Superintendent Dr. Alwa told the Brighton Area Schools Board of Education the administration was seeking board feedback on timing and the type of bond for a proposed facilities bond, saying, “we are seeking feedback from you all on timing, and then also the type of bond.”

Board members discussed two timing options — a November election or a May election — and whether to pursue a state‑qualified bond (which requires state review and prevailing‑wage rules) or a non‑state‑qualified bond. Dave, a district staff speaker, summarized advice from the district’s financial and construction advisors, saying the district’s bond rating is “only 1 spot” below the state and that “the difference between whether we went qualify when we qualified with the state or unqualified on our own would not be…a significant difference between the interest.” He added that state‑qualified bonds require an application and a state review and that “prevailing wage is something that is a mandate when you go, qualified bonds.”

Board members expressed support for pursuing a non‑state‑qualified bond. One board member said they were “very comfortable with that recommendation” and recommended moving forward “on a non qualified basis” while assuming the November ballot as the working plan. Board members also agreed the schedule is flexible: if later due diligence or advice from the construction manager and architect indicates a change is needed, the district can pause and seek a May election instead. The board noted Aug. 11 as the last date by which they would need to affirmatively vote to place the bond on the November ballot.

On a related agenda item, the board voted to engage Clark Construction as the construction manager for the proposed bond. Mr. Storm moved to “move forward with Clark as our construction manager,” Mr. Baine seconded, and the motion passed 6‑0 with one abstention; Mr. Stahl recused himself, saying, “Because of my professional relations with 1 of these, I’m going to recuse myself from [the] vote.”

Next steps the board identified include contracting with Clark Construction, engaging a project architect and completing additional due diligence. Board members said they expect to have an architect presented to the board by the next regular meeting on June 9 and that Clark and district staff will coordinate the architect selection and interview schedule.

No formal bond authorization vote occurred at this meeting; the board provided directional consensus to pursue a non‑state‑qualified bond and to proceed assuming a November ballot placement while retaining the option to delay to May pending further due diligence and professional advice.