District staff present updated plan and funding options for separate day school; board members express support

District staff on Feb. 11 briefed the school board on a proposed separate day school to serve students with intensive behavioral and academic needs, describing a program-based building design, estimated construction costs and a funding timeline that would require construction financing decisions later this year.

Pam Bland, director of alternative programs, and other student-services staff described the student population such a facility would serve: students with severe behavioral and social-emotional needs who currently have limited placement options because of small classroom size and program constraints. Bland told the board these students "are our most fragile students and they are the ones that have the most needs out of all of our students," and said the proposed facility would give them smaller classroom ratios, therapy and life-skills spaces, and electives such as culinary arts and industrial-arts programming.

Architects and district facilities staff presented a conceptual plan for a ~44,000-square-foot building sited adjacent to Kennedy Middle School, designed for roughly 156 students and including EBD/MD/IND program spaces, classroom restrooms, observation rooms, a gym and dedicated vocational and hospitality labs. The project team described circulation, pick-up/drop-off and how the separate facility could operate independently from Kennedy while using the Kennedy kitchen to serve meals.

Estimated all-in cost for the project was presented at about $20,000,000, including site work and furnishings. Staff said the project is eligible for educational impact fees; they reported about $6 million currently reserved in north-area impact fees that could be applied. District staff listed funding options under discussion: continue to use north-area impact fees, consider a mix of north- and south-area impact fees (which would require coordination with impact-fee committees and the county), allocate additional capital funds and consider short-term construction-line financing. The project timeline shown by the architect and project manager anticipated further design this year, issuing an RFQ for a construction manager, pre-construction in fall 2025, beginning construction around January 2026 and an opening target of July 2027 if the schedule proceeds normally. Staff noted they would try to accelerate where possible.

Facilities staff asked the board to allow design to proceed and said the district will return with a funding plan. The facilities director said "key point is that we will need funding to be in place in fall this year in order to execute a construction contract." In response, multiple board members voiced strong support for moving forward and urged staff to seek a funding approach that minimizes long-term debt. Several board members recommended exploring impact-fee allocations across the district and suggested short-term financing only if necessary; others thanked staff for visiting the Magnolia (Orange County) example and said the tour had influenced the proposed program design.

Staff said next steps are to proceed with full design, solicit a construction manager via RFQ to work alongside the architect, refine a funding strategy with district finance staff, and return to the board with formal cost and funding recommendations. Administrators said no formal construction contract would be executed until funding strategy is finalized and approved by the board.

No formal board vote was taken at the work session; several board members expressed verbal support and requested that staff continue to develop funding options and a schedule for formal board consideration.