St. Joseph board reviews $150 million high school plan; members debate performing-arts center and tax scenarios

Dr. Edgar, a staff member, opened the meeting’s discussion of the district’s “one-range plan” by telling the board that DLR and Nabholz would present a site, building program and financing options for a new high school and that “we will have to, finalize the ballot language on the 27th and that will have to be approved by the Board of Education that night so we can get it to the county clerk's office on Tuesday 28th.”

The presentation showed a test-fit layout, program reductions and a finance plan intended to deliver a new high school within a $150 million target. Kevin, a DLR representative, said the team reduced overall square footage to about 237,700 square feet and reallocated some program areas to bring the estimated all-in project cost down to about $150.6 million.

The architects presented a site split by a creek, with most circulation and main athletic facilities concentrated on the south side. The plan includes a turf competition field with lighting and a primary grandstand for home spectators and a visitor bleacher; a second turf competition field with lighting; a grass practice field; a clustered track-and-field area; six competition tennis courts (lighting excluded in base scope); and a baseball/softball complex north of the creek with separate parking. Kevin said the main competition field would be configured for large evening events and that the design includes a pedestrian bridge across the creek to provide more direct access to the north complex.

Mike Fahey, a DLR team member, explained the program and a menu of optional add-ons outside the base budget. Nabholz’s construction estimate broke the all-in construction budget into building cost (about $97 million), general site improvements (about $10.8 million), exterior athletics (about $18.1 million), design/owner fees (about $11.5 million) and fixtures/furniture/equipment/technology (about $12.6 million). The team recommended an owner’s contingency (about 3 percent of construction) and described the $150.6 million total as covering the intended program for every student.

Nabholz identified several add-on options with approximate costs: a full 12,000-square-foot performing-arts center with elevated seating (700 capacity) in lieu of the smaller studio theater would add roughly $5.9 million to the budget; baseball/softball field lighting about $700,000; additional visitor/home bleachers about $442,000; converting baseball/softball grass to synthetic turf (amount not specified) and tennis lighting about $4.6 million. Kevin said the base scope includes a smaller “studio” theater (roughly 2–3 hundred seats) rather than a full auditorium, noting the smaller space was a cost trade-off that enabled meeting the $150 million budget target.

Board members discussed whether to keep the studio theater in the base scope or include the full performing-arts center now, defer it, or phase it across future work. Presenters cautioned that adding the full performing-arts center later could cost significantly more than adding it now and said certain add-ons could be staged later using non-bond capital if the board prefers to prioritize other items.

Neil, a financial advisor from LJ Hart, presented three $150 million financing scenarios and modelled their effect on the district’s debt-service levy and future bonding capacity. The three sample levy increases presented were:

- A 42-cent debt-service levy increase (total debt-service fund levy shown in materials as about $0.95) that keeps near-term taxpayer impact smallest but rebuilds bonding capacity more slowly; the team modeled that scenario as requiring a possible additional levy in the future to finance a second phase.

- A 60-cent increase (total levy about $1.13) that raises more revenue up front and, according to the model shown, restores more bonding capacity by the district’s 2033 planning point so a second-phase project would likely require little or no additional levy increase at that time.

- A 75-cent increase (total levy about $1.28) that would push the district’s payments higher in the near term but restore bonding capacity most quickly and allow larger follow-on bonding without another tax increase.

Neil presented example taxpayer impacts using a 1.25% assessed valuation growth assumption. Under that assumption, a $150,000 home would pay roughly $119/year for the 42¢ scenario, about $171/year for the 60¢ scenario and more for the 75¢ scenario; the presenters also agreed to rerun the models at higher assessed-valuation growth rates the board requested.

Board members asked the consultants to produce refined scenarios with alternative assessed-valuation growth rates (1.75% and 2.25%) and to test variations of the campus seating, parking and fine-arts sizing to better understand cost tradeoffs. Presenters and the board identified two firm near-term deadlines: the board must finalize ballot language at its Jan. 27 meeting and materials must be submitted to the county clerk on Jan. 28 to meet the April ballot timeline.

What’s next: the district team said it will refine site options, seating and parking counts and provide updated levy scenarios before the Jan. 27 meeting so the board can finalize ballot language and a financing ask.