Board reviews $73.5 million 'Fairport for the Future' K–8 pre‑referendum; district projects zero additional tax impact

District consultants and finance staff presented the proposed scope, conceptual estimate and draft schedule for a pre‑referendum capital project labeled "Fairport for the Future" and estimated to total about $73,500,500.

The presentation described project priorities compiled from stakeholder meetings: upgrades to essential building systems (fire alarm, HVAC replacements and control upgrades), classroom and toilet‑room renovations, large‑group instructional spaces (cafeterias and libraries), kitchen overhauls, and adding air conditioning to prioritized spaces where equipment is aging out. Consultants said the conceptual estimate includes design contingency and escalation allowances because construction would occur several years after design.

Troy, representing the design/communications team, and Campus staff showed conceptual renderings for libraries and cafeterias, and an example scope for Jefferson Avenue’s cafetorium and kitchen. The team said user‑group meetings will refine specific equipment lists (for example, dishwashers would be included if requested during program development).

On funding, district finance staff outlined a plan intended to produce no additional tax impact: of the $73.5 million estimate, the district would use $15 million from its capital reserve and borrow the remainder (roughly $58.5 million). District staff said anticipated building aid on principal and interest, plus the scheduled drop‑off of existing debt, would offset the borrowing so that the additional local tax impact on property owners would be zero if the referendum passes. The district emphasized that voters must still authorize the borrowing and use of reserve funds; a public vote is required even when the board projects no new tax burden.

Board members asked about air‑conditioning scope. District staff said the cost to air‑condition every district space was previously estimated at about $113 million, a figure they said made full‑district AC infeasible for this referendum; the team instead prioritized large‑group instructional spaces and locations where equipment is at end‑of‑life. The consultants said the referendum plan selects spaces for AC based on program needs, aging equipment and achievable budget allocation.

The team presented a draft phased schedule that would sequence SED (New York State Education Department) submissions and project phases to maximize state aid; consultants said a referendum and subsequent design phases (schematic, design development, construction documents) are required steps before SED submission. The presenters said the district will continue a public information campaign, including outreach at parent events and building‑level tours, and that the district would refine the estimate as design proceeds.

Any referendum date would be subject to board approval; presenters discussed a fall timeline for a public vote and said further details would be provided in coming weeks.