Greeley‑Evans School District 6 board members heard a facility conditions audit on the district administration building and extensive cost and financing estimates during a work session. Assistant Superintendent of Support Services Kent Henson and HCM Architects lead Lisa Gardner presented the results, and staff described a possible partnership with a downtown development project that would allow the district to build a new office without buying land.

The audit found the administration building is about 70 years old, has an FCI (facility condition index) of approximately 0.64 — above typical replacement thresholds — and contains aging mechanical systems, single‑pane windows, asbestos‑containing materials and partial fire suppression. Kent Henson said, “The replacement value, of this building, kinda came out to a number of 36,000,000.” Henson and the district’s consultant noted that a straight replacement estimate differs from a full project cost once abatement, demolition, parking and professional fees are included.

Why it matters: the district would face substantial up‑front costs, potential multi‑year relocation and ongoing annual debt service if it chooses to replace the building. Staff described certificates of participation (COPs) as the likely financing vehicle and estimated an annual COP payment on the order of $3 million. Dr. Pilch said the building “is in really poor condition and is getting harder and harder to repair.” Board members repeatedly raised flood risk, energy inefficiency and the operational cost of continuing repairs.

Key figures and options
- Replacement (like‑for‑like) estimate from HCM: roughly $33.5–$36 million.
- Renovation (repair only, no redesign) estimate from HCM: about $23 million, with the caveat that hidden conditions could increase that total.
- Additional costs cited by staff (Richmark/AP Construction estimates): demolition/abatement ≈ $2.3 million; district share of a parking garage ≈ $5.6 million; soft costs for design/furniture/fees ≈ $6.7 million — together raising a full project estimate toward ~$48 million.
- Energy modeling: the building’s energy‑use intensity (EUI) is about 80; targeted envelope/mechanical improvements would reduce EUI modestly, while new construction could reach an EUI nearer 43 and yield larger long‑term energy savings.
- Maintenance burden: facilities staff logged roughly 4,400 work hours on this building since February 2022; district work orders and repairs since 2022 total more than $1 million.

Staff framed the choice as three practical options: (1) continue incremental repairs and accept recurring flooding and maintenance costs, (2) invest in a large renovation (estimated ≈ $23 million) or (3) pursue replacement either downtown as part of the city/county development or on another site (replacement costs net of related project items rising to the $33.5–$48 million range). Staff warned that renovation carries the risk of uncovering additional hidden conditions during work, and that replacement offers the opportunity to build to modern accessibility, energy and safety codes.

Partnership with downtown development and timing
District staff described a potential “once‑in‑a‑lifetime” opportunity to participate in a downtown redevelopment coordinated by the city and county (Richmark referenced in the presentation). The proposed sequence would allow the district to build on land across the street and occupy a new building while the old administration building is demolished and becomes part of the redevelopment footprint. Staff said the city has voted its support in writing; the county is still studying options and is expected to provide a recommendation in June. Dr. Pilch said the county’s timing and decision will materially affect whether the district can go first in the development and avoid buying land elsewhere.

Financing and short‑term relocation costs
Staff recommended financing via certificates of participation (COPs) to avoid asking voters for a bond specifically for a district office. The district has used COPs previously; staff said COPs function similarly to a mortgage and are often tax‑exempt, which can lower interest costs. District staff estimated an annual COP payment in the neighborhood of $3 million (final figures would depend on term and market conditions). Relocation costs to temporarily house about 50 staff during construction were estimated at roughly $3 million for space improvements and about $180,000 per year in rent for a comparable facility, plus other setup expenses.

Flooding, life‑safety and accessibility
Presenters emphasized chronic flooding risk at the current site: storm infrastructure capacity and the building’s low grade allow stormwater to pond and enter the building during high events. The building lacks full fire sprinklers and does not meet modern accessibility standards; making it code‑compliant in a renovation would reduce usable office space, presenters said. The building contains asbestos‑containing materials (ACMs) in many locations; abatement is required for most intrusive repairs.

Board reaction and next steps
Board members asked for additional comparative context (costs per square foot, historical large contracts for the district, and a clearer picture of how a $3 million annual payment would affect the operating budget). Staff agreed to prepare a one‑page summary showing where debt service would come from, historical project costs per square foot and a clearer breakdown of relocation and operating implications.

No formal board action or vote was taken during the work session. Board members and staff said they expect further discussion in late summer or fall, after the county completes its review and staff refines cost, financing and timeline details.

Ending: The board recessed after asking staff to return with more detailed cost comparisons, COP amortization scenarios and a clearer estimate of short‑term relocation costs. If the county or city timelines change, staff said they would update the board before returning with a formal recommendation.