Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasco School District presents long-term facilities plan and two bond scenarios for community feedback
Summary
District staff presented a Long-Term Facility Management Plan with $150 million and $200 million four‑year bond scenarios, outlined project lists and tax-rate projections, and asked the board for feedback and additional building-condition, maintenance and environmental details before a final proposal later this year.
Mr. Stickel, a district staff member, briefed the Pasco School Board on the district's Long-Term Facility Management Plan and two bond scenarios the facilities team developed for public feedback. He said the team is proposing repeat bond authorizations every four years, targeting either $150 million or $200 million per cycle and illustrating what could be funded in 2028, 2032, 2036 and beyond.
The presentation compared a $150 million-per-cycle path (projected $600 million authorization over multiple cycles) with a $200 million-per-cycle path (projected $800 million). Mr. Stickel walked board members through example projects that would fit under each scenario: replacement of McGee and Livingston elementaries and reconfiguring Markham to a K–8 in the first round; phased work at Pasco High; and district-level priority funds for routine maintenance, HVAC, field upkeep and land purchases. He emphasized these were draft scenarios for feedback, not an action item: "What we're not gonna be asking for tonight is we're not being asked to take action," he told the board.
Superintendent Michelle Whitney and board members probed tax‑rate impacts and timing. The presentation showed the projected combined tax rate with a $150 million bond passing in 2028 would be about $4.14 per $1,000 assessed value at the time of approval and fall to about $3.97 per $1,000 when bonds hit the tax rolls the following year; the $200 million scenario showed a roughly $4.18 per $1,000 combined rate once levies and bonds are in effect — a difference of about $0.23 per $1,000 between the two scenarios in the first full year shown. Mr. Stickel noted the assumptions driving those numbers, including an assessed‑value growth assumption of 4.5 percent and that figures are projections subject to change.
Board members requested more specific evidence to show why certain schools were slated for replacement rather than continued repair. Director Phillips and others asked for building condition scores, recent maintenance and replacement costs, and environmental reports such as mold remediation histories. Mr. Stickel said those condition ratings came from an independent rater and that the district can provide past maintenance costs and the rating rationales. He told the board the district will gather and publish that documentation for public review.
Public commenters and a student who attended McGee and McLaughlin described experiencing recurring leaks, ceiling and bathroom damage and said patch repairs had been temporary. Danica, identified as a student, urged the board to rebuild rather than continue recurring repairs: "Those Band Aid fixes can only help for so long...why are we continuing to put Band Aids on it when we continue to see it affect our students?" Laurie Cox, a secretary at McGee (spelled in remarks as Magee), described uncomfortable conditions in classrooms that day and thanked building maintenance staff for their work.
District staff outlined next steps: community presentations and survey collection in April and May, additional requests for technical documentation (building condition scores, maintenance costs, mold/environ data), and a follow-up presentation to the board in June or July with a recommended package. Mr. Stickel said the team would continue to reassess the LTFMP as updated enrollment and facility data arrive.
The board and staff repeatedly emphasized the scenarios were preliminary and subject to revision: Mr. Stickel said the district had aimed to avoid large year‑to‑year tax swings and to maintain flexibility in future cycles. Superintendent Whitney noted the district would work with financial advisors (Piper Sandler) and legal counsel on final structures and survey language and that public outreach must comply with Public Disclosure Commission guidance.
Board members requested specific items to be compiled and returned to them and the public: the independent building condition scores and their explanation, past maintenance costs by building (past decade), a summary of any mold findings and remediation history, and a clearer, itemized explanation of what a replacement or rebuild at McGee, Livingston, Markham and Pasco High would entail. Mr. Stickel committed to producing that information before the public feedback period and to return in June with updated recommendations.
