1. Horizon Council PresentationHorizon Council Presentation April 22, 2015April 22, 2015

2.  Operating Funds-for day to day operations of the school district  Federal grants-for specific purposes or specific populations as defined in the grant  Capital dollars-for purchase of new buildings, land, technology, and maintenance of capital assets

3.  Current capital plan is balanced in five year window  Capital plans over last several years have been built based on what we can afford  Many items that are now desperately needed are not reflected in the plan (unfunded capital needs)

4. UNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDS  District Technology initiatives  Necessary infrastructure  Student devices  Replace/refresh plan for new devices

5. UNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDSUNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDS  Maintenance/Renovation Initiatives  Necessary maintenance on older buildings  Safety upgrades  Building upgrades

6. UNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDSUNFUNDED CAPITAL NEEDS  Classroom Availability/Need for Seats  No new schools in the current plan in the five year window  Growth continues at 1.5-2.3% per year  Many schools at or very close to capacity Shortfall: $45 million per yearShortfall: $45 million per year

7.  Tax roll loss between 2009 and 2013: $400 mil  Impact fees down from a high of $57 to $1.4 mil  Capital dollars from state from $21 to $1.5 mil  Total annual revenue from $264 mil in 2008 to $103 mil in 2015 FIVE YEAR IMPACTFIVE YEAR IMPACT $656 MILLION$656 MILLION

8. Need viable options to generate capital revenue  Determine ways revenue needs can be met  How much revenue could be raised  Pros and Cons of our available options

9. Option 1: Additional property tax capabilityOption 1: Additional property tax capability  Ask the legislature to give us the capability of increasing property tax back to 2.0 (or at least higher than the current max of 1.50)  Each.25 mill generates approximately $15.5 million based on current tax roll  Must depend on the legislature to give us this capability  Additional tax is paid entirely by local property tax owners

10. Option 2: General Obligation BondsOption 2: General Obligation Bonds --The sale of bonds, the debt service of which will be paid back through revenue generated from an additional property tax levy  Revenue potential is substantial, dependent on the size of the bond  Must be agreed to by voters in a referendum  This is an additional property tax, so again, the local taxpayers bear the brunt of the expense

11. Option 3: COPsOption 3: COPs  Currently, the District has over $505 million in borrowing capacity (based on using 1 mill for debt service)  Board has expressed interest to stay away from more borrowing  Currently use 46% of property tax revenue for debt; more debt would increase this amount  Limitations on how that money could be used

12. Option 4: Restoration/increase of impact feeOption 4: Restoration/increase of impact fee  Revenue before reduction was $4 million  Authority is outside of board control  Other options could raise more funds  Limitations on how funds could be used

13. Option 5: Sales TaxOption 5: Sales Tax  Potential of raising $50 million per year based on current sales tax collections  Revenue is raised by a broader population (23% of sales tax collections come from tourism)  Additional money is not acquiring new debt  Must be approved by voter referendum

14.  56 out of 67 counties have some sort of sales surtax benefitting various county/district/government operations  15 counties have a school district sales tax  18 counties have a local government infrastructure tax that could be shared with school districts by agreement  23 counties have other sales surtaxes