bathrooms and plumbing; improving
disabled access, electrical systems/wiring;
and repairing, constructing, and acquiring
educational
facilities,
sites,
and
equipment, shall Downey Unified School
District issue $248 million in bonds, at
legal rates, requiring independent audits,
citizens’ oversight, no money for
administrators’ salaries/pensions, and all
funds used locally?
y
15
The research also informed the district’s public
outreach program to engage and educate the
community about needs and issues
facing local schools.
Very Conv.
(FAIRNESS) Our students deserve access to safe, modern
classrooms, labs and instructional technology, regardless of their
background or where they live. This measure is needed to ensure
equal opportunities and access to quality education for all local
students.
46%
(MATH/SCIENCE) Today’s competitive global economy requires
students to have a good education in math, science and technology.
This bond measure will upgrade science and computer labs, and
classroom technology, so students can learn the vital skills needed in
the 21st Century economy.
41%
Smwt. Conv.
84%
38%
83%
42%
^
(REPAIRS) Several neighborhood schools were originally built in the
1950’s, and most neighborhood schools need basic improvements.
This measure will upgrade fire safety and security systems, repair
41%
deteriorating restrooms, replace deteriorating bungalows with
permanent classrooms, upgrade science labs and improve plumbing,
electrical and heating systems. Now is the time to make these urgent
and essential repairs. 0% 20%
39%
40%
60%
80%
80%
100%
10. I am going to read you some statements from people who support the DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CLASSROOM REPAIR/SCHOOL SAFETY, AND COLLEGE/CAREER READINESS MEASURE. Please tell me whether you
find it very convincing, somewhat convincing, or not convincing as a reason to vote yes in favor of this local school bond
measure. ^Not Part of Split Sample
16
8
4/17/2015
The survey accurately predicted Election Day
results as Downey USD voters approved
Measure O by a healthy margin.
If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor
of this local school bond measure or no to oppose it?
June 2014
Tracking Survey
Feb. 2014
Benchmark Survey
Definitely yes
33%
Probably yes
26%
Total1
Yes
59% 2
38%
Nov. 2014
Election Results
Total
Yes
61%
23%
No
[VALUE]
3
Total
No
13% 25%
Probably no
8%
Definitely no
4
Total
No
18%
6%
5
12%
Yes
[VALUE]
6
Undecided
20%
0%
20%
7
40%
60%
21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
17
For more information, contact:
2425 Colorado Ave., Suite 180
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Phone (310) 828-1183
Fax (310) 453-6562
John@FM3research.com
9
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
Consultants & Roles
Tova Corman
C.A.S.H. Board of Directors, Long Beach USD
4/17/2015
Successful Bond Elections
Consultants & Roles
Bill McGuire
Deputy Superintendent
Twin Rivers Unified
Tova K. Corman, M.A.
Executive Director, Facilities Development and Planning
Long Beach Unified
Today’s Agenda
Timelines for Successful Bond Election
RFP Process for Consultants
Consultants and Roles
Why is this Important?
1
4/17/2015
Consultants
A
successful
Bond
Election
requires the
services of
many
special
consultants:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Financial Advisor
Bond Underwriter
Bond Counsel
Enrollment Projection Specialist
Facilities Master Plan Consultant/Architect
Facilities Funding Consultant
Political Strategist (prior to calling for
Election)
• Voter Opinion/Polling Strategist
• Architect and Engineers
• Construction/Project Managers
Start Early and Use a RFP/RFQ
Process Each and Every Time
Generally Two
Years Before a
Scheduled Prop
39 Election
2
4/17/2015
Election Dates
June 2016 –
Presidential
Primary
Election
• June 2014 –
Start the process
November
2016 –
Presidential
Election
• November 2014 –
Start the process
Step One
Form a District/Citizens’
Facilities Taskforce or
committee to study the
possibility of a Bond
Election
Inform them every
step of the way and
include them on the
selection process
for any consultants
Identify facility needs
(involvement in Master
Plan Process)
Makes final
recommendation to
Board of Trustees
to call of an
Election
3
4/17/2015
Step Two
Establish a Request For Proposal (RFP)
Process and timeline for implementation
for each special consultant
Length of RFP--usually 45 to 60 Days
The RFP
A RFP is a tool that can help ensure your District procures
the most competitively priced goods and services you need
to operate your District. The RFP process can be as simple
or as complex as necessary to ensure potential consultants
understand exactly what you are in the market for.
This is for services and not goods and supplies, therefore
price is not the sole criteria for selections
4
4/17/2015
The RFP/RFQ Process
The RFP
Borrow an RFP
from another
School District or
County Office
Change to meet
the requirement
of your LEA,
including
selection criteria
Set a timeline –
Release Date,
Closing Date,
Interview Date,
Board Approval
Date
Publish on CASH
and your website,
Distribute to
known
consultants
Carefully Review
Proposal
Received,
Interview final
consultants
selected from
Proposal Review,
Check References
5
4/17/2015
Timeline for November 2016
1st Financial Team
(FA, Underwriter,
Counsel)
November 2014
December 2014
2nd Enrollment
Projection Specialist
3rd Facilities Master
Plan
Consultant/Architect
and Facilities
Funding Consultant
January 2015
4th Political Strategist
and Polling Strategist
June 2015
5th
Architect/Engineers
and
Construction/Project
Managers
November 2015
Timeline for November 2016
Board of Trustees
pass Resolution to
pass Bond Election
on the Ballot
June 2016
Establish a Election
Committee
July 2016
Campaign on your
own time
August 2016
Campaign on your
own time
September 2016
Election Day
November 2016
6
4/17/2015
Creating Your Financing Team
Financial
Advisor
Bond
Underwriters
(Negotiated
Sales)
Bond
Counsel
A11
Financing Team is paid from
Bond Sale (Cost of Issuance)
Know what the market is paying before signing a long term contract
7
4/17/2015
A12
Financial Advisor
Fiduciary Duty to the school district and provides strategic and technical
financial advice
Structures and Manages District Financings
Works with the District on Credit Ratings
Ensures Fair Market interest rates are achieved
Ensures competitive financing fees
Works on both Short Term and Long Term Financings
Bond Underwriter
Integral Member of the District Financing Team
Analyze tax base, interest rates, and financing issues
Provide input on bond election process and credit rating presentation, works
in Pre-Marketing, Marketing and Sale of Bonds
Buy Bonds from School District and sell them to investors at the lowest
interest rates
Sets rates for financings and assumes risks for an unsold bonds
Provide Bond Market context relative to supply and demand, economic
conditions and interest rates
8
4/17/2015
Bond Counsel
Integral Member of the District Financing Team
Outside counsel that provides the District with an opinion on the
tax-exempt status and validity of the bond issuance
Opinion determines whether the District is in compliance with
federal tax laws
Opinion assures that the bonds are legal, valid and binding
obligations of the District
This legal opinion is the cornerstone requirement for all
municipal financing in the US today
Enrollment Projection Specialist
Grade level configuration(s) and enrollment capacity
determined
Student enrollment projections completed (10 year)
Existing school facility needs identified
New facility needs determined to accommodate projected
student enrollment
District support facility needs determined
9
4/17/2015
Facilities Master Plan
Consultant/Architect
A15
Used to establish the need for funding
Used to establish cost of projects
Used to identify the priorities of projects to be funded
Used to communicate with stakeholders
Used to establish standards for future projects with other Architects and
Engineers
Used to Identify educational standards for new and existing schools
10
4/17/2015
Facilities Funding Consultant
Developer Fees – Level 1 and Level 2
Modernization Funding
New Construction Funding
Financial Hardship Funding
QZABS, CREBS, Prop 39, Etc.
Supplemental Funding Sources
All to leverage/maximize the use of G.O. Bond Funds in the future. Great to report we
build $75 million in facilities with a $50 million Bond
Political Strategist
Assist in developing Voter Opinion Survey questions.
Assist in developing Bond Resolution and Bond Measure
Ballot Language (The 75 words)
Develop a factual information/communication to be
distributed prior to the measure being placed on the ballot.
Transition to campaign consultant after the election is called
– No District Funds
11
4/17/2015
Voter Opinion/Polling Strategist
Assist in drafting questions related to proposed
projects, tax rates, total election amount.
Conduct voter opinion survey
Assist in analyzing potential success of an
Election and possible Bond projects
Assist in providing information to the Board to
make a decision on putting measure on the ballot
Architect and Engineers
Update estimates from master plan for the priority projects
Start developing plans and specifications for non DSA projects—
if bond passes projects can be underway immediately.
Work with campaign committee to answer questions regarding
project cost
Consider having work done with understanding fees to be paid
only if bond measure passes
12
4/17/2015
Construction/Project Managers
Work with district staff and architect to develop plan for
implementation of projects if bond measure passes
Assist in determining project priorities and in updating construction
costs
Provide value engineering input throughout the entire development
of plans and specs—before, not after submittal to DSA
Work with district staff and financial advisor in development of cash
flow based on bond issuance schedule
Current Issues and Transparency
Demand for greater
transparency
• Due to the volume of money that is
paid to consultants
Demand by Taxpayer’s
Associations and Bond
Citizen Oversight Committees
to protect the taxpayer
13
4/17/2015
Questions?
14
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
Planning for Your Next Bond
Jim DiCamillo
WLC Architects
Estuardo Santillan
Norwalk-La Mirada USD
Tom Duffy
C.A.S.H. Past Chair, Murdoch, Walrath & Holmes
4/17/2015
Planning for 2016
Local Bond
Success
Tom Duffy
tduffy@m-w-h.com
Advice on How to Prepare
Mentally and Organizationally for
a General Obligation Bond
› The Public Schools Belong to the Public.
1
4/17/2015
› A Bond is a Request for a Transference of
Personal Wealth to Increase Public Wealth
as an Investment in Public Schools
› The Investment is two-fold:
– An investment in the future of students
– An investment in the property values of the
homes in the district, particularly those close
to the elementary schools.
2
4/17/2015
› Be Clear and Consistent as to:
– What is Needed for Facilities
– What dollar amounts are needed
› Plan to Begin One or More Projects
Immediately
3
4/17/2015
› A Bond is a Promise and a Contract with
the Community:
– Keep the Promise and You Will –
– Keep the Contract
??Q & A??
Tom Duffy
Legislative Director
C.A.S.H.
(916) 448-8577
tduffy@m-w-h.com
4
Insert blank
divider, same
color as cover
sheet
4/17/2015
Facilities Master
Planning…..”The Basics”
Jim DiCamillo, President, Architect, WLC
Architects Inc.
Estuardo Santillan, Asst. Supt., Business Services
Facilities Master Planning Basics
Presentation Outline:
1. Definition
What exactly is a Facility Master Plan? And what is it not?
2. Purpose
What is a Facility Master Plan used for? Why do we need one?
3. Process
How will the Facility Master Plan be prepared? Who’s
involved?
4. Product
What type of information is in the Facility Master Plan?
And what is not?
1
4/17/2015
Definition: Your FMP is:
A long range planning tool intended to provide
a pathway forward to address pending facilities
related projects for a foreseeable future.
Your FMP is not:
A wish list, a “needs assessment”, a funding tool,
a design solution.
Project Identification
Project Cost Estimating
Project Scheduling
Project Prioritization
2
4/17/2015
District Wide Perspective
Site Based Perspective
3
4/17/2015
Purpose: The “Sweet Spot”
Beyond Limit
Beyond Limit
Viable Project
List
No
Improvements
Complete Replacement
Process: Facility Inventory
4
4/17/2015
Process: School Community Survey
Process: Site Meetings/Tours/Input
“If
a Contractor came to your school what
would you absolutely want to make sure they
completed before they left your campus.”
5
4/17/2015
Process: District Master Committee
Monthly Meetings
District Wide Representation
Overview Focus
General to the Specific
Product: 4 Project Types
Renovation /Modernization:
Existing facilities
New Construction:
New sites, additions to existing sites
Non-Building Projects:
Furniture, technology
Maintenance Projects:
Roofing, fencing, pavement, irrigation
6
4/17/2015
Product: Project Types
Product: Project Types
7
4/17/2015
Product: 3 Site Types
Existing School Sites:
Elementary, Middle, High Schools
Existing Support Sites:
District Office, M/O Center, Food
Service, Transportation
New School Sites:
Property acquisition, CEQA, etc.
Product: 3 Distinct Audiences
Community:
Safety, technology, property values
District:
Parity, instructional issues, maintenance
School Sites:
Parity, safety, technology, maintenance,
equipment, portables, etc.
8
4/17/2015
Product: Site Diagrams
Existing Site
Conditions
Product: Site Diagrams
Proposed
Improvements
New Additions
Renovations
9
4/17/2015
Product: Project Cost Estimating
10
4/17/2015
11
4/17/2015
Product: The FMP Document
12
4/17/2015
Purpose: The “Sweet Spot”
Beyond Limit
Beyond Limit
Viable Project
List
No
Improvements
Complete Replacement
Purpose: Prioritization (telling a story)
13
4/17/2015
Mission Statement:
“Creating safe, energy efficient, modern,
instruction-centered environments that provide
parity across all of the District’s facilities.”
14
4/17/2015
Presentation Summary:
1. Definition
What exactly is a Facility Master Plan? And what is it not?
2. Purpose
What is a Facility Master Plan used for? Why do we need one?
3. Process
How will the Facility Master Plan be prepared? Who’s
involved?
4. Product
What type of information is in the Facility Master Plan?
And what is not?
Facilities Master
Planning…..”The Basics”
Jim DiCamillo, President, Architect, WLC
Architects Inc.
Estuardo Santillan, Asst. Supt., Business Services
15
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
Funding Sources/Financial Feasibility/Polling & Setting
Project Priorities/Political Feasibility
John Baracy
Stifel
Bonnie Moss
Clifford Moss
4/17/2015
C.A.S.H. Workshop:
Planning for 2016 Local
Bond Success
Ontario, California
Table of Contents
I. Pre-Election Services
II. Structuring a District’s Bond Program
Disclosure
These materials have been prepared by Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (“Stifel”) for the client or potential client to whom such
materials are directly addressed and delivered (the “Issuer”) in connection with an actual or potential issuance of municipal securities or
engagement. These materials contain proposed terms and conditions that are indicative and for discussion purposes only. Finalized
terms and conditions are subject to further discussion and negotiation. Stifel does not guarantee that all financing options will be
available at the time of the contemplated transaction. These materials do not constitute an offer or solicitation to sell or purchase any
securities and are not a commitment by Stifel to provide or arrange any financing for any transaction or to purchase any security in
connection therewith. Where indicated, this presentation may contain information derived from sources other than Stifel. While we
believe such information to be accurate and complete, Stifel does not guarantee the accuracy of this information. This material is based
on information currently available to Stifel or its sources and we do not undertake to update the recipient of this presentation of changes
that may occur in the future. Stifel does not provide accounting, tax or legal advice; however, you should be aware that any proposed
indicative transaction could have accounting, tax, legal or other implications that should be discussed with your advisors and /or counsel.
Stifel is providing information for discussion purposes and is declaring that it has done so within the regulatory framework of MSRB Rule
G-23 as an underwriter (by definition also including the role of placement agent) and not financial advisor, as defined therein, to the
issuer for this proposed issuance of municipal securities. The primary role of Stifel, as an underwriter, is to purchase securities for resale
to investors in an arm’s- length commercial transaction. Serving in the role of underwriter Stifel has financial and other interests that
differ from those of the issuer. The issuer should consult with its own financial and/or municipal, legal, accounting, tax and other
advisors, as applicable, to the extent it deems appropriate.
1
4/17/2015
I. Pre-Election Services
Best Planning Practices Leading up
to a Comprehensive Debt Program
• Task 1 – District determines need for facility master plan
• Task 2 – District surveys and/or interviews key administrators, site
administrators custodial and maintenance staff to identify needs for existing
facilities
• Task 3 – District retains State School Facility Program (SFP) consultant to
calculate potential eligibility for various SFP grant programs
• Task 4 – District retains developer fee consultant to establish projected
development activity, income and student generation
• Task 5 – District retains demographer to update enrollment projects by sites
and incorporate birth rate and development related growth
• Task 6 – District retains architect and/or cost estimator to develop site
budgets for identified needs
• Task 7 – District retains Financial Advisor and/or Underwriter to evaluate debt
capacity from various revenue sources
• Task 8 – District surveys staff at every school site to identify potential needs
by site and room to aid in identifying needs related to curriculum delivery,
growth, health & safety, code compliance, parity-equity between school sites,
modernization/upgrades, overcrowding/growth and major/deferred
maintenance
2
4/17/2015
Best Planning Practices Leading up
to a Comprehensive Debt Program
• Task 9 – District walks sites to verify survey and interview data and to
evaluate parity issues by site, year of construction and design
• Task 10 – Financial Advisor/Underwriter completes debt capacity analysis of
various revenues streams including development, redevelopment, special
taxes, ongoing asset management revenue and the G.O. bond measure
potential
• Task 11 – District completes Draft Facility Master Plan integrated all needs
for 5 to 10 years with cost estimates, phasing plan, escalation and
contingency
• Task 12 – District completes Draft Financial Master Plan that identifies the
maximum amount of funding for the Facility Master Plan integrating existing
fund balances, SFP grants, developer mitigation (fees and special taxes),
COP and bond issuances and a potential additional G.O. bond measur.
• Task 13 – District presents both draft plans to Board in study session or open
session as discussion item inviting staff and public comment
• Task 14 – Board adopts both plans
Financial Analysis to Support
Ballot Measure
Pre-Election Services
• Analyze options for authorization amount and tax rates
o
Evaluate factors that influence outcome of bond authorization
amount and tax rates
• Provide bond market knowledge to planning process
o
Interest rate trends, investor preferences
• Communicate with County Auditor-Controllers
o
Familiarity with Auditor-Controller’s method of calculating tax rates
• Active participation in preparation of quantitative analysis for use in
ballot measure, tax rate statement, project list, and election resolution
• Involvement in board and community workshops to review tax rate
impact of new bond authorization
• Collaborative approach with financing team
3
4/17/2015
2016 Bond Election Dates
• Proposition 46 – Generally any Tuesday
• Proposition 39
o
o
Statewide primary, general or special elections
Election Date
Filing Date
June 7, 2016
March 10, 2016
November 8, 2016
August 11, 2016
Other dates only if coincide with regularly scheduled district-wide
election
Working with Bond Election
Advisory Committees
Pre-Election Planning Committee
• Attend committee meetings as requested by the District to review tax
rate analysis
• Review financing techniques for funding school improvements
• Assist in analysis of project cost alternatives
• Review factors affecting tax rate estimates
• Estimate of bond amounts and tax rates for financing alternatives
• Assist in selecting preferred funding alternative
• Review and comment on ballot measure language relating to bond
amounts and tax rates
• Provide the District with estimated tax rates to be included in tax rate
statement for Voter Pamphlet
[Note: Per the SEC’s Municipal Advisor Rule, underwriters are not permitted to
provide campaign advice]
4
4/17/2015
Comprehensive School Bond
Election Results
School District General Obligation Election Results:
January 1986 – November 2014
178 Issues
($11.7 B Authorization)
Prop 39
447 Issues
865 Issues
PASS
Prop 46
527 Issues
FAIL
(1) Proposition39electionscommencedinSpring2001.
Source:SchoolServicesofCalifornia
Working to Support District
Communication
• Assist in summarizing tax rate impact of bond election for District
officials and site administrators
• Assist in presentations to bargaining units on tax rate impact of bond
election
• Assist in providing impartial information on tax rate impact of bond
election for use in staff communication
• Provide data for “Bond Fact Sheet” or other general summary of bond
measure
• Prepare detailed tax rate estimates for specific property values
• Provide impartial analysis on impact of bond amounts to tax rates for
bond election
5
4/17/2015
Example of Tax Rate Estimates
II. Structuring a
District’s Bond
Program
6
4/17/2015
Variables Affecting a District’s
Bond Program
There are many factors that have an influence on the outcome of a
District’s overall bond program
•
Assessed valuation growth
•
Bond interest rates
•
Length of repayment for individual bond issues (25 years or more)
•
Timing, amount and number of bond issues
•
Authorization amount
•
Urgency of need for facility improvements
•
Incorporating new state legislation, such as AB 182 affecting CABs
•
County’s methodology for calculating annual property tax for bonds
•
Use of current interest bonds or capital appreciation bonds
o
Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) – Bonds that pay interest to investors semiannually until the final maturity of the bonds
o
Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) – Bonds that defer the payment of
interest to investors until the maturity of the bond by compounding
interest semi-annually at a specified rate
Implementation of General Obligation
Bond Refunding/Refinancing Plan
•
General Obligation Bonds may be advanced refunded once
prior to optional redemption date
•
Savings from refunding/refinancing are distributed to
taxpayers, lowering annual tax rate
•
Savings garnered from refunding/refinancing may also be
used to create additional bonding capacity and utilize more
cost effective financing tools (CIBs/CABs)
•
Always ask Financial Advisor/Underwriter if Bonds
(GOs/COPs/Mello-Roos) outstanding are eligible to be
refunded/refinanced
7
4/17/2015
Sample District Assessed
Valuation and Bonding Capacity
Fiscal
Year
•
24-year growth in assessed value has averaged 6.07% annually
•
The District has a current bonding capacity of $115 million
Total Valuation
Annual %
Change
2014-15 Statutory Bonding Capacity (1)
2014-15 Assessed Value:
$5,125,379,189
6.06%
2.5% of Assessed Value:
$128,134,480
$128,134,480
2009
$4,304,681,737
--
2010
$4,565,451,320
2011
$4,772,365,905
4.53%
Gross Bonding Capacity:
2012
$4,837,911,597
1.37%
Outstanding GO Bond Principal:
2013
$4,860,261,684
0.46%
2014
$4,883,268,327
0.47%
2015
$5,125,379,189
4.96%
Net Bonding Capacity:
$12,790,000
$115,344,480
(1) Education Code Section 15106 specifies the formula for
determining the statutory bonding capacity for a unified
school district.
Example of General Obligation
Bond Program Options
8
4/17/2015
Summary of AB 182 – What Are
the New Rules?
•
The primary effect of AB 182 is limitation on the use of CABs
•
Reduces the maximum maturity of CABs issued by school districts to
25 years from 40 years and requires that CABs be issued under the
Education Code
•
o
CIBS may still be repaid over a period of up to 40 years under
the Government Code, but additional disclosure is required for
CIBs repaid over more than 30 years
o
The maximum maturity for general obligation bonds issued by
other local public agencies in California, which now ranges from
30 to 40 years, would be unchanged
Requires that the ratio of total debt service payments to the principal
amount of general obligation bonds not exceed 4-to-1 for any single
series of bonds
A limit on the debt repayment ratio does not apply to general
obligation bonds issued by other local public agencies
o
•
Requires that all CABs maturing more than 10 years after the
issuance of the bonds be subject to optional redemption beginning
not later than the 10th year
Summary of AB 182 (cont’d)
•
Reduces the maximum interest rate on school district CABs to 8% from
12%
The maximum interest rate for the debt of all other local public
agencies in California remains at 12%
o
• Requires Board of Education to adopt a resolution prior to the sale of any
CABs that identifies the district’s intent to sell CABs, provides reasons for
using CABs, and includes certain information on the CABs including the
length of borrowing, repayment rate, and assessed value growth
assumptions
o
The resolution must be discussed at two consecutive board
meetings, first as an information item and second as an action item
o
The board must be presented with information on the overall cost of
the CABs, a cost comparison if current interest bonds were used
instead, and the reason for recommending CABs
• Allows any school district that issued BANs before December 31, 2013,
to seek a one-time waiver from those provisions of AB 182 regarding
debt repayment ratio, optional prepayment of CABs, and the board
resolution that discloses the issuance of CABs and the reasons for using
CABs instead of CIBs. The proceeds of any bonds issued pursuant to
such waivers must be used only to repay the BANs
9
4/17/2015
John R. Baracy
Managing Director
Stifel , Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (“Stifel”)
515 South Figueroa
Street, Suite 1800 Los
Angeles, California 90071
Phone (213) 443-5025
Fax (213) 443-5023
Email jbaracy@stifel.com
John Baracy is a Managing Director in the Los Angeles office of Stifel. Mr. Baracy brings
over 19 years of experience to California and Arizona education finance. Mr. Baracy has
expertise in the managing and structuring of new money and refunding issues, analysis of
debt capacity, tax rate analysis, rating agency credit presentations, arbitrage rebate
requirements, derivative financings, and investment of bond proceeds for general
obligation bonds, bond anticipation notes, certificates of participation, tax credit bonds,
Mello-Roos bonds and all other California education finance vehicles. Mr. Baracy is also a
registered member of C.A.S.H., CASBO, CSBA and CALSA. Stifel has successfully
assisted California school districts pass over 125 bond elections exceeding $5.0 billion
since 2002.
Stifel
Stifel is nationally recognized as a leading financial services firm, with a 80-year tradition
of excellence. We trade and underwrite more Arizona and California municipal bonds,
land-secured debt, and redevelopment financing than any other firm in the United
States. Institutions and individuals rely on us for innovative investment approaches that
reflect our traditions of independence and professionalism. As we have expanded our
locations to major markets across the country, Stifel remains focused on the growing
needs of America’s cities, counties, school districts and states, as well as individual and
institutional investors. The firm’s website is www.stifel.com.
10
Insert blank
divider, same
color as cover
sheet
4/17/2015
C.A.S.H. Workshop – Planning for 2016 Bond Success
Preparing for Electoral Success
Polling & Setting Project Priorities/Political Feasibility
CliffordMoss – Bonnie Moss, Principal / April 24, 2015
Introduction
NAVIGATING TAX ELECTIONS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA IS:
• MORE Transparent. Information Is ABUNDANT & INSTANT.
• MORE Complex and Organic– at ALL Levels.
• MORE Demanding of School Leaders in Virtually Every Way. 1
1
4/17/2015
Key Predictors of Electoral Success
ELECTION SUCCESS!
YOUR UNIQUE STORY (Need!)
RESOURCES: Time‐$$$‐People
WHO VOTES in YOUR PLAN your community
Your Solution
2
Planning Model
Election TIME is Your
MOST VALUABLE
RESOURCE! Success
Resources
Who Votes
Your Story
Your Plan
BOARD ACTION
1. FEASIBILITY
2. PUBLIC EDUCATION & ELECTION PREP.
3. Election
Date
CAMPAIGN
4. POST ELECTION
CORE PRINCIPLES: 1. Your community is unique.
2. Listening is a lost art.
Winning strategy employs both
Art AND Science.
3. People support what they help create.
3
2
4/17/2015
Key Ingredients for the “Optimal” Campaign TIME MONEY
PEOPLE
What matters MOST as you move down the runway preparing for electoral success? 4
5
Timeline
RESOURCES: Time‐$$$‐People
4
3
4/17/2015
Facilities Planning
GOAL: Build a Facilities Master Plan + corresponding Bond Plan in alignment with your community. BENEFIT: Increased awareness + understanding of your NEEDS and Plan raises voter support for your Plan. People support what they help create. 6
Election FEASIBILITY – The “Science”
KEY TO YOUR SUCCESS: UNDERSTANDING WHO VOTES! Local School District – Voter Profile Example
Descriptor Voters ‐ #
Voters ‐ %
ALL Voters
62,970
100%
24,980
40%
36,000
57%
LIKELY Voters
June 2014
LIKELY Voters November 2014
7
4
7
4/17/2015
FEASIBILITY – More…
POLLING is an ESSENTIAL STEP in balancing the unique equation between your district and your community. POLLING helps package your measure for success RE: Ballot Language
Tax Rate
Specific Priorities
Messaging & Outreach
Targeting/GOTV
Timing
Funding Type
Election Type
YOUR NEEDS
YOUR PLAN
VOTER SUPPORT
OPTIMAL MEASURE 8
POLL RESULTS – An Example
TOP 5 PROJECTS THAT RESONATE: •
•
•
•
•
Repair/replace leaky roofs, old rusty plumbing, and faulty electrical
CTE classes for college and good paying jobs (STEM, ag, skilled trades
Technology upgrades - classrooms, science labs, career-training facilities
Replace aging portable classrooms with modern, permanent classrooms
Safety & Security Upgrades across all campuses.
TOP 3 ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR: • All money raised will stay local. It cannot be taken away by the State.
• Clear system of accountability – e.g. Citizens' Oversight Committee, and
independent audits to ensure the money is spent properly.
• Whether or not you have school-age children, protecting the quality of our
schools, the quality of life in our community, and the value of our homes is a
wise investment.
9
5
4/17/2015
Communications – The “Art”
Communications STRATEGY:
1. ENGAGE 2. LISTEN!
3. TRACK
Tell Your Story!
“People support what they help create.”
10
Communications – More…
FEASIBILITY WINDOW COMMUNICATIONS GOALS
# Goal
1. Tell your story about NEED.
2. Increase community INTEREST in your schools.
3. Raise BASIC AWARENESS of school NEEDS.
4. Identify community questions/concerns ‐ EARLY. 5. Build/test communications capacity ‐ EARLY. 11
6
4/17/2015
Ensuring Alignment
Sample FACILITIES MAILER
To Local Residents
12
Ensuring Alignment
VOTERS IDENTIFY WITH THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS FIRST –
NOT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. CUSTOMIZATION CAN BE YOUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE! 13
7
4/17/2015
FIELD / COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
Process
CREATIVE USE ONLINE TOOLS
Process
Message Discipline
8
14
14
15
4/17/2015
CREATIVE USE OF VIDEO
Process
ONLINE ‐ ADS – PRE‐ELECTORAL
e
9
16
16
Process
17
4/17/2015
Monitor TIME Carefully! Key Dates ‐ 2016: JUNE Election
• Filing Deadline: Mar 11th
• Election Day: June 7, 2016
NOVEMBER Election
• Filing Deadline: Aug 12th
• Election Day: Nov 8, 2016
Board Action
EARLY COMMUNICATIONS
ELECTION PREP.
CAMPAIGN
Election
POST ELECTION
18
Key to Election Success
Winning Results From…
Constant Listening Election & Staying In Alignment
Your Story
Resources
Who Votes
Your Plan
BOARD ACTION
1. 2. FEASIBILITY
Early
Chk
Poll
#1
3. PUBLIC EDUC & ELECTION PREP.
Engagement
LISTENING
Sample Client Experience
Campaign
Crescendo
Poll
#2
Election
Date
4. CAMPAIGN
Post Election
Voter Contact
Post Election
Campaign!
88-Days to WIN
19
10
19
4/17/2015
Campaign – 88 Day Window
20
11
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
Successful Bond Case Study
Nancy Nien
Downey USD
4/17/2015
Downey USD
Measure O
$248 Million
Presented by: Nancy C. Nien, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent of Business
April 24, 2015
Agenda
•
The First 90 Days at Downey USD
•
History of Downey’s bond measures & state
funding
•
Facilities Master Plan (FMP) & Demographics
•
Polling
•
Campaign
•
Final Lessons
2
1
4/17/2015
The First 90 Days
3
The First 90 Days at DUSD
•
The First 30 Days
•
Walked every site (21 sites total) with
Director of MOTF
• Met with every principal
•
The First 60 Days
• Identified the need for a Facilities Master Plan
(FMP)
•
The First 90 Days
• Started the FMP process
• Superintendent & Board dialogued on
facilities needs and possible bond
4
2
4/17/2015
History of Downey’s
Bond Measures &
State Funding
5
Downey’s Bond Measures
•
Measure D
• June 4, 1996 ($27.5 Million Authorization)
•
Measure D
• November 5, 2002 ($65 Million
Authorization)
•
Measure O
• November 4, 2014 ($248 Million
Authorization): 61.87% Approved
6
3
4/17/2015
Downey’s State Funding
State Funds
Provided
SAB Apportionment
$10,419,831
1999
$5,825,068
2002
$3,313,621
2003
$4,831,978
2004
$37,946,155
2006
$8,183,508
2007
$12,358,056
2008
$3,051,743
2010
$13,536,955
2011
$6,484,700
2012
$17,466,711
2013
• Corinne Loskot Consulting, Inc. began with applications
in 2000, generating approximately $120 million of the
7
total $131 million in state funds for Downey Unified.
8
4
4/17/2015
9
Original Measure O Scenario
Summary: Tax rate of $60 per $100,000 of assessed value (“AV”) utilizing financings issued every three years with current interest bonds (“CIBs”) and capital appreciation bonds (“CABs”)
◆ Annual AV growth rates: – 2014‐15: 3.00%
• Note: actual growth was 4.69%
– 2015‐16: 4.00%
– Thereafter: 4.50%
◆ Interest rates: 5.50% ‐ 6.50%
◆ Secured AV delinquency: 6.00%
(1)
Issuance schedule for illustrative purposes only. Actual amounts and dates will be tailored to the District’s project needs, future interest rates and future AV growth rates.
10
5
4/17/2015
Projected Debt Service (1)
(1)
Assumes interest rates of 5.50% ‐ 6.50%. Subject to market fluctuations.
11
Illustrative Scenarios for Measure O (1) Lowest rolling 15‐year historical annual average growth rate during 1996 through 2015 is 4.55%.
(2) A conservative approach builds in potential interest rate increases over the bond program.
(3) Present value to February 1, 2016 at 3.5% annual discount rate.
Note: Scenario 3 has lower debt service and CABs usage due to the lower interest rate assumptions. Utilizing and relying on these assumptions is not recommended.
12
6
4/17/2015
FMP &
Demographics
13
•
Selection of Facilities Master Planner
• LPA was selected in August 2013
Lesson Learned: FMP is key to passing
a bond. It is a roadmap to tell your
story.
•
Demographers
• Jack Schroeder & Associates was
selected in August 2013
14
7
4/17/2015
FMP Schedule
Source: LPA
15
Demographic Study Process
• Demographic study to assist the District in making
decisions so that the appropriate facilities are
provided for current and future students of the
District
• Following variables were analyzed and are
provided in the study:
• District and Community Demographics
• Land Use and Planning
• Student Generation Factors
• Spatial Analysis
• Enrollment Projections
• Resident Projections
• Facility Analysis
• Recommendations
16
8
4/17/2015
17
Most Likely Enrollment Projections
Source: Jack Schroeder & Associates
18
9
4/17/2015
LPA Inc. – K12 Facility Planners, Architects, Engineers
Plan NET – Technology
Jack Schroeder & Associates – Demographers
Keygent Advisors – Financial Advisors
Facility Planning
Components
Demographic
Analysis
• Enrollment Projections
• Site Capacities
• Student Loading Standards
Facilities
Needs
Assessment
• Field Inspection Survey
• Maintenance Needs
• Healthy/Life Safety Issues
• Code/ADA Compliance
Cost Estimating
&
Scope
Prioritization
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
& PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
Financial
Analysis
• State Eligibility
• Alternative Funding Sources
• Local Revenue
• Cash Flow Analysis
Educational
Vision
• Program Goals
• Technical Standards
• Technology Plan
• Community Needs
Finalized
Master Plan
Recommendations
• School Site Master Plan Diagrams
• Proposed Program Scopes
• Phasing Plan
• Cost/Cash Flow Analysis
Community Outreach Strategies
Source: LPA
19
Collaboration Process
Downey Unified School District
Governing Board
DOWNEY HS
SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
COMMITTEE (SCC)
WARREN HS
SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
COMMITTEE (SCC)
Facilities Master
Plan Committee
(FMPC)
DISTRICT
Educational
Programs
Focus
Groups
Technology
Programs
Focus Group
District Wide Program
Specifications
Equity Goals
Technology Vision
Facilities Standards
District
Operations
Focus
Groups
Maintenance
+ Operations
Needs
Resource
Committee
20
10
4/17/2015
FMP Members (30-35 Total)
•
District Participants
•
Superintendent
•
Assistant Superintendents (Business, HR, Ed
Services)
•
Director of Facilities, MOT
•
6-8 Teachers/Administrators rep
•
Teacher Union reps
•
Classified Union reps
•
2 PTA Reps
•
2 High school students/ASB per high school
21
FMP Members (Continued)
•
Community Members
•
4 – 6 Community leaders representative
•
4 – 6 Business community representative
•
Community college representative
•
Senior community representative
•
Tax group representative
•
Chamber of commerce representative
•
Real – estate organizations representative
22
11
4/17/2015
Stakeholder Input
6
lives process to date
Resource Committee Meetings
(Establish FMP Process)
200+
participants
5
Facilities Master Plan Committee Meetings
1 – Process Overview | Educational Program Vision
2 – Needs Assessment | Demographics | Program
Opportunities
3 – ES Planning Concepts & Draft MP Diagrams | MS & HS
Charrette
4 – MS & HS Planning Concepts & Draft MP Diagrams |
Technology
5 – Program Costs / Scope Prioritization
23
Stakeholder
Input
enrich lives / fmp process
to date (Continued)
ate
21 School Site Committee Meetings
(Community Members, Teachers & Parents)
1 on 1 Site Master Plan Concept Review
6
Overarching Focus Group Meetings
1 – Elementary Programs
2 – Secondary Programs
3 – Food Service
4 – Maintenance, Operations, & Transportation
5 – Special Education
6 – Technology
2
Town Hall Meetings
1 – Downey High School
2 – Warren High School
24
24
12
4/17/2015
FMP Committee Priorities – Scopes
25
25
25
FMP Committee Priorities – Sites
committee priorities
26
13
4/17/2015
School Sites Committee Priorities
27
Total FMP Needs Vs. Available
Total FMP Needs
• $471 Million
Total Potential Funding: $291 Million
• Bond Scenario $248 Million
• State Funding: $39 Million
• Prop 39: $1.9 Million
• Deferred Maintenance: $2 Million
Available for Projects (2014 $): $195 Million
($291 Million x 0.67)
28
14
4/17/2015
Polling
29
Planning for a 2014 Downey USD Election
Source: TBWB
30
15
4/17/2015
Selection of Polling Firm
•
Recommendation from Strategists (TBWB)
•
Interviewed two firms
• Prior experience with districts and/or city
• Case load of the individual and firm
• Distance to the district
•
Remember – Negotiate multiple polling
upfront in the first contract
 District selected FM3
31
Polling in Feb 2014 & June 2014
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSROOM
REPAIR/SCHOOL SAFETY, AND COLLEGE/CAREER
READINESS MEASURE. To improve education for each student
by upgrading classrooms, science labs for 21st Century
technology and career/vocational training; improving school
security/ fire safety; repairing old bathrooms and plumbing;
improving disabled access, electrical systems/ wiring; and
repairing, constructing, and acquiring educational facilities, sites,
and equipment, shall Downey Unified School District issue 218
(Feb poll)/248 (June poll) million dollars in bonds, at legal rates,
requiring independent audits, citizens’ oversight, no money for
administrators’ salaries/pensions, and all funds used locally?
If the election were held today, would you vote yes in favor or no
to oppose this bond measure? (IF YES/NO, ASK: “Is that
definitely (YES/NO) or just probably (YES/NO)?”) (IF
UNDECIDED/DK/NA, ASK: “Well, do you lean towards voting
yes or no?”)
32
16
4/17/2015
FM3’s Polling Data
Source: FM3
33
The Campaign
34
17
4/17/2015
Who Are Involved
•
District/Schools
•
Board members
•
Unions (Teachers & Classified)
•
Key community members and businesses
•
Volunteers in community
•
Election consultants - TBWB was selected
through interview process
•
Bond Counsel – David Casnocha was
appointed
35
Campaign Rules
When serving in the official capacity as an employee,
District employees can:
• Provide factual, unbiased information about the needs
facing the District and what the bond measure will
accomplish
• Provide factual, unbiased information about what will
happen if the bond measure does not pass
• Distribute factual, unbiased flyers informing voters
about the bond measure
• Provide a factual presentation to an organization
seeking more information about the bond measure
Source: David Casnocha
36
18
4/17/2015
Campaign Rules (Continued)
When serving in their official capacity as employees,
District employees cannot:
• Urge individuals to vote for or against the measure
• Distribute advocacy literature
• Recruit volunteers for the campaign
• Raise funds for the campaign
• Wear campaign buttons in an instructional setting
• Use District copiers, meeting rooms, or supplies to
advocate for or against the measure, or discuss bond
campaign matters – this includes computers, District
cell phones or direct lines and District e-mail address
37
Campaign Rules (Continued)
On personal time, District employees can participate
in the advocacy efforts, if they wish. While “off”
work, District employees can:
• Volunteer for the campaign
• Donate to or raise funds for the campaign
• Endorse the measure
• Wear campaign buttons
• Place a yard sign in their yard
• Distribute persuasive information about the measure
• Use personal cell phones or email addresses to share
or discuss bond campaign matters
38
19
4/17/2015
Campaign Timelines:
Step 1: Complete Facilities Need Analysis and
 January – February 2014
Step 2: Baseline Feasibility Analysis
 February 2014
 Present initial draft project list and bond financing plan
to board for feedback
 Craft Voter Survey, using Facility Needs Summary and
financial information
 Finalize and conduct scientific poll of likely voters
 Draft bond authorization amounts and tax rate
estimates from Financial Advisor
 Identify key messages and other conclusions from
poll results
 Analyze parent/voter demographics, election dates
and other political issues
Source: TBWB
39
Campaign Timelines:
Step 3: Public Information and Engagement
 March-June 2014
 Present poll results, analysis, recommendations/next
steps to Board of Education
 Board reviews the Facilities Master Plan (April 22,
2014, back on May 6, 2014)
 Develop public information messages based on
polling
 Finalize outreach materials
 Informational mailer(s) to community
 Outreach to key community leaders (e.g. elected
officials; business, civic and faith communities;
neighborhood leaders)
 Inform/update parent leaders, bargaining units and
other stakeholders
 Board adopts Facility Master Plan (June 3, 2014 or
June 10, 2014 – LPA)
 Send out “backpack” letter to parents with funding
measure information
40
Source: TBWB
20
4/17/2015
Campaign Timelines:
Step 4: Ballot Measure Development
 June-July 2014
 Board Finalizes Project List (June 10, 2014)
 Finalize official Prop 39 bond project list
 Update district website with funding measure
information
 Mail informational newsletter to all registered voter
households inviting to upcoming board meeting
 Finalize resolution, ballot language and draft ballot
argument (July 15, 2014)
 No later than: August 8, 2014
 Board adopts resolution to place measure on ballot
(Date to be confirmed with the County Registrar of
Voters once the County election calendar is set)
41
Source: TBWB
Organizational Chart
Downey Unified School District
Consultants
TBWB Strategies
Jared Boigon & Mia Hodge
Campaign Co-Chairs
Phil Davis and Dorothy Pemberton
Fundraising Committee
Phil Davis and Nancy Nien
Phone Banks and Precinct Walks
Endorsements Chair
Media/Website Chair
Lorraine Neal & DEA, Parent
Organizations
Kirk Cartozian &
Bobbi Samperi
Val Flores
Treasurer
Data Entry Chair
Joe Manacmul
Nancy Swenson
School Site Captains
42
21
4/17/2015
Target Voters
•
27,244 likely voters based on past voting history
and turnout predictions
•
7,596 vote by mail
•
19,648 poll voters
•
4,564 additional targeted voters who are parents
and younger voters that weren’t likely to vote in
this election
•
Election results:
•
Yes - 10,093 (61.87%)
•
No - 6,221 (38.13%
43
Source: TBWB
Campaign Budget: $125,000
INTERNET
Website design
Website updates/maintenance
Social Media
RESEARCH
Focus Groups
Baseline poll
Tracking poll
CAMPAIGN MEDIA
Direct Mail
Slate cards
Photo Shoot
FIELD
Data & Lists
Walkpieces
TELEVISION
Production
Placement (/Cable)
PAID CALLS
Paid Calls
NEWSPAPER ADS
Newspaper Ads
SIGNS
yard signs
4x8 large signs
STAFF
Daily campaign manager
Field staff
FINANCE
Remits/collateral
Postage
HQ/OFFICE
Rent
HQ Expenses
CONSULTANTS
TBWB Strategies
Consultant Expenses
Win bonus
District Raised: $135,000
44
22
4/17/2015
Fundraising
•
Fundraising strategy
•
District selected Architects & CM/PM firm in
October 2014
•
Solicit top district partners
•
Have the “right” person ask for the contribution
•
Financial Advisors contribution regulation (AB621
could retro back to 2014) pay-to-play or conflict of
interest
•
Be aware who makes the contribution
 Lesson Learned: Do not take campaign
contribution if the District has no intent to
work with the firm.
45
Social Media
•
Stay Gallery in Downey was retained to
assist in social media
•
Facebook
•
Twitter
•
Website
•
Video
•
Logo
46
23
4/17/2015
Measure O Logo/Yard-Signs
Source: Stay Gallery
47
Grass Root Outreach Is Key
•
Phone Bank / Precinct Walks
•
Downey Education Association (DEA)
President handled the entire phone bank /
precinct walks schedule
•
Provided the location
•
Provided all phones
•
Provided food
•
Encouraged all their members to volunteer
and vote
 Lessons Learned: Make sure all
negotiations are positive
48
24
4/17/2015
Phone Bank Calendar –
October 2014
SUNDAY

MONDAY
TUESDAY
Phone Banking is from 3:00 to 5:30 pm at:
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
1 Phone Banking Warren
2 Phone Banking
Sussman
DEA Office, 11310 Firestone Blvd, Norwalk. 
Refreshments, snacks, and dinner will be served.

Precinct Walking will be in your neighborhood school sites for an hour after school.
5
6 Phone Banking
Precinct Walking for the following sites:
7 Phone Banking
Griffiths
Rio San Gabriel / Old River
FRIDAY
3
TURN IN PRECINCT PACKETS TO DEA BY 4:00 PM
SATURDAY
4 Phone Banking and Precinct Walking 9 – 12 pm
Elementary Schools
8 Phone Banking
Stauffer
9 Phone Banking
Downey High
10
Ward / Williams / Gallatin / Rio Hondo
11 Phone Banking and
Precinct Walking 9 – 12 pm
Elementary Schools
12
13 Phone Banking
Imperial
14 Phone Banking Lewis
15 Phone Banking
Price/Gauldin
16 Phone Banking Old River 17
Unsworth / Alameda / Carpenter / Old River
Precinct Walking
9 – 12 pm
All High Schools
19
20 Phone Banking
Columbus / Adult
21 Phone Banking Rio San Gabriel
22 Phone Banking
Unsworth/Carpenter
23 Phone Banking Ward
24
Imperial / Lewis / Gauldin
Precinct Walking
9 – 12 pm
ALL Middle Schools
26
27 Phone Banking
Williams / Rio Hondo
28 DEA Rep Council Meeting
29 Phone Banking High Schools / Adult School
ALL Middle Schools / ALL High Schools / Adult
30 Phone Banking
District Office 31
49
District‐Funded
Mailed April 7, 2014
Source: TBWB 50
25
4/17/2015
District‐Funded
Mailed August 26, 2014
Source: TBWB
51
Downey High School
Open House
26
4/17/2015
DHS CTE – 8/23/2014
53
DHS CTE – 8/23/2014
54
27
4/17/2015
DHS Administration/
Classroom– 9/24/2014
55
Campaign‐Funded
Mailed October 6 and 20, 2014
Source: TBWB
56
28
4/17/2015
Campaign‐Funded
Mailed October 23, 2014
Source: TBWB
57
Campaign‐Funded
Source: TBWB
58
29
4/17/2015
Campaign‐Funded
Source: TBWB
59
60
30
4/17/2015
Campaign‐Funded
Source: TBWB
61
Saturday Before Election Day
(November 1, 2014)
62
31
4/17/2015
Students Supporting Measure O
63
Precinct Walk Cards
64
32
4/17/2015
Oppositions/Non-Supporters
•
No organized opposition
•
Rebuttal ballot argument
•
Elected board member in community college
district
•
District’s classified CSEA Unit I
•
Elected City Officials
•
Some supported
•
Non-supporters did not “voice” their opposition
•
Realtor Association did not endorse due to tax
increase
•
PTA could not “officially” endorse
65
Post-Election Findings from TBWB
• Since polling showed that voters were cost-sensitive, early
and consistent communication was critical, both to voters
and Downey USD parents/staff
• Targeted outreach, especially the campaign’s late push to
identify voters and tremendous GOTV efforts, was
instrumental in getting Measure O’s supporters out to the
polls
• With 70% of voters in this election voting at the polls,
sustained communication targeted specifically to poll and
vote by mail voters was critical to success
• Many outreach efforts, including direct mail, phone banks,
precinct walking, social media and internet videos, appear to
have contributed to this big win for Downey USD schools
and kids
66
33
4/17/2015
Final Lessons
67
Final Lessons
•
Plan as early as possible
•
Select the “best” firms/individuals to work with
•
Make sure negotiations are going well
•
Know your oppositions (organized or nonorganized)
•
Reach out to your colleagues, CASH network
•
What’s Next: Implementation Plan
68
34
4/17/2015
Questions
69
35
C.A.S.H. Workshop
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
Legal Issues with Bond Campaigns
Mark Kelley
LEGAL ISSUES WITH BOND CAMPAIGNS
PLANNING FOR 2016 LOCAL BOND SUCCESS
© 2015 Dannis Woliver Kelley
C.A.S.H. Monthly Workshop
April 21, 2015, Sacramento
April 24, 2015, Ontario
Mark W. Kelley
mkelley@DWKesq.com
This training is provided for educational, compliance and loss-prevention purposes only and, absent the express, prior agreement of DWK, does not create or establish an attorney-client
relationship. The training is not itself intended to convey or constitute legal advice for particular issues or circumstances. Contact a DWK attorney for answers to specific questions.
Introduction
1
Words To Live By:
Everything changes when the Board
calls the bond election.
That means:
How the District spends its resources;
Its relationships with outside entities.
USE OF DISTRICT
RESOURCES
2
What Can Districts Do?
What Districts Can’t Do:
The Law
• Education Code section 7054(a)
– No district “funds, services, supplies, or
equipment shall be used for the purpose
of urging the support or defeat of any
ballot measure or candidate,…”
• Applies to all elections:
– Candidates, ballot measures; and
– Local, state, national measures
3
Examples
• Engage in “campaign activity”.
• Urge voters to vote for or against measure
(including the bond) or candidate.
• Directly support campaign:
– Hire fundraiser/campaign consultant; or
– Purchase campaign materials
• Release employees during paid time to
work on campaign.
• Use district equipment, supplies to support
campaign or disseminate campaign
material.
Penalties for Violation
• Violation of Section 7054 can be a
misdemeanor or felony.
• Suits alleging violation of legal
restrictions can be brought by public
prosecutor or taxpayer.
• Fair Political Practices Commission may
also have jurisdiction to investigate,
seek administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties.
• The bad press may be punishment
enough!
4
What Districts Can Do:
Examples
• Pre-election planning.
• Submit a ballot argument advocating
for measure passage (Elec. Code, §
9501).
• Adopt resolution in favor/opposing
measure.
• Attend/speak at
candidate/informational forums.
• Voter registration, mail ballot drives,
“get out of the vote” programs.
• “Informational activities”.
Informational Activity
• Districts may present “information”
– Fair presentation of facts;
– A “fair presentation” includes negative
consequences of passage (i.e., amount
of tax).
• Examples:
– “FAQ” about a measure
– Presentation for community leaders
5
Informational Activity: Caveats
• Many activities fall outside clear
delineations of “informational”
(Stanson/Vargas test factors).
• Style and Tenor:
– Conveying past and present facts  Informational
– Include argumentative/inflammatory language 
Campaign
– Fair presentation of facts  Informational
• Timing:
– Part of regular course of activity/community 
Informational
– The creation of new communication pathways to
voters at election time is considered suspect!
– Closer to the election  Campaign
What Can Third Parties Do?
6
Issues Re Third Party
Political Activities
• Campaign materials prepared by
outside groups (PTO, foundation,
campaign committees, candidates,
citizen’s committees).
• Requests by outside groups to use
district facilities or distribute
materials on district grounds or at
parent events.
Third Party Political
Activity:The Law
• Ed. Code, § 7058
– “Nothing in this article shall prohibit the
use of a forum under the control of the
governing board of a school district or
community college district if the forum is
made available to all sides on an equitable
basis.”
• Forum can be channel of
communication or use of facility
• Permissive, but once open, a forum
must be open to others.
7
Third Party Political Activity:
Distribution Channels
• Use of District’s “distribution
channels” includes mailboxes,
bulletin boards, website, email list,
etc.
• Districts should not distribute
campaign materials themselves.
• May allow outside groups access, but
may create limited forum, requiring
allowing access to others.
Third Party Political Activity:
Use of Facilities
• Outside groups may use facilities for
campaign purposes
• Districts have discretion to deny use of
facilities for campaign purposes
• But, if District opens facilities to
election activities, must do so equally
• All use should comply with Civic Center
Act, (Ed. Code, § 38130 et seq.) and
District policies
8
Third Party Activity on Campus:
Examples
• May bond campaign use a District
parking lot for a fundraising rally?
• May PTO post flyer urging vote in
favor of bond measure on school
bulletin board?
• May bond campaign committee
distribute leaflets to parents at
private soccer games on school fields
on the weekend?
Political Expression by
Employees: Rights
• “Except as [required by law] no
restriction shall be placed on the
political activities of any officer or
employee of a local agency.” (Ed.
Code, § 7052.)
• Always free to advocate during nonduty time without district resources.
• District employees do not lose their
rights because they work for a school
district.
9
Bringing It Together:
A Bond Measure Scenario
May The District:
• Hire a consultant to develop the bond
measure?
• Plan and draft informational mailers?
• Make voter registration forms available
at the main office?
• Distribute a FAQ describing how funds
will be used, listing priorities for the
funds, and describing the poor state of
facilities?
• Make contributions to the campaign
committee supporting the measure?
10
May The District (ct.)
• Allow District employees to use their
District cell phones to call voters on the
weekend urging them to vote for the
measure? (What if employees reimburse
District for phones monthly?)
• Provide information on the bond
including the cost of the tax in its regular
newsletter and mention that District
adopted resolution in favor of measure?
• Make copies of flyers urging “Yes” vote
that District staff plan to distribute
during evenings?
VENDOR
RELATIONSHIPS
11
Aka, The Uncomfortable
Intersection of Protected Speech
and Funny Business
Rule No. 1
Absent a quid pro quo, political
donations are considered free
speech.
12
Rule No. 2
Bond campaigns cost money.
Rule 2A: There are good ways and
bad ways to get that support, and
the political (i.e., voter) reaction to
even appearing to cross the line can
be severe.
Two Issues
• Gifts to Board members/others who
may have influence on who gets
contract.
• Donations to bond campaigns – is
there an expectation of receiving
contract in return?
13
Gifts That Keep On Giving
(Trouble)
14
“Failing to report gifts is a violation of
the Act… Please be advised, the fact
that you might not have been aware
of the gift provisions does not relieve
you of your legal obligations.”
“Of the 221 public officials in
question, only 16 had
properly reported their gifts.”
15
16
Law on Conflicts of Interest
• Government Code Section 1090:
–Board members or employees “shall not be
financially interested in any contract made by
them in their official capacity, or by any body
or board of which they are members.”
• Gifts from a vendor can form the basis for
violation of Section 1090.
• Violation of Section 1090 means the
contract is void.
• A void contract entitles the public entity,
or others acting on its behalf, to seek
disgorgement of all amounts paid on the
void contract.
Civil Liability For Violations
• Civil penalties for violations of Govt. Code
section 1090:
– Greater of up to $10,000 or 3 times financial
benefit of the violation.
• Gives FPPC authority to issue fines up to
$5,000.
• While not intended, could be read to
expand civil liability beyond public officials
to any person who causes another to
violate section 1090.
17
Keeping Procurement Clean
• Provide conflicts training and policies
• Set up the selection process and
criteria in advance
• Do not allow consultants who may be
interested in the work help set up
the process
• “Blackout period” around the time of
selection
– No contacts
– No solicitations
Donations To Bond Campaigns
18
The Rule On Campaign Donations
There are no restrictions on pursuing
vendors for bond measure donations.
Except:
If there is any connection between the
donation and expected financial
benefit to the donor – typically,
future work.
19
Suggested Approach:
Proceed Cautiously
• Avoid campaign consulting services that are
offered as part of package of other services;
• Put donor solicitations in the hands of a
campaign committee, not District officials or
Board members;
• Never even suggest future work when
discussing donations, let alone condition it;
• Avoid asking for donations from companies
seeking service contracts.
A Final Note:
Given the harsh political penalties
(i.e., lost votes) for crossing the line,
there rarely is any reason not to take
the most conservative approach to
bond campaigns.
20
Mark W. Kelley
mkelley@DWKesq.com
415.543.4111
21
C.A.S.H. Workshop: Planning for 2016 Local Bond Success
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
THANK YOU SPEAKERS
John Baracy
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated
jbaracy@stifel.com
(213) 443-5025
Mark Kelley
mkelley@dwkesq.com
(415) 543-4111
Tova Corman
Long Beach USD
tcorman@lbschools.net
(562) 997-7550
Bonnie Moss
Clifford Moss
bonnie@cliffordmoss.com
(510) 542-9783
Jim DiCamillo
WLC Architects Inc.
deek@wlc-architects.com
(909) 987-0909
Nancy Nien
Downey USD
nnien@dusd.net
(562) 469-6521
Tom Duffy
Murdoch Walrath & Holmes
tduffy@m-w-h.com
(916) 441-3300
Alex Parslow
alex.parslow@hmcarchitects.com
(909) 989-9979
John Fairbank
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, &
Associates, Inc.
john@fm3research.com
(310) 828-1183
Estuardo Santillan
esantillan@nlmusd.org
(562) 868-0431
David Walrath
dwalrath@m-w-h.com
(916) 441-3300
C.A.S.H. Workshop:
9:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Ontario, CA
LIST OF ATTENDEES
FIRST
COMPANY
AECOM
Terri
Bonsall USD
David
Brailsford & Dunlavey
Julie
California Construction Mgmt.
Keith
California Construction Mgmt.
Terry
Chino Valley USD
Julie
Chino Valley USD
Greg
Clifford Moss
Bonnie
Colton Jt. USD
Owen
Converse Consultants
Beth
Mark
DC Architects
Richard
DLR Group
Patti
Downey USD
Nancy
East Whittier City Elem. SD
Richard
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz, & Associates, Inc.
John
Fillmore USD
Andrea
gkkworks
Brandon
Government Financial Strategies inc.
Keith
HMC Architects
Kevin
Alex
Infinity Communications & Consulting
Fred
Infinity Communications & Consulting
Al
Irvine USD
Lorrie
KNN Public Finance
Justin
Kruger Bensen Ziemer Architects
Joe
LCC3 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LCC 3 Construction Services Inc.
Lewis Operating Corp.
Joseph
Long Beach USD
Tova
LPA Inc.
Jim
Lundgren Management Corp.
Shawn
Maas Companies
Courtney
Montebello USD
Rene
Montebello USD
Craig
LAST
Mestas
Medcalf
Williams
Cole
Zinger
Gobin
Stachura
Moss
Chang
George
Kelley
Duncan
Ashton
Nien
Holash
Fairbank
McNeill
Dekker
Weaver
Wilkeson
Parslow
Brakeman
Rossi
Ruiz
Rich
Wilcox
Brenda Rodriguez
Edwards
Corman
Kisel
Fonder
Kerrigan
Castro, Jr.
Lee
Montebello USD
Montebello USD
Montebello USD
Montebello USD
Montebello USD
NAC | Architecture
NV5 Inc.
Orange USD
PBK Architects
PBK Architects
Piper Jaffray & Co.
PlaceWorks
Riverside USD
Riverside USD
San Bernardino CCDDistrict
San Jacinto USD
Schoening Group Inc.
Solana Beach Elem. SD
Solana Beach Elem. SD
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated
Tehachapi USD
Tehachapi USD
WLC Architects Inc.
WLC Architects Inc.
Kevin
Juanita
Dominic
George
Jeffrey
Tom
David
Timothy
Estuardo
Chris
Matthew
Richard
Roy
Trennis
Dwayne
Hayley
Kirk
Jose
Michael
Sarah
Caroline
Carlos
John
Susan
Nick
Daniel
Blaine
Jim
Lisa
Lee
Moya
Picon
Upegui
Woods
Duffy
Walrath
Ballard
Santillan
Guarino
Strother
Chi
Montalbano
Wright
Mears
Calhoun
Lewis
Torres
Collins
Schoening
Brown
Estrella
Baracy
Andreas-Bervel
Heinlein
Clem
Yoder
DiCamillo
Ryker

Ontario Packet - California`s Coalition for Adequate School Housing

Transcription

Similar documents

ILOC Program

Bond Movies Dr. Jonathan M Sackier As an Englishman of a certain

The Name`s BOND, James Bond The Bond Experience

Case study - The Da Vinci Code The Book… The Film…

The Mecklenburg County Sheriff`s Office

Join us for a Bond Hill Branch “Birthday Bash”

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

BOCHK AM off to a flying start

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

Live And Let Fly - About the Albuquerque Radio Control Club