Board reviews bond-era project list as construction prices push estimates higher

District leaders and consultants told the board the construction-market picture has shifted since the district last modeled a bond package, increasing projected costs for several planned projects.

Corey and other district staff presented recent bidding and cost information gathered from multiple architecture and construction firms. They said per-square-foot estimates for elementary schools varied widely in the last 18 months, with reported ranges roughly from $3.25 per square foot on the low end to $4.50 and in some local bids up to $5.00 or more per square foot. Presenters specifically cited firms and estimates: VCBO and Hughes provided earlier numbers used in the prior bond planning; DWA and other firms provided more recent figures that lowered or raised estimates depending on the building type and the bid window. For high-school additions and field-house work, district presenters reported vendor estimates for venue gyms and field houses in the $5 million to $10 million range depending on scope.

Board planners summarized several package options the district had modeled. The full package discussed during prior bond planning was about $72 million for one larger high-school plan; some revised estimates put a different two-high-school-additions-and-elementary combination in the $120 million to $140 million range. Staff said one scenario to deliver two high-school additions plus an elementary and other work would require roughly $134 million in funding, and their calculations showed that pursuit of truth-in-taxation to support that scale would push average homeowner impacts substantially higher. Neil's levy illustrations showed that maxing all available local levies could produce about $12.6 million annually and would yield an estimated $431 per-home annual increase under current valuations; staff noted that net revenue available to fund debt service would be lower after state equalization and other offsets.

Board members discussed phased approaches and trade-offs. Options discussed included: building two elementary schools to reduce portable-classroom reliance on the north end; adding to existing high schools to provide PE and CTE space; or prioritizing a single elementary school to reduce immediate overcrowding. Board members and staff raised the practical differences between lease-revenue financing (used for some projects) and general-obligation bonds, including differing term lengths (lease revenue bonds commonly modeled at 20 years) and amortization profiles (interest-only early years, graduated payments) that affect the average annual household impact. Corey noted repeating design work and reusing prior plans for multiple sites could achieve savings; staff also warned that design fees, contingencies, CM/GC fees and FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) can add several million dollars per school beyond raw construction cost estimates.

Board members did not adopt a final project package at the session. They asked staff to return with refined scenarios that (1) incorporate updated per-square-foot bids, (2) show phased options with clear near-term and long-term costs, and (3) include the effect of projected increases in commercial assessed value and expiring debt service that come back on the district's books in later years.

The session included discussion of timing: staff noted several revenue events in the coming decade (expiring community reinvestment increments and a general-obligation bond payment that fall off the district's budget schedule) that could materially change long-term capacity to fund projects. Members emphasized the importance of returning hard numbers after receiving firm hard-bid data and asked for a clearer presentation of what a 20-year financing path would cost in present-dollar terms versus an amortized average. The board left the door open to a future bond or truth-in-taxation approach, contingent on refined estimates and a community engagement plan.