Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District proposes multi‑part survey on operations and facilities; outlines options up to $70 million
Summary
District leaders recommended a community survey to test support for an operational referendum (three price points) and a proposed capital program. Staff said the district faces a roughly $3.5 million operational gap plus an expiring $2 million recurring referendum and outlined an approximate $70 million facilities need.
District administrators presented a draft community survey and preliminary referendum framing that would ask voters about both (1) an operating/recurring funding question and (2) a capital/facilities question.
Staff said the district faces roughly a $3.5 million gap for 2026–27 on top of a $2 million non‑recurring operational referendum that expires this fiscal year. Working with financial advisors PMA, district staff proposed three operating options to present in the survey: - Option 1: approximately $3.5 million per year (maintain most programs and update technology, curriculum, safety/security) — estimated at about $10 per $100,000 of property value. - Option 2: approximately $4.0 million per year (Option 1 plus elimination of material/book fees and further program maintenance) — estimated at about $14 per $100,000. - Option 3: approximately $4.5 million per year (Options 1 & 2 plus full‑day 4K expansion and increased staff compensation to be competitive) — estimated at about $17 per $100,000.
For capital needs, the district presented a planning figure of about $70 million to address roofs, HVAC/electrical, elementary air conditioning, plumbing, technology infrastructure, cafeteria/gym needs (particularly at Woodside), LHS bleachers and press box upgrades, ADA elevator issues and additional special‑education spaces. Administrators said the district has engaged Meyer Construction and PRA Architects to refine a 10‑year plan and estimated that strong prior financial stewardship could reduce the net tax impact of a capital package.
Why it matters: the district emphasized that facilities are community assets used by many local organizations and that aging infrastructure and enrollment shifts (district enrollment down about 600 students) have increased the need to right‑size and modernize buildings. Staff said they expect to send the survey by mail and email in early November, present results in December and, if the board proceeds, consider a January resolution for an April referendum.
Public comments and board input: board members urged clear, concise front‑page language and suggested highlighting Woodside’s needs early in the survey so readers less likely to read the full packet will see a concrete example. Some board members suggested separating operating and capital questions to allow for follow‑up if one question fails.
No referendum resolution was adopted at the meeting. Staff will use survey results to recommend next steps and possible ballot language for future board action.
