Frequently Asked Questions

A bond issue is used by a public school district to finance school facility projects or other capital projects unable to be paid for by general funds.  Measures are placed on the ballot along with information about the specific projects that would be completed by the district if approved by the voters.

If passed, the bond would invest $7 million in Mt Angel schools plus $4 million in matching grants from the state.

If passed, the estimated increase over the current bond levy is $1.12 per $1,000 of assessed property value, for a total of $3.97 per $1,000 of assessed value.  The estimated increase would be for 8 years, until the existing bond is paid off in 2032.  The remaining 12 years of the bond is estimated to cost $1.57 per $1,000 of assessed property value.  For example, owners of a home with assessed value (not market value) of $300,000 could expect to pay $336 more per year or $28/mo.  After 8 years, when the current bond is paid off, owners of a home with a $300,000 assessed value could expect to pay $720 less a year.

Actual levy rate may differ due to final interest rates and changes in assessed value. 

If approved by voters, could the new bond rate of $3.97 per $1000 change?

It is possible that the bond could change.  Housing construction, area growth/decline, and home values could all contribute to changing the rate per $1000 of assessed value.  The property tax rate to pay off the bonds is currently calculated annually using estimates of assessed value and collection rates.

Mt Angel School District annually spends over $9.6 million on education using the general fund; the largest portion of the general fund revenue comes from the Oregon Department of Education.   Non-bond property tax revenue makes up less than 14% of the general fund.  The District uses these operating funds to pay for teachers, classroom support, technology, and education programs.

In Oregon, it’s up to each local community to invest their resources, via a local capital improvement bond, to update and build schools. This is why school facilities and conditions vary widely from one community to the next.

By law, General Obligation Bond funds can only be used for the capital projects outlined in the ballot explanatory statement. These funds cannot be used for items such as PERS, salaries, or other employee expenses, nor can they be used for routine maintenance or supplies.

School safety and security needs are different today than when our schools were initially built, on average, more than 45 years ago. The district wants to address safety and security at every school across the district.  Also, we have aging HVAC, fire safety, and electrical systems that need to be addressed.

Communities with good schools can impact home values, encourage people to stay and invest in the local area, and can supply the local economy with better skilled workers. Additionally, good schools can improve community pride, connections, and a sense of belonging.

Should voters approve the bond, the school district will partner with Energy Trust of Oregon to assess energy efficiency, determine the responsible use of funds, and realize a return on investment. At this time there is no plan to decrease the maintenance budget. Increased energy efficiency will result in the maintenance department having additional funds to address facility needs.

In comparing three like school districts (Amity, Colton and North Marion) Mt. Angel’s maintenance budget is similar. 6% of Amity’s general fund budget is allocated for maintenance, 4% for Colton, and 4% for North Marion. The Mt. Angel School District allocated 5% of the general fund budget for maintenance.

As with many smaller district’s in Oregon, Mt. Angel does not receive sufficient annual state and local funding to address large system maintenance system issues. As an example, a new heating system for one school can carry a price tag of almost $2,000,000. In Mt. Angel, that would be equivalent to 20% of the district’s annual general fund, or approximately 14 teacher salaries.

If the bond is voted down, the ‘end of useful life/critical replacement needs’ will remain without sufficient funding. It would be likely that the school district would pursue a bond for voter approval in the fall of 2023. In that instance, the school district would not have the guarantee of a $4,000,000 grant from the state of Oregon.

The school district is planning to increase the custodial staffing allocation for the 23-24 school year, however, custodial staff generally focus on cleaning and facility upkeep rather than maintenance. The district Director of Facilities focuses on mechanics and maintenance. We remain confident that a full-time facilities director can sufficiently address building maintenance needs when building systems and equipment are not compromised by age and wear.

The last bond was focused on architectural design and remodeling, which required constant adaptations and compromises to the budget. With the exception of adding a safety vestibule at St. Mary’s, 94% of the proposed budget does not involve architectural design.

The school district has used a two-year planning process that prioritized critical needs based on licensed assessment ratings. Two committees (The Long Range Facility Planning Committee and the Bond Oversight Committee) reviewed and prioritized needs based on data and keeping our school buildings open. The list of proposed projects is also prioritized in advance, which makes it easier to eliminate projects if there is a need to do so.

When a bond is issued, the district is provided a debt payment schedule showing the amount due annually. The district provides a dollar amount each year to the county that equals how much needs to be collected from tax payers to pay the bond payment for that year.  The county looks at the total assessed value for the district’s tax base to determine a rate that is applied to all homeowners.  This rate is typically described as a dollar amount per $1000 in tax assessed value.  If the district’s assessed value tax base went down as a whole, then the rate could potentially raise to be able to cover the full bond payment for that year. However, if you look at historical rates, when the real market value went down, the tax assessed value still went up.  If the district’s total assessed tax base went up significantly, then the rate per $1000 in assessed value could potentially lower for that year.    It is important to note that when the debt schedule is initially created, the payoff schedule assumes a 3% growth in tax assessed value each year.  The reason for this is that the law caps tax assessed value increases at no more than 3%.  Therefore, the district could only see a rate lower when there is tax assessed value growth in the community over that 3% cap, typically with new construction or significant remodels.