Geneva Schools present facts on Issue 36 bond for new athletic facility as residents press questions

Geneva — Geneva Schools Superintendent Paul Lombardo and the school board outlined the facts behind a proposed bond levy, Issue 36, that would fund a new athletic facility and answered residents’ questions at the City of Geneva Council meeting on Oct. 13.

Lombardo, who identified himself as superintendent, told the council and members of the public he was “here to give you the facts around the levy, and only the facts.” He said the levy is to fund facilities only and provided figures for estimated homeowner costs and routine upkeep.

The district says the levy would fund a multi-part athletic project intended to let students remain at their home schools for events, expand participation opportunities, give the district control over scheduling and maintenance fees, and create a community asset. Lombardo said the district presented a per‑household cost of about $5.75 per $100,000 of appraised value and described annual routine maintenance costs in a range of roughly $2,000 to $5,000 if upkeep is performed regularly. The presentation also included a figure the district gave as the total bond amount (stated in the presentation as $1,515,955,000).

Board President Michelle Craig and other school board members described why the district views a new facility as necessary. Craig said the district no longer owns Memorial Field and that the property is owned by the City of Geneva. She also addressed a long history of flooding at Memorial Field and said insurance proceeds collected after a past flood were not re‑invested to restore that site for district use. Craig described community work to refurbish Memorial Field for youth sports but said the site does not meet the district’s current engineering requirements for the larger facility proposed under Issue 36.

A school board member described ongoing scheduling conflicts and access problems under the district’s current contract with SPIRE, the regional sports facility operator the district uses. “We are a tenant. We are a landlord, and they are not fulfilling their obligation to our agreement,” the board member said, describing instances where teams had confirmed weekly schedules only to be told at event time there was no room.

During the public Q&A, residents asked for more detail on the project, asked how the district would maintain the facility, and pressed whether alternatives had been fully explored. Lombardo and Craig repeatedly said the district is compiling answers into a fact sheet and FAQs; Craig said the district would post the packet to its website the following day and provided an outreach email for follow‑up questions (community@givaschools.org, as given in the presentation).

Several residents also asked about the district’s contract with SPIRE, which the superintendent and board members said expires in 2027 and will need renegotiation. The board said it has been meeting weekly with SPIRE staff to coordinate schedules and that negotiations over long‑term access and forecasting remain unresolved. Craig said the board has funded a portion of the facility plan from its reserves and described four options the board considered, choosing a path that funds a portion of the project now while seeking community backing for the remainder through Issue 36.

Nut graf: The presentation focused on the narrow purpose of Issue 36 — to finance an athletic facility — while answering detailed resident questions about costs, alternate uses of Memorial Field, maintenance expectations and the district’s relationship with SPIRE. The district characterized the proposal as a long‑term investment in students and community athletics, and as of Oct. 13 the board was still assembling additional factual material to share publicly.

Background and details

Lombardo said bond levy proceeds are restricted to the stated facility purposes and contrasted that with the general fund, which can be used for operating costs. The district’s handout (distributed at the meeting and slated for website posting) included an anticipated maintenance schedule and estimated life span for major elements: under normal high school use and with diligent care, some surfacing components were cited as lasting 10 to 15 years and stone bases and drainage 20 to 30 years. The board’s presentation listed a per‑homeowner “example” cost based on an average home value the district gave as about $177,000; the district said that example produces a roughly $62.10 per year figure for a home at that value (the meeting packet also included the $5.75 per $100,000 figure noted above).

Craig said the district and the city have discussed possible partnerships with SPIRE and other community stakeholders and that the board hopes a planned foundation will help raise private funds to offset future needs.

What was not decided

The meeting produced no final decision on Issue 36: the presentation was informational and the district asked residents to submit questions for the FAQ it is compiling. School board members repeatedly said answers to some technical questions required follow‑up with engineers and auditors and therefore would be added to the public packet once verified.

Ending

The district scheduled a town hall and said staff would attend to answer further questions. Board officials reiterated the district’s pledge to continue publishing verified answers and to work with residents and municipal partners on scheduling and access matters while the community considers Issue 36 ahead of the November ballot.