Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kenosha school board hears updated cost estimates and funding options for controlled entrances at seven schools
Summary
Superintendent and facilities staff updated the Kenosha Unified School District Board on revised cost estimates for adding controlled entrances to seven schools, outlined three funding options and said the district will ask the board in October to authorize $320,000 for final design work.
Get email alerts on the School Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Kenosha Unified School District Board of Education received an update on Monday about plans to add controlled entrances to seven older district schools and on options to pay for the construction work. No formal vote was taken; staff said they will ask the board in October to authorize $320,000 to finish design work so the district can present firmer cost and funding recommendations.
District staff described controlled entrances as a screened first doorway and vestibule where visitors are checked before being allowed into hallways and classrooms. The district said seven existing buildings were not designed with that configuration and currently rely on temporary front-door monitors: Bose, Curtis Strange, Forest Park, Harvey, Jeffrey, Lance Middle School and Whittier.
The district said earlier this year an accelerated design pushed a preliminary estimate to about $12.5 million for the seven sites because the work involves masonry, electrical, plumbing and other major construction. Following the failed referendum, staff said they re-evaluated the design and now estimate the total project could be between $9 million and $10 million, though they emphasized that number remains a rough estimate until design work is completed.
Superintendent Dr. Weiss and staff member Tarek Hamden outlined three funding approaches discussed with the board: (1) propose a capital referendum in the spring, which would affect the tax levy; (2) revise the project scope and fund work gradually using planned draws from reserves (limiting short-term borrowing spikes); or (3) borrow funds without a referendum, counting the debt under the district’s revenue limit and repaying from operations and reserves. Staff said options 2 and 3 both rely on planned use of reserves but differ in timing and whether all seven projects are completed at once.
District staff said they will return to the board at the Oct. 28 meeting with a request to authorize $320,000 to finish design work that includes plumbing, electrical and IT reconfiguration. The safety committee, which reconvened after last year’s Roosevelt incident, reviewed initial plans with principals and facilities staff. According to staff, five of the seven proposed plans received broad support from the committee; Lance and Harvey required additional site visits and possible design tweaks before returning to the committee.
Board members and staff discussed scheduling and public-notice considerations for committee site visits, and whether committee members’ attendance could trigger open-meeting requirements. No formal action was taken; staff characterized the presentation as an update and said a decision on funding vehicles will follow when final cost estimates are available.
What’s next: the board will consider a request to authorize $320,000 for final design at its October meeting, after which staff expect to present a firmer total project cost and a recommended funding approach.

