Advisory committee urges continuation of Chandler Unified 15% override and narrows bond options to $271.5M and $199.4M

A citizens' advisory committee to the Chandler Unified School District recommended on May 1 that the governing board ask voters to continue the district's existing 15% maintenance-and-operations override and forwarded two reduced bond-authority options for board consideration.

The recommendation, presented to the full board during a study session May 7, follows the district's failed $487.45 million bond question in November 2024 and months of committee meetings. The committee voted to recommend continuation of the 15% M&O override and sent two bond options to the board: Option 2 at $271,500,000 and Option 3 at $199,400,000. The board will decide at a June 11 meeting whether to place the override and one of the bond options on this year's ballot.

Why it matters

The M&O override provides recurring operating revenue that the district uses largely for staff salaries and school programs. District staff told the board the override funds personnel and classroom services and said losing the continuation would force large cuts: roughly $16 million in the first year, about $32 million in the second year and as much as $45 million in the third year, according to figures presented to the board. The committee emphasized that continuation would replace—not add to—the dollars already in the budget.

What the committee recommended

- Continue the district's 15% maintenance-and-operations override. The Bond & Override Committee voted unanimously in favor of a recommendation that the board seek voter approval to continue the current 15% override.

- Forward two bond-authority options to the board. Committee members voted to send two reduced bond packages after post-election polling and community feedback. The options presented to the board were: - Option 2: $271,500,000 (committee support: 20 votes) - Option 3: $199,400,000 (committee support reported from a subset of committee voters; committee discussion record indicates a majority recommendation to forward both options)

District officials and the committee said the packages were pared back from the failed $487.45 million proposal to focus on maintenance and modernization needs: roofing and flooring, HVAC and energy-management projects, targeted academic enhancements, transportation vehicles, technology infrastructure and safety improvements. Committee and staff presentations removed non-instructional items and most "future initiative" projects in response to community feedback.

Tax and household impact presented to the board

District staff and the committee presented preliminary tax estimates from the district's financial advisers. Using the district's calculations presented at the meeting: - The continuation of the override was estimated at about $1.09 on the secondary property-tax rate per $100,000 of assessed (secondary) value (about $109 per year on a $100,000 home; roughly $218 on a $200,000 home). District staff described that figure as the likely per-household override cost used for public information. - The bond packages were presented with estimated additional tax effects. For example, the $271.5 million bond (Option 2) was associated with an additional roughly $0.32 per $100,000 (about $32 per year on a $100,000 home) in the district's materials. Staff combined the two illustrative numbers and said a homeowner on a $100,000 secondary value might see about $141 per year if both the override and the Option 2 bond passed (override $109 + bond $32 = ~$141).

Process, deadlines and next steps

Staff told the board that if trustees choose to place measures on the ballot they must notify the county election office and submit ballot language in June. The board would also draft and vote on an official pro statement (all five board members jointly author the district's pro statement for overrides) at the board's second June meeting if it calls the election. The district's financial advisor, Stifel, is available to brief the board on tax-rate scenarios and bond-issuance strategy at a scheduled May 30 meeting.

Committee process and votes

Committee chairs described holding four committee meetings (January 27, February 3, February 20 and May 1) and soliciting feedback from multiple advisory groups. Committee members said community polling after the November vote and feedback from advisory groups guided the scaled-back bond options. At the May 1 committee meeting the group recorded 20 total votes: all 20 committee members supported Option 2; a majority of committee members (reported as 12 of 20) supported forwarding Option 3 in addition to Option 2. The committee unanimously recommended continuation of the 15% M&O override.

What remains unsettled

Staff noted some outstanding technical items: a final, district-level count for certain state funding weights (gifted-program counts) that could adjust the district's revenue estimate when the state finalizes reporting; final allocations for recent state supplemental funds tied to the legislature's one-time supplement; and the precise tax-rate impacts that Stifel will present May 30. Board members asked staff to return with clarifying numbers before the June 11 decision.

Quotes from the meeting

"Maintenance and operation is about people and programs," said Mrs. Berry, district staff member, describing the role of the override in funding salaries and classroom services.

"The committee unanimously recommended the continuation of the 15% maintenance operation override," Michelle Mowery, committee member, told the governing board after the committee vote.

Ending

The governing board does not yet have a formal ballot question on this election. Trustees said they will use the May 30 financial briefing and the June 11 board meeting to decide whether to call an election for continuation of the 15% override, to authorize a new bond amount and to approve the district's official pro statement if they call the measures.

If the board votes in June to call an election, the district will publish factual voter information and work with its bond counsel and financial advisers on final language and tax-rate modeling before the November election.

Speakers quoted or relied on in this article appear in the attached speaker list and evidence provenance from the meeting transcript.