Arrowhead officials unveil $136.2 million plan to consolidate high school at North Campus; board to consider April referendum

Arrowhead UHS School District consultants on an updated facilities plan presented a $136,200,000 April referendum option to the school board that would consolidate the district’s high school operations at North Campus, demolish South Campus and add classrooms, athletic and multipurpose space, and a renovated pool at North Campus, consultants and district staff said.

The proposal, presented by Charlie Robertson of EUA and project designer Katie O’Court, reduces the previously proposed footprint and cost: the November proposal had called for a roughly 555,000-square-foot all-new building; the April option charts a roughly 455,000-square-foot plan with a mix of new construction and renovations and a maximum project cost of $136,200,000, Robertson said.

Why it matters: District officials and board members framed the plan as a response to voter feedback after November and as a way to address safety, operational duplication and long-term maintenance costs tied to operating two separate campuses. If the board approves the measure to place on the April ballot, voters will decide whether to fund the construction with the proposed tax increase, district officials said.

Key elements and scope - Consolidation: The plan demolishes the South Campus and consolidates instructional and many support functions at North Campus. To replace space lost at South, the proposal adds a classroom wing on the east side of North Campus and a multipurpose addition west of the existing gym area, O’Court said. - Renovations and reuse: About 41% of the new total building area would be new construction, 29% would be renovated, and the remaining portion would not be changed under the presented option. The presenters said roughly 49% of the existing North Campus building would be renovated and 51% would remain untouched. - Pool: The plan renovates and expands the existing pool rather than building an all-new facility. The renovation will create an eight-lane pool with a diving area that overlaps lanes (so competitive events cannot occur simultaneously in separate wells), and deck-level spectator seating in the 500–600 range, consultants said. Presenters estimated the pool renovation downtime at about nine to 12 months. - Support spaces: The project includes an expanded cafeteria (with the existing library moved and repurposed to provide breakout space), additional locker rooms consolidated near the pool area, relocation/reconfiguration of some arts and tech-ed spaces, and creation of two secure student entries and a separate monitored community entry for athletics and after-hours use. - Site work and circulation: The plan adds a campus drive to separate bus circulation (north) from parent drop-off (south), relocates tennis courts and some parking to reduce vehicle–pedestrian conflicts, and adds stormwater retention as required for the site work.

Costs, tax estimate and schedule - Cost: Consultants provided a single project figure, $136,200,000, which they described as inclusive of construction, site work, design and engineering, furniture/fixtures/equipment (FF&E), contingency and inflation to a Q4 2025 bid date. - Tax impact: A preliminary mill-rate analysis presented by a staff member, Jeff, places the estimated tax impact at roughly $1.02 per $100 of assessed value (about $102 on a $100,000 home), down from an earlier $1.91 estimate tied to the November plan; Jeff said a refined analysis would be available within a day or two. - Timeline: If the board places the measure on the April ballot and voters approve it, presenters said design work would begin April 1, 2025, bidding would be targeted for Q4 2025, construction would begin in spring 2026 and the largest additions would be scheduled for completion in summer 2027 so interior renovations could follow.

Design tradeoffs and educational priorities Consultants said the April option was intentionally scaled back from the prior all-new option to respond to community feedback while preserving priorities from the facilities assessment: daylighting for classrooms, appropriately sized new classrooms in the addition, and future flexibility for horizontal or vertical expansion. The team expects the plan to move the district’s daylit instructional spaces at North from roughly 20% today to an estimated 78–85% after renovation and additions, O’Court said.

Board response and next steps Board members present discussed the proposal at length and several expressed support for placing the referendum before voters. Members raised typical follow-ups: further sharpening of costs, more detail on revenues and split‑rate impacts, and public messaging to explain benefits to homeowners and non-parent residents. The board plans an official vote next week on whether to place the measure on the April ballot; no formal motion or final decision was recorded during the presented segment of the meeting.

What was not decided or included Presenters stressed the figures are not bids or final estimates and do not include projected operating costs or a comprehensive, long-term capital-maintenance plan for all district facilities. The plan as presented does not build a new auditorium; the existing 450-seat auditorium would remain, and the district has not included a new performing-arts center in this package. Presenters also said some capital-maintenance needs in untargeted parts of the campus would remain unaddressed by this referendum.

The board requested a refined mill-rate analysis and additional unit-cost breakdowns and scheduled a further review before next week’s vote. If the board approves placement on the ballot, the community will decide whether to fund the project in April.