Stifel Public Finance told the Taos Municipal Schools Board of Education on June 18 that the district could ask voters to approve roughly $50 million in bonds next November to address aging school facilities, with an approach that would raise the district mill levy by about 2 mills.

The recommendation from Brad Engst of Stifel Public Finance centered on pursuing funding through the Public School Facilities Authority’s new match rules enacted after Senate Bill 131. Engst said the district could pursue a structure “that instead of increasing the mill levy up to over 10 mills, actually can be done, with just a 2 mill increase. So it's a total of 7 mills.”

The recommendation matters because the state recently reduced the local match requirement in some programs. Engst told the board that under the revised matching the state would cover roughly 37 percent of an eligible project, which increases the leverage of local dollars and made the middle school the most attractive priority under state rankings. He said the middle school has been ranked No. 11 statewide by the Public School Facilities Authority and Capital Outlay Council, which gives the district “quite a bit of confidence” in pursuing state matching funds for that project.

Stifel’s presentation laid out financial details and timing. Using Public School Facilities Authority estimates of allowable gross square footage, Engst presented a middle school cost range of roughly $62.5 million to $83.3 million depending on assumed construction costs per square foot. He said a $50 million local ask paired with the state match would fund a project in the neighborhood of $79 million. Under that structure, Engst recommended sending a bond resolution to voters in November and forming a bond advisory committee to refine projects and outreach.

Board members questioned the scope and household impacts. Director of Finance Tanya Maestas and board members discussed tax impacts; Engst presented sample taxpayer estimates, saying the roughly 2-mill increase would add about $11 a month on a $200,000 home and about $22 a month on a $400,000 home, and contrasted that with a previously modeled 10-mill option that would have been far costlier to homeowners.

Board members also asked whether bond proceeds could fund teacher housing; Engst said the Public School Capital Outlay Council and PSFA have a pathway for matching on housing projects but that such projects require separate applications and more precise cost estimates.

The board did not vote on a bond at the June 18 meeting. Engst and district staff told the board they expect to bring an election resolution for consideration at the board’s July meeting and urged formation of a community bond advisory committee to vet projects, refine cost estimates and lead public engagement ahead of a November ballot. Engst said design and PSFA application work would begin after voter approval and could place major design work in 2026 with construction to follow.

What’s next: The board requested public outreach steps and asked the superintendent to post a call for bond‑committee volunteers. Board members and Stifel emphasized transparent town halls and clear voter information on project priorities and tax impacts before any resolution is finalized.