Pasco School District staff on Aug. 25 reviewed a draft 12‑year long‑term facilities management plan that lays out two “springboard” bond packages — roughly $150 million and $200 million — and detailed how building condition scores, enrollment forecasts and state matching rules could shape future projects. Jake Stickel, a facilities staff member leading the presentation, told the board, “you are looking to make a decision at some point in time this fall, maybe early winter, determining the road map for the next 4 bond cycles,” and that no formal action was requested at the study session.

The presentation matters because the plan sets priorities for replacing and modernizing aging schools, estimates the district’s likely tax impact from bonds, and guides staff work on site design, boundary changes and state grant applications. Stickel said the technical team prepared two scenarios intended to keep the district’s bond program roughly flat for taxpayers while addressing the schools most in need.

Staff described three data inputs that drive prioritization: building condition scores produced by an outside assessor, enrollment projections from Eastern Washington University, and stakeholder feedback collected by the district. Stickel said the district used Design West (an OSPI‑associated consultant) condition assessments that score a building and its site on scales that combine to a maximum 200 points. He noted examples such as James McGee Elementary, which received a combined score in the low 150s, and explained that lower scores indicate worse physical condition.

On enrollment, staff summarized Eastern Washington University’s projection that the district will add roughly 400 students over the next 10 years (about 40 per year), a slower pace than earlier decades. Stickel said that projection reduces the pace at which new schools would be needed, and that board members had questioned that forecast during the session.

Two bond packages were shown: the $150 million package, and a $200 million package that accelerates some projects. Staff presented illustrative tax impacts under assumptions prepared with Piper Sandler: the district’s combined bond and levy rate is currently about $3.92 per $1,000 of assessed value, and staff estimated the 150‑million scenario could increase the rate by roughly $0.05 per $1,000 while a 200‑million package could raise it about $0.20 per $1,000 under the assumptions shown to the board. Stickel emphasized those figures were model projections tied to assumed assessed‑value growth and levy settings, not final rates.

The technical team’s scenarios prioritize schools rated in the red on the condition charts (examples named in the presentation included James McGee, Ruth Livingston, Markham and others). Staff recommended standardizing future school designs by grade band and noted a “standard elementary” plan of roughly 72,000 square feet; Stickel said McGee today is about 44,735 square feet, so a replacement on the district’s standard plan would add about 28,000 square feet of gross area.

Staff also explained a long‑standing strategy to maximize state construction match: the district has used temporary portable classrooms to demonstrate “unhoused” students and thereby qualify for greater state funding when a project is sized to trigger a larger state match. Stickel said that was a deliberate board direction in prior planning and that the district considers state match opportunities when sequencing bond packages.

Board members asked a range of operational and policy questions: how the combined building/site score is calculated; whether site constraints (for example, Pasco High’s limited acreage) limit options; how replacement schools would be staged so students can remain in school during construction; and whether building larger standards risks overbuilding in a slower‑growth enrollment scenario. Dr. Kennedy (board member) and Dr. Norberg (board member) pushed for specific square‑footage and boundary implications; Stickel answered with site‑by‑site examples and said some central Pasco campuses are land‑constrained, so vertical or rebuilt standard plans are the district’s preferred solution.

Several trustees asked staff to prepare an additional variant of the $200 million scenario that removes one planned new elementary and one planned new middle school (items listed for 2040 in the draft) to lower near‑term tax pressure while keeping the accelerated schedule for higher‑priority projects. Stickel said staff could prepare that alternate for the board to review.

No vote or formal direction to place a bond before voters was taken at the study session. Stickel and other staff described a timeline to return in the fall with a recommended long‑term facilities plan for board approval; if the board approves a plan, staff would then prepare bond‑specific project listings and public engagement ahead of any election.

The session covered several technical clarifications and community concerns: stakeholders provided mixed feedback — many urged replacing aging schools and removing portables, while others flagged tax burden concerns — and the technical team said it would continue biannual updates to the long‑term plan.

For follow up, trustees requested: (1) the alternate $200M variant without the two distant new‑school items; (2) detailed tax‑rate scenarios tied to levy assumptions; and (3) more documentation on the Eastern Washington University enrollment forecast and the Design West condition scoring methodology. Stickel said those materials would be provided and the staff would return with proposed language for a long‑term plan the board could consider for approval in the coming months.

Ending: The board adjourned the study session after the discussion; no bond resolution or election scheduling was approved at the meeting.