School board sets maximum bond package for career-technical and bus facilities after project hearing; staff to refine campus access plans

The Northwest Allen County Schools Board of School Trustees on July 21 held a project and preliminary determination hearing and established a maximum bond issuance of $88,850,000 to finance a proposed career-technical education (CTE) center and a new transportation facility. The board voted to approve a project resolution, a preliminary determination resolution and a reimbursement resolution to allow the district to move forward with design and later issuance if the board elects to proceed.

The hearing matters because both projects would be financed through debt and because state law requires public hearings before a school corporation issues bonds or enters leases above statutory thresholds. “Pursuant to Indiana Code 20-26-7-37 … and Indiana Code 6-1.1-20-3.5,” a staff member summarized at the start of the hearing, “these public hearings and the consideration of resolutions represent the beginning of the legal process.”

District staff described two separate facilities. Dr. Bidding, a district staff member leading design presentations, said the proposed CTE building is “roughly 89, 90,000 square foot” and would house 21 half-day programs for juniors and seniors, including early childhood, nursing, culinary, welding, construction trades, engineering, fire rescue and criminal justice. He said the building would include high-bay areas and exterior learning spaces such as a greenhouse and outdoor civil-construction “sandbox” for hands-on training. The CTE timeline presented shows schematic design continuing, a planned bid in December, a February–March 2026 ground breaking if scheduled, and a roughly 17‑month construction period to open for students in fall 2027.

Brandon Basham, a district staff member who presented financing scenarios, said the two projects’ total project hard/soft cost estimate is $77,850,000, with a maximum issuance estimate of $88,850,000 that includes $11,000,000 in smaller “Geobond” items the district typically uses for maintenance and preventive work. Basham outlined two repayment options prepared by the district’s financial advisors: a level‑repayment plan that slightly increases the tax rate but reduces total interest, and a deferred‑payment plan that would hold the tax rate steady initially but yields larger payments later. "I would personally recommend that we go with the 0 change to the rate, which would be the deferred payment," Basham said, citing uncertainty about effects from Senate Enrolled Act 1 and potential circuit‑breaker revenue loss.

The transportation facility plan described by staff would expand bus storage and maintenance capacity from the current facility’s four bays to seven bays and provide space to house as many as 120 buses, plus a multiuse training area. The district said the transportation building could be bid in November, with a 12–14 month construction timeline and possible move‑in the following May to allow renovation of the current transportation site.

Public comments at the hearing focused on site access and safety for neighbors. Dustin Peterson (5039 Baird Road) and Rob Yates (4305 Baird Road), nearby residents, said a single driveway onto the narrow, rural Baird Road would concentrate student, employee and construction traffic on a road they described as chip‑seal without shoulders and already used as a high‑speed cut‑through. Peterson said the proposed driveway location “puts a lot of construction traffic for, I believe, 18 months on our road” and asked that staff ensure traffic would not be routed onto residents’ roads; he also said he would withhold support for the district’s operating referendum unless vehicle access is resolved. Michael Gross, another resident, urged the district to consult local construction professionals and to confirm demand before committing to a $90 million facility.

Board members and staff recorded these public concerns as issues to resolve in design. President Hathaway said staff had been asked to “talk through the logistics of the internal road” and that nothing on road alignments had been set in stone. Dr. Bidding said district civil engineers have begun traffic and site work, have identified wetlands and ditches on the property, and are pursuing traffic studies and coordination with county highway officials; he said staff is working toward one or more internal drive options and may include an alternate driveway in bidding packages should the board wish to make the second access contingent on final funding.

Formal actions taken at the meeting were limited to establishing financial parameters and authorizing staff to continue design and procurement steps. The board approved (voice vote) a project resolution setting estimated project costs and a maximum issuance, a preliminary determination resolution to allow future issuance steps, and a reimbursement resolution permitting the district to reimburse qualifying preliminary expenditures from future bond proceeds. Motions were made and seconded (project resolution: motion by Ms. Slaughter, second by Mr. Boat; preliminary determination: motion by Ms. Jamieson, second by Mr. Vogt; reimbursement resolution: motion by Mr. Lauder, second by Mr. Boat) and each motion was approved by voice vote.

Discussion vs. decision: the board’s vote only established the maximum financial terms and allowed staff to continue with design and bidding preparations; no bond was issued and no construction contract was awarded at this meeting. Staff said final decisions about issuing bonds, going out to bid and selecting contractors will come later and will depend on bid results and additional decisions by the board.

The district plans to return to the board with refined site drawings and a schematic‑design update at a future meeting. Dr. Bidding said he expects to present a clearer site graphic and additional traffic analysis at the next board meeting.

Ending: The board’s approvals enable the district to continue design and to prepare for future bidding and financing steps, while staff and engineers continue to refine driveway locations, drainage and traffic mitigation in response to neighborhood safety concerns.