Pleasant Valley business office recommends $40M bond to fund remaining high‑school construction; board signals support to proceed

Pleasant Valley School District business staff told the board on March 13 that the district still must finance roughly $42 million to complete the high-school renovation and presented two bonding options from Raymond James.

The options and recommendation Finance staff described two bonding scenarios discussed with Raymond James: (1) borrow $15 million in 2025 and another $10 million in 2026 (borrowing completed in stages) to reach the target funding over time; or (2) issue $40 million in 2025 (a single financing) and use the district’s capital reserve and interest earnings to cover the remaining approximately $2.5 million. Business staff recommended option 2 — a single $40 million issuance — arguing it limits future borrowing needs, allows the district to invest other bond proceeds while construction continues, and would carry debt through 2046 under current assumptions.

Grants and contingencies Staff said the district already received a $1 million “improvement” grant and an environmental grant applied to the project; additional grants may be included in the governor’s budget but remain uncertain until the budget is passed and eligibility rules are published. The construction budget includes a contingency of $4.7 million; staff said contingency funds might not be needed but advised keeping them in the plan.

Board discussion and next steps Board members discussed federal and state funding uncertainty and rising supply costs; business officials said general-contractor contracts are largely fixed and vendors have already begun ordering critical materials to avoid tariff-driven price increases. The board signaled informal support for option 2 (the $40 million issuance) to be finalized in spring 2025 and asked staff to bring final financing terms and a formal schedule in April/May, when Raymond James will present updated interest rates.

Budget preview Business staff also offered a preliminary look at the 2025–26 draft budget. Key assumptions include maintaining current programs, modest estimated state funding increases (preliminary basic education increase ~0.6%), transportation contract increases and ongoing collective-bargaining negotiations for professional staff (which represent about 35% of the budget). Staff said a working assumption in the draft is a 2% tax increase and presented illustrative per‑household impacts under several millage scenarios; final figures depend on state and local revenue decisions and bargaining outcomes.

Ending Board members asked staff to continue monitoring grant opportunities and interest-rate movements and to return with final financing resolutions once Raymond James reports April pricing.