Comments

4 responses to “Another Higher Ed Bond Referendum Coming”

1. 

   Groveton

   December 7, 2007

   How will the proposed bond work? Raise money with the bond issue with the idea that the money will be paid back through tuition payments from the new students.

   Log in to Reply
2. 

   Larry Gross

   December 7, 2007

   …”paid back through tuition payments from the new students.”

   🙂

   are you kidding? this is a bona fide tax&spend deal .. I betcha

   Log in to Reply
3. 

   Jim Bacon

   December 7, 2007

   I’m pretty sure the bonds would be issued by the state, to be repaid by General Fund tax revenues.

   I’m sure Groveton will want to scrutinize the list of projects when it’s published to see if this represents another money grab in which NoVa gets short-changed. I’ll bet the NoVa Community Colleges fare pretty well, though.

   Log in to Reply
4. 

   Anonymous

   December 8, 2007

   The following was written by Margaret C.H. Kelly and Matthew Zieper: It can also be found at http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/GFRPassingBondReferendum.pdf.

   When a state, county, or community
   identifies the need for additional
   capital, it has several options ranging from
   increasing sales or other taxes, to special
   fees for services, to bonding. A jurisdic-
   tion often chooses to issue bonds to avoid
   raising taxes and fees and/or to meet the
   specific capital needs of the project. While
   different states have varying restrictions
   on the abilities of state and local govern-
   ments to levy taxes or impose fees, all
   jurisdictions may issue debt.
   But issuing debt is not always the
   easiest option. In most states, bonds
   backed by general taxes (general obliga-
   tion bonds) must be approved by the
   voters. Trying to convince the voters of
   the need for a $20 million library or park
   can be a difficult task. In some communi-
   ties, anti-tax groups who oppose govern-
   ment spending may organize to oppose the
   bond measure, and the government is left
   scrambling to rally support.
   Finance officers and elected officials
   1
   typically do not have the background to
   organize and then support a bond referen-
   dum. But in spite of that, they will need to
   take on the role of marketing executive/
   campaign manager/community cheerleader
   in order to get a bond referendum passed.
   This article highlights six steps necessary
   to pass a bond measure and provides case
   studies of two communities who success-
   fully passed bond measures.
   Winning a Bond Measure
   Putting a bond referendum before the
   voters is only the tip of the iceberg. Most
   of the work already has been done by
   election day. From structuring a bond
   package that meets the needs of a commu-
   nity to implementation of the project
   funded by the bond, there are six steps
   that facilitate a sound public finance
   approach:
   1) capacity building;
   2) feasibility research;
   3) polling;
   4) measure design;
   5) campaigning; and
   6) implementation.
   The purpose of capacity building is to
   build a broad base of community-based
   leadership to assist with the development
   of the proposed public finance measure.
   At this stage, it is important to identify
   local leadership and facilitate communica-
   tion among interested parties.
   During the feasibility research phase,
   relevant information is gathered to inform
   the development of public opinion polling
   and measure design. At this juncture, it is
   necessary to consider fiscal issues (current
   funding, bond ratings, revenue trends, and
   debt burden), political circumstances
   (local political trends and other pending
   ballot questions), key community issues
   and priorities, and results of past elec-
   tions.
   During the next step, polling, the goal is
   to identify voter priorities. This includes
   quantifying the amount that voters are
   willing to pay for these priorities, as well
   as narrowing down compelling arguments
   for the project and testing actual ballot
   language.
   Measure design involves developing
   ballot language that appeals to voters and
   clearly explains how this measure ad-
   dresses the particular issue targeted by the
   bond and meets the needs of the commu-
   nity. At this stage, it is also important to
   review the proposed measure with the
   appropriate government and bond coun-
   sel.
   The focus of the campaign is straight-
   forward: publicize the proposed ballot
   measure and encourage voter turnout.
   Campaign steps include disseminating
   direct mail pieces, promoting the cause via
   other means (e.g., Web sites), and orches-
   trating media coverage.
   The last step, implementation, assumes
   a successful campaign. Now that the
   voters have approved the measure, it is
   important to ensure a smooth transition to
   the next appropriate project phase. Each
   set of local circumstances requires that
   this six step continuum be a flexible tool
   and a work in progress. The two case
   studies discussed below highlight different
   circumstances and goals, as well as differ-
   ent approaches.
   Case Studies: Two Referendums
   This section consists of case studies
   detailing two successful bond referendum
   campaigns that the Trust for Public Land
   assisted governments with—one in a
   county and one in a state. The first case
   study—Dade County, Florida—examines
   the successful passage of a $200 million
   general obligation bond to fund the Safe
   Neighborhood Parks Act of 1996. The
   second case study looks at the steps taken
   by the State of California to win passage
   of the $2.1 billion Safe Neighborhood
   Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and
   Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000.
   Dade County, Florida
   On November 5, 1996, voters in Dade
   County approved a $200 million general
   obligation bond measure to fund capital
   improvements at countywide park and
   recreational facilities. Passed with 67
   percent of the vote (the highest percentage
   for a fiscal measure in Dade County
   history), the Safe Neighborhood and Parks
   Act united the county and its municipali-
   ties in a common cause: to demonstrate
   how parks and recreation programs can
   make a community safer and improve the
   residents’ quality of life. The success of
   this bond referendum can be attributed to
   Page 2
   28
   J
   UNE
   2001 • G
   OVERNMENT
   F
   INANCE
   R
   EVIEW
   a thoroughly researched and strategically
   implemented effort by a well-rounded and
   devoted community task force. Some
   background information about Dade
   County and some of the critical steps
   taken are discussed below.
   In 1972, the Decade of Progress bond
   referendum established an award-winning
   parks and recreation system in Dade
   County, Florida. In the years that fol-
   lowed, however, operating and capital
   budgets received annual reductions, and in
   the 10 years prior to the 1996 referen-
   dum, there were six failed attempts by
   Dade County Park and Recreation De-
   partment staff to get a capital improve-
   ment bond measure on the ballot. By
   1995, park and recreation needs were
   estimated to be more than $1 billion.
   In this hostile, “no new taxes” environ-
   ment, Dade County Park and Recreation
   staff and a network of local, state, and
   national experts pulled together a coali-
   tion that took the following—ultimately
   successful—steps:
   Research and Polling. In addition to
   determining the financial needs of the 29
   municipalities in Dade County, a promi-
   nent California public opinion firm polled
   nearly 500 voters from a cross-section of
   ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
   The results of this poll ascertained that
   Dade County voters were concerned
   about crime (juvenile violence, in particu-
   lar), government mismanagement, and
   rampant growth and development.
   County priorities were identified as
   providing juvenile crime prevention
   facilities, protecting natural resources,
   creating safer neighborhood parks and
   facilities, and improving the quality of
   life. To achieve these goals, voters ex-
   pressed a willingness-to-pay of no more
   than $7-10 per household (annually) with
   a cap of $200 million in total cost.
   A second poll several months later gave
   the effort its name, the Safe Neighbor-
   hood Parks Act of 1996, and helped
   organizers identify respected community
   spokespeople, the most beneficial election
   timing, and the critical swing voters. The
   poll further emphasized the intensity of
   the public’s distrust of government.
   Knowing the voters and allowing them to
   help develop the parameters of the pro-
   posed measure were critical to the ulti-
   mate success of this referendum.
   Measure Design. A coalition of busi-
   ness and civic leaders formed the Trust for
   Safe Neighborhood Parks (The Trust),
   which began to screen potential projects
   to be included. This draft, or ordinance,
   was a critical step in the process because it
   would have to be approved by the Board of
   County Commissioners (BCC) to appear
   on the ballot and needed to meet the legal
   requirements of a bond measure. Further-
   more, the ordinance needed to address
   citizen concerns of government misman-
   agement of public funds. To assuage this
   latter concern, the ordinance called for the
   creation of a Citizens’ Oversight Commit-
   tee, a detailed exhibit of the specific
   projects funded by this money, and inde-
   pendent annual audits of approved
   projects. Last, before a draft of the ordi-
   nance was finalized, project proponents
   met with elected officials of both the
   municipalities and the county to incorpo-
   rate their feedback and garner support.
   With a proposed ordinance in hand, the
   Trust sought the endorsements of munici-
   pal governments, chambers of commerce,
   law enforcement agencies, religious and
   educational institutions, and others. They
   also embarked upon a series of mandatory
   public forums throughout the county. In
   July, the BCC approved the ordinance for
   inclusion on the November ballot and the
   second phase of the campaign began.
   Fundraising, Message Development,
   and Communications. For practical and
   logistical purposes, the post-July cam-
   paign was split in two: 1) a grassroots
   effort headed by the local office of a
   national non-governmental organization
   (NGO) and their political action commit-
   tee (PAC), and 2) a media campaign
   organized by a Citizens Advisory Commit-
   tee (CAC), which incorporated the Trust.
   Fundraising efforts were undertaken at
   both the grassroots and corporate levels.
   Sources included parks support organiza-
   tions with operating budgets (e.g., the
   Zoological Society), playground equip-
   ment vendors, landscapers, corporations,
   financial institutions, and individuals. The
   bulk of these funds paid for professional
   political consultants, airtime, and the
   production of 30-second Spanish and
   English television commercials.
   The grassroots campaign produced two
   messages: 1) the benefits-based message,
   and 2) the consumer message. The ben-
   efits-based message focused on quantifying
   research to highlight the benefits derived
   from improved park and recreation facili-
   ties. The consumer-based message re-
   minded voters that the ordinance had been
   designed so that “no blank check” would
   be given to government if voters approved
   this bond measure.
   These two messages were conveyed via
   direct mail, signs at parks, an active
   speakers’ bureau, and a volunteer phone
   bank that contacted more than 15,000
   potential voters. A professional media
   campaign included print media (editorial
   discussions as well as some print adver-
   tisement) and broadcast media (public
   access television, Spanish-language radio,
   and two 30-second television commer-
   cials).
   An additional consideration during this
   phase of the campaign was the presence
   of competing issues on the ballot. Not
   only is there the potential for some voters
   to “drop off” (proceed no further) once
   they have cast their vote for candidates in
   the larger elections, but other ballot
   questions may spark controversy so that
   voters either vote “no” for all issues or
   confuse issues. In the Dade County
   election there was a hotly contested race
   for the executive mayor’s office, a no-
   new-taxes/anti-government proposal, a
   “Save the Everglades” proposed amend-
   ment, and a referendum to build a new
   arena for the local professional basketball
   team. For the most part, these issues were
   cast in a very negative light, playing on
   the public’s fear of overtaxation, govern-
   ment waste, and environmental damage.
   The Safe Neighborhood Parks Act coun-
   tered this ballot competition by offering a
   positive benefits-based message.
   Results and Implementation. On the
   day of the election, volunteers in “Vote
   for My Park” t-shirts, carrying placards
   and handing out palm cards covered the
   precincts’ polling stations. The result was
   better than most had hoped for, with a 67
   percent “yes” vote.
   Between the November 1996 win and
   the fall of 1997—when the first round of
   bonds were sold—the Administrative
   Rules of the CAC were drafted. This
   involved a task force comprised of
   municipal park and recreation directors.
   Simultaneously, the BCC appointed a 23-
   member Nominating Committee charged
   with finding COC candidates from each
   parks and recreation district. There are
   13 members of the COC-–one from each
   district-–who serve on one or more of
   the three subcommittees: 1) Grant
   Application and Review, 2) Administra-
   tive Rules, and 3) Grant Monitoring and
   Auditing. Each year, the Safe Neighbor-
   hood Parks Bond Program issues a
   public year-end report highlighting
   accomplishments and discussing the
   year’s work.
   Page 3
   J
   UNE
   2001 • G
   OVERNMENT
   F
   INANCE
   R
   EVIEW
   29
   California
   On March 7, 2000, the voters of
   California passed the $2.1 billion Safe
   Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean
   Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act with
   more than 63 percent of the vote. Prior to
   this success, the state’s last park bond was
   passed in 1988. While the 1970s generated
   $590 million in park bonds and the 1980s
   produced park bonds totaling $1.7 billion,
   the dearth of new bonds funds in the
   1990s took its toll on the state’s parks and
   recreational facilities and open space
   inventory.
   Research and Polling. There were
   several rounds of polling throughout the
   various stages of the campaign. Early
   polls, prior to drafting the bill, were
   conducted to gauge support for the differ-
   ent issues (e.g., parks, water) in an effort
   to construct a strong and cohesive bill. A
   campaign poll, conducted after the mea-
   sure was on the ballot, assessed the stron-
   gest arguments for and against the bill and
   sought to identify key swing voter popula-
   tions. Finally, results of tracking polls as
   the election neared gave campaign manag-
   ers feedback on the effectiveness of their
   various efforts.
   Once the bill was approved by the
   state legislature and headed for the
   March election, grassroots support for
   the bill—now known as Proposition 12
   or the proposed Safe Neighborhood
   Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and
   Coastal Protection Bond Act—coalesced
   into a formal steering group: Californians
   for Safe Neighborhood Parks and Clean
   Water.
   Measure Design and Competing Issues.
   The bond measure was designed specifi-
   cally to meet the many and diverse needs
   of the counties and communities through-
   out the state. After so many years with
   no new capital funding for parks and
   open space, competition for funds was
   intense. Proposition 12’s funding priori-
   ties were the result of months of negotia-
   tion within the state legislature. In the
   end, the bill sought to address issues
   related to coastline, watersheds, Lake
   Tahoe, open space in the suburbs, farm-
   land, forests, fish and wildlife habitat,
   and the crumbling parks and recreation
   infrastructure. The $2.1 billion was
   divided between regions and communi-
   ties, but funds were assigned to agencies
   or causes as follows: local parks (35
   percent), state parks (26 percent), conser-
   vancies (17 percent), wildlife and land
   acquisition (13 percent), park acquisition
   for low-income and at-risk youth (5
   percent), resources agency (2 percent),
   and other (2 percent).
   In terms of crafting the actual ballot
   language, representatives of supporting
   grassroots and non-government organiza-
   tions played a significant role by assisting
   the bill’s authors. This constructive dia-
   logue between those in the legislature and
   those “in the field” ensured that the
   measure reflected polling results and voter
   concerns.
   There were four additional spending
   (bond) issues on the March ballot: 1) a
   water bond known as Proposition 13, 2) a
   library bond, 3) a bond to build veteran
   retirement homes, and 4) a bond to build
   a criminal forensics laboratory. The ballot
   also consisted of 14 other ballot measures,
   as well as the primary elections of presi-
   dential and legislative candidates.
   All of these campaigns were competing
   to get their particular message to the
   voters simultaneously. Likewise, each
   spending proposal would be accepted or
   rejected by voters based on the unique
   circumstances of each ballot measure.
   Because Propositions 12 and 13 had
   similar conservation-oriented objectives,
   their proponents sought to achieve a
   critical mass of sorts and merged forces to
   run a joint campaign.
   Fundraising, Outreach, and Communi-
   cations. Fundraising efforts were managed
   by an executive committee of the Califor-
   nians for Safe Neighborhood Parks and
   Clean Water. Donations came from land
   trusts, the environmental community,
   companies with a significant presence in
   California, and philanthropic individuals
   and organizations. In total, the joint
   campaigns for Propositions 12 and 13 cost
   approximately $7 million—all of which
   was raised from these fundraising sources.
   The multi-media publicity campaign
   behind Propositions 12 and 13 was
   coordinated by Californians for Safe
   Neighborhood Parks and Clean Water.
   Direct mail pieces, the brochure, newspa-
   per advertisements, and fliers made the
   case for both Propositions 12 and 13.
   Television and radio spots for the two
   propositions were run in the few weeks
   preceding the election. In addition to
   these materials, direct mail pieces on
   behalf of the two conservation-oriented
   propositions were sent out with the
   endorsements of the California Black
   Chamber of Commerce, the Latin Ameri-
   can Voters of America, the Planning and
   Conservation League, the American
   Association of Retired Persons, the
   League of Women Voters, the California
   Chamber of Commerce, and Cal-Tax.
   These groups demonstrated a wide base of
   support for the two bond proposals.
   The Audubon-California division
   launched its own media campaign in
   support of Propositions 12 and 13 in
   Spanish, recognizing that the urban
   Spanish population of California repre-
   sented a key group of voters. Proposition
   12, in particular, addressed the parks and
   recreation concerns of many urban His-
   panic constituents.
   Results and Implementation. Both
   Propositions 12 and 13 were passed by
   voters in the March 7 election, with 63.2
   percent and 64.9 percent of the vote
   respectively. Of the other proposed spend-
   ing measures on the ballot, only the bond
   to support a new criminal forensics lab
   did not pass. Of all the proposed spending
   measures, however, Propositions 12 and
   13 received the highest percentage of votes
   in favor of the measure.
   The bond as passed requires that all
   funds be appropriated by the California
   legislature through the budget process. To
   date, the legislature has approved more
   than three-quarters of a billion dollars in
   new bonds under the now implemented
   Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water,
   Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond
   Act.
   Conclusion
   While it is never easy to ask voters to
   raise their taxes to pay for critical capital
   investments, in this case parks and open
   space, there are several critical steps that
   can increase the likelihood of success. To
   boil it down to the core: 1) Find out voter
   priorities through public opinion research;
   2) ask them how much they are willing to
   pay, 3) craft a ballot measure that reflects
   voter interests and 4) communicate the
   benefits to likely supporters. In essence,
   give the voters what they want.
   NOTE
   1
   Some states and local jurisdictions have restrictions
   against government employees (e.g., finance officers)
   campaigning on behalf of ballot measures, so be sure
   to consult your government’s legal counsel first. In
   most instances, however, elected officials are free to
   campaign for any measure, or finance officers can
   enlist the help of community leaders to support the
   measure in their stead.

   Successful Bond Referendum Will Provide New, Improved Schools

   The voters of Durham County gave the good work of Durham Public Schools a resounding show of approval on November 6 by approving the school bond referendum by a nearly 4-to-1 margin. This means three new schools, plus extensive additions and renovations to many more.
   Dozens of school and community leaders and supporters turned out to celebrate the overwhelming victory at the Museum of Life & Science. The event honored the many citizens who worked so hard to ensure passage of the bond.
   DPS collaborated with many community partners to spread the word throughout our community about our needs for new schools, along with expansion and renovation to many others. In the weeks leading up to the vote, bond teams comprising DPS employees, parents and community supporters scheduled presentations at their own schools, along with dozens of neighborhood and civic organizations and communities of faith.
   MaryAnn Black, Associate Vice President of Community Relations for Duke University Medical Center, and Steve Toler of Steve Toler LLC, were the co-chairs of the Vote for Learning committee, which promoted the bond. The committee comprises representatives from Durham Public Schools, Durham Technical Community College and the Museum of Life & Science.
   The bond will provide $194.2 million in funding for a new elementary, middle and high school to ease crowding at a number of schools, plus provide additions and renovations for 17 existing schools, some of which date back more than 80 years. The bond also would provide land purchase funds for future schools, plus playground upgrades.

   District 5 considers building options
   By DEVON COPELAND – dcopeland@thestate.com
   Lexington-Richland 5 school board might try a third time to pass a school construction plan in 2008, chairwoman Paul Hite said after Monday’s board meeting.
   “We are going to do a little bit of brainstorming and looking at our options,” she said.
   Irmo-Chapin area voters Nov. 6 defeated a $256.5 million bond referendum that would have built three new schools and renovated seven existing ones.
   It was the second time the loosely organized group, “Putting Students First,” composed largely of area retirees, led a successful bid to defeat a school construction plan.
   In 2005, voters overwhelmingly rejected a $131.4 million construction plan.
   Members of both the watchdog group and political science professors said the 12-member group with roughly 300 unofficial supporters cemented its status as a strong political voice.
   At Monday’s District 5 school board meeting, Chapin resident and group member Don Carlson said the group recognizes schools are becoming crowded but disagrees with the district on what the needs are and how much to pay for them.
   “If you have an open, two-way public board meeting and find out what the public did not like about the past bond referendums, there’s no reason we can’t have a positive bond referendum in 2008,” he told board members.
   Hite said after the meeting that group members were included in the discussions. She said Carlson served on a facilities committee.
   In the month leading to the election, Putting Students First members sent out direct mailings and e-mails, wrote letters to the editor and posted fliers listing reasons to vote against the construction plan.
   Republican political strategist Rod Shealy Jr. has worked as the “Vote No” campaign consultant for the past two bond referendums.
   He said he saw the reward for the group’s aggressive campaign on election day.
   “In talking to people who told me why they voted no, they were listing the reasons that we put on the fliers,” he said.
   “I thought, ‘wow unlike typical political campaigns, people are reading theses fliers top to bottom.’”
   Some Chapin parents complained after the Nov. 6 vote that members used scare tactics and placed inflated emphasis on higher tax bills.
   On election day, Kim Murphy was among a number of callers to the Richland Election Commission to get results before all the votes had been counted.
   Murphy often attends monthly school board meetings, questioning board members and administrators during the public participation and recording the proceedings on a personal tape recorder.
   She said she has questioned whether she is stepping on toes, but residents have reassured her she performs a service.
   “We’re passionate about doing what’s right for our district and our community,” said Murphy, a Chapin parent and member of the group.
   Chapin parent Karen Owens worked with the District 5 First committee to garner support for the referendum, and said she was surprised it didn’t win in any Chapin precinct.
   She said she’d met some of the “Vote No” members, and their message appealed to retirees with fixed incomes and younger residents without children.
   “I’m right in the middle of that(demographic.) I have two young people I’m trying to get through the public school system,” she said.
   Furman political science professor Glen Halva-Neubauer said grass-roots organizations can wield a lot of power in socially conservative areas where residents prefer a “back to basics” approach.
   “These are going to be folks who are sort of fed up with more tax money coming out of their pockets,” he said.
   A number of voters said the construction plan seemed excessive and the proposed school buildings were extravagant.
   “(They’re thinking) ‘we’re for public education.
   ‘“We did reasonably well with the education we got. We didn’t need art or music theory or these kinds of facilities,’” Halva-Neubauer said.
   Lexington-Richland 5’s united school board and new superintendent helped create a smaller margin than in 2005, Halva-Neubauer said.
   He said the district will continue to hold the burden of proof by trying to advocate change.
   “It’s generally easier to defeat something than to win a vote.”
   Reach Copeland at (803) 771-8485.

   November 04, 2007
   Mayor White endorses HISD bond referendum
   Earlier this week, Matt Stiles noted that Mayor White had not yet taken a public position on the HISD bond referendum. Well, now he has, with an endorsement op-ed that’s in the print edition of today’s Chron but which for some reason I can’t find online.
   Nothing is more important to our city, state and nation than the education of future generations. I personally have seen schools within the Houston Independent School District in need of repair or reconstruction. So I support the issuance of bonds by the Houston Independent School District to pay for these school improvements. The alternatives would be to increase tax rates by financing improvements without the use of debt or to allow schools to deteriorate even more.
   I urge citizens not to vote against HISD’s bond issue in protest. Students should not suffer because of the errors of individuals within school governance and administration.
   Many citizens have doubts about HISD’s bond issue because of concerns about school closings and consolidations. I share their questions about school closings, and have expressed myself forcefully to HISD.

   Log in to Reply