The Higley Unified School District Governing Board voted 4-1 to adopt a resolution ordering a special election to ask voters to authorize the sale, lease or exchange of district property.

The vote came after board members debated whether the ballot language should specify how proceeds would be used and whether a lease option would obligate the district to take on property-management responsibilities. The measure passed after Board President Amanda Wade moved the resolution and Board Member Scott Glover seconded; Vice President Tiffany Schultz, Board Members Sarah Jarmon and Scott Glover voted yes, and Board Member Anna Van Hook voted no.

Board President Amanda Wade framed the resolution as a step to give taxpayers the option to authorize disposition authority in the future rather than approve any particular transaction now. “If the voters approve this in November, then next year or in the future it will come back to the board…for how the administration’s ultimate recommendation is as to any disposition,” said Mr. Gill, legal counsel to the board, summarizing the legal effect of voter approval.

Why it matters: district officials said potential lease revenue could be used to offset existing district lease payments and free operational dollars for classrooms, while opponents said a broadly worded ballot question risks voter rejection because taxpayers would not know the specifics of future deals.

Discussion highlights

• Flexibility of ballot language: Board members and counsel said the draft ballot question intentionally remains flexible so the district can pursue a sale, lease or exchange under the law in effect at the time of any transaction. Mr. Gill said sale or exchange authority would be perpetual if voters approve; lease authority would expire after 20 years.

• Potential revenue and examples: District staff pointed to a lease arrangement in another district—Kyrene—that yields about $700,000 a year, and said Higley currently pays about $3,500,000 a year in lease payments that additional revenue could help offset. Higley’s CFO, Mr. Moore, said leasing vacant land could provide recurring revenue to reduce the district’s lease burden and “ultimately put more money back in our classrooms.”

• Management and cost concerns: Board members raised concerns about whether the district has staff qualified to manage leases and proposed projects such as multifamily housing. Mr. Moore said the district would contract out property management when needed and estimated contracting costs would reduce but not eliminate net revenue (he gave an illustrative example: $700,000 gross minus $100,000 management cost yields a $600,000 net benefit). He also estimated current maintenance of the vacant parcel at roughly 50 to 100 landscaping crew hours per year.

• Ballot cost and specificity: Members asked whether adding separate sale and lease questions would add county costs for ballots. Counsel and staff said there could be additional expense for extra questions and that the board could present multiple questions legally, but they had not yet asked the county for a cost estimate.

• Community reaction and timing: Some members urged more specificity to avoid voter rejection; others said the measure only asks for authority, not approval of a specific deal, and that any future lease or sale would return to the board for approval and community engagement. “When it comes time to make that decision, if I’m convinced that the proposal to dispose of this property makes sense…then I will vote for it. If it does not, then I won’t,” Board Member Scott Glover said.

Formal action and next steps

The board approved the resolution to order and call a special election placing a sale/lease/exchange question on the ballot; Board President Amanda Wade moved the motion and Board Member Scott Glover seconded. Vice President Tiffany Schultz voted aye; Board Member Anna Van Hook voted nay; Board Members Sarah Jarmon, Scott Glover and Amanda Wade voted aye. The motion passed 4 to 1. Board members and counsel said that, if voters approve the question at the special election, any individual sale, lease or exchange would return to the board for separate approval and additional public process. Counsel also noted that, under the law discussed at the meeting, a lease of 20 years or more triggers voter approval requirements; that limit means lease authority granted by voters would be time-limited but sale/exchange authority would not expire.

Board members said they plan to place the question on the upcoming ballot (candidates and staff referred to November), then return to the community and the board to consider specific proposals and any necessary contracting or oversight. The meeting adjourned after the vote.