Alpine School District presents $91.8 million FY26 capital budget proposal, funds buses, remodels and technology upgrades

Alpine School District staff told the board at a study session that the proposed fiscal year 2026 capital budget allocates about $91.8 million and would fund vehicle purchases, building remodels, technology upgrades and ongoing maintenance.

Bea, budget presenter for the district, said the capital budget “for fiscal year 26 is $91,000,008.77” and that the figure reflects an estimated FY25 fund balance and FY26 tax revenues after set‑asides for a rainy‑day reserve and the building fund.

The proposal’s nut graf: the plan bundles one‑time project funding rather than ongoing salaries, and staff say the recommended package is intended to stay within available capital revenues while addressing safety, technology and facility needs across the district.

Most important items included in the recommendation are: - Fleet: funding to buy 23 new school buses at about $205,000 each (roughly $4.7 million) as part of a multi‑year effort to replace and expand the fleet. Staff said a future request could seek up to 50 buses in total over multiple years. - Remodels and building fund uses: a $3.5 million remodeling package covering restroom remodels at Lakeridge Junior High, Bonneville Elementary, Orem Elementary and Meadow Elementary and a phase 4 remodel at Lakeridge (six classrooms). Staff said some of the remodel and the third data‑center room preparation would be funded from the district’s building fund reserve (Fund 32) rather than capital outlay. - Technology and data center: continued deployment of classroom displays and sound standards (final year of a four‑year effort), a third data facility room (this year to prepare the room and next year to equip it) and a device deployment partially funded by a digital teaching and learning grant. Staff reported a device request of about $5.858 million after a $1.142 million grant offset. - Communications and web platform: a recommendation to move to a new communications and web platform (referred to as Apigee) that staff said will better support mobile devices, multiple languages and create district landing pages to help with an eventual multi‑district transition. - Security and maintenance: about $500,000 for ongoing maintenance of card access, cameras and licensing and incremental security work to comply with recent building‑security requirements.

Bea told the board the district negotiated per‑student pricing for one technology contract to $9 per student for the near term and cautioned that one‑time conversion costs were included in the FY26 request. “We feel like data would be at risk if we don't make that changeover now and get on that platform,” she said, describing the change as important ahead of the planned district split.

On funding sources and reserves, staff described the FY26 available capital total as drawing on an estimated FY25 fund balance (about $48.9 million) plus estimated FY26 tax revenue (about $79.7 million) with $10 million held as a rainy‑day reserve and a roughly $26.78 million set aside for the building fund. Staff said detailed line‑item spreadsheets and request dialogues are available on the district business dashboard under FY26 budget process.

Board members asked several clarifying questions about which items were funded from the building fund versus capital outlay and about the five requests that were not recommended for DLT (district leadership team) approval. Staff said 37 of 42 initial capital requests were recommended by DLT; among the five not advanced were a West Transportation Center request (tabled) and helmet reconditioning for athletics. Staff said some warehouse needs (concrete repair and a sump pump reconfiguration) would be funded from surplus sales revenue.

The presentation included discussion of how larger building‑fund uses will be tracked as the district moves toward splitting into three districts. Several board members asked that any significant drawdown from the building fund be flagged for additional review to ensure equitable allocation among the new districts; staff said they are tracking building‑fund expenditures and will provide more specific allocation tracking for large, district‑specific projects (for example, land purchases or a new district office).

The board did not take a formal vote at the study session; staff said the capital recommendations will remain subject to further review by the district budget committee and the board as part of the FY26 adoption process. Staff reminded members that the district’s operations budget committee for FY26 is scheduled to begin meetings on March 12 and that staff will reconvene the district budget committee if additional revenue becomes available.

Ending: Staff emphasized that the recommendation is built from multiple committee meetings and that the detailed spreadsheets and request dialogues are available on the business dashboard for board members who want line‑by‑line detail.