Brighton board hears options for capital funding as district millage is set to drop

Brighton Area Schools officials and municipal advisors reviewed two primary ways to pay for capital projects — a voted sinking fund and a series of voted bonds — and told the board the district faces an uncommon timing opportunity because its current millage is due to fall significantly in 2025.

The discussion Tuesday centered on which financing method would preserve long-term tax stability while allowing the district to address immediate building and equipment needs. "No matter what option is chosen, taxes are going to be going down in this community," Superintendent Dr. David Outlaw said, noting the district’s millage rate was agreed in past elections and is projected to decline in December 2025.

Why it matters: the board must decide whether to ask voters for a sinking fund (a time-limited millage up to 3 mills for no more than 10 years) or a bonded package (voters authorize a not-to-exceed dollar amount; bonds can be sold in series and repaid over up to 30 years). Both require voter approval; each carries different timing, flexibility, and interest costs.

Carly Stoddard of Baker Tilly, the district’s municipal advisor, summarized trade-offs: sinking funds provide annual, debt-free revenue the district can spend as it accrues but tend to generate less total capital in the near term; bonds can generate large amounts up front (the presentation used a $200 million example issued in three series) but add interest costs and typically keep a capital millage rate steady for a longer period. "We are the district’s municipal advisor," Stoddard said, explaining how the firm projects taxable value growth and models millage collections.

Board members and staff walked through an illustrative scenario: assuming a 1.08-mill addition, a 10-year sinking fund could collect roughly $42 million over a decade, while a bond plan sized at $200 million (sold in series) could provide substantially more capital immediately but would include significant interest costs and keep total capital millage higher for a longer period. Baker Tilly said part of that difference is that bonds are repaid over up to 30 years, spreading principal and interest over decades.

Board members pressed advisors on assumptions about taxable value growth and on how millage translates to homeowner bills. Stoddard said the taxable-value projections in the presentation came from the assessor and reflected the statutory taxable-value cap; she noted that faster-than-expected growth would increase collections from either mechanism. The board asked for additional modeling, including an alternative that front-loads more funding in 2026 (for example, an $80 million first series) and removes later series, to better see trade-offs.

Next steps: administration and Baker Tilly will produce additional scenarios and sample household-impact calculations (including an average-home example) for the board and public. The board did not adopt a financing plan at Tuesday’s meeting and asked staff to return with alternative bond structures and sinking-fund comparisons before any election decision.

Ending: Board members emphasized outreach and public feedback before moving forward. Dr. Outlaw reminded the public that the district is gathering community input via a facilities survey; the board said it wants residents to participate before selecting a path.