Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Capital Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews Anthony-to-Spar scenario; district analysis flags portables, cost and timing for new Spar building
Summary
Staff presented a Feb. 24 analysis of a proposal to move Anthony-zone students to Spar Elementary; facilities and finance staff said a $30 million Spar rebuild would remove the need for 14 portables under that scenario but would require reprioritizing capital funds.
Get email alerts on the School Capital Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District staff briefed the Marion County School Board Feb. 24 on a scenario to send Anthony zone students to Spar Elementary and on the facility, staffing and transportation consequences of that option.
Capacity and portables: Staff reported Spar’s official FISH capacity at 414 and an 80-day count of 434 students, indicating a shortfall under current enrollments. If Anthony students were moved to Spar, staff estimated as many as 14 portables could be required to accommodate the added students under the current facility layout. Facilities staff and a district engineer said that a $30 million revitalization of Spar — identified in earlier capital-priority planning — could eliminate the portable need if the board reprioritized that project for earlier delivery.
Costs and modeling: Finance staff presented 10-year fixed- and maintenance-cost projections. They estimated Anthony’s 10-year total (fixed plus maintenance) at about $26.8 million and Spar’s at roughly $22.4 million (approximately $19 million fixed and $3.4 million in maintenance). Combined standalone projections for both sites totaled roughly $49.0 million. Modeling a merged school at the Spar site that included a new wing/prototype based on Saddlewood produced a projected merged total of about $60.2 million — higher than the two sites as currently modeled — because the merged-prototype included costs for new construction. Board members noted that staff’s modeling assumptions (prototype choice, phasing, and scope) materially affect whether a merged plan saves operating dollars.
Staffing and noninstructional placements: HR staff said instructional positions could likely be absorbed districtwide, but noninstructional placements (paraprofessionals, clerks) would require careful planning; the board discussed district vacancy lists and potential hardship if staff placements required longer commute distances.
Transportation and traffic: Transportation staff and county safety officials discussed vehicle stacking and car-line patterns. County Road 329 and local entry points were flagged as potentially congested under higher car-line traffic; facilities staff said a redesigned site plan for a rebuilt Spar campus could address stacking and parking concerns. Transportation staff said existing bus-compound routing (Zone 2) would likely absorb Anthony pickups without significant new runs in many scenarios, but some route adjustments and capacity analysis are necessary.
Timeline and capital planning: Facilities staff said that designing and building a new Spar facility if the board chose to prioritize that project would likely require a 12-month design period and 12–18 months of construction, suggesting a possible opening in 2027 if design started promptly. Board members requested clearer cash-flow estimates tied to the district’s sales‑tax capital program so they could judge whether earlier construction was financially feasible.
Board direction: The board asked staff for more precise financial projections (cash flow and sales-tax receipts over time), more exact transportation modeling and community engagement sessions before any formal rezoning. Some board members expressed support for moving forward with community conversations; others urged additional time to build consensus and confirm fiscal feasibility.
Ending: No vote was taken. Staff will return with additional financial detail, transportation modeling and a plan for public engagement.

