Francis Howell R-III reviews facility master plan identifying roughly $134 million in near-term needs and considers April 2027 bond

Hollis & Miller Architects presented a draft facility master plan to the Francis Howell R-III Board of Education at a Nov. 6 work session, identifying about $275,000,000 in districtwide facility needs at 2025 prices and showing roughly $303,000,000 when costs are escalated to a 2027 implementation starting point.

The consultants and district staff framed projects into three buckets—ongoing maintenance, safety and security, and learning-environment improvements—and recommended prioritizing immediate (0–3 year) needs, which the consultants estimated at about $121,000,000 in 2025 dollars (approximately $134,000,000 when escalated to 2027 dollars). No formal board vote was taken on the master plan; staff said they will refine budgets and return with recommendations in December.

Why this matters: the district’s facilities fund teaching and safety spaces across thousands of classrooms and support areas; the plan identifies aging roofs, mechanical systems and site work alongside classroom- and program-level improvements. Board discussion covered how to fund a multi‑phase program, the timing of any bond question, and how capital decisions intersect with operating budgets and staffing.

The consultants presented seven planning priorities to guide projects: safe, secure facilities; high-quality infrastructure and long-term investment; equitable learning environments through staffing and support; inclusive spaces supporting the whole child; student-centered hands-on learning and CTE; welcoming modern spaces; and integrated technology for future-ready skills. The consultants tied building-condition findings and survey results to those priorities and to DESE class-size guidance used in capacity calculations.

On capacity, consultants said most buildings fall within acceptable ranges when using the district’s current and DESE guidance ratios as a midpoint; they identified one building reported at about 74.4% utilization that is projected to return to a healthier utilization level over the 10‑year forecast. Several buildings were near or slightly above capacity but, the consultants said, building leaders report some on-site flexibility. The presentation noted that enrollment projections are modestly down districtwide: the demographic work shown at earlier briefings indicates about a 1% decline over 10 years.

Board members raised specific concerns: Daniel Boone Elementary was cited as a building already over its nominal capacity; consultants responded that classroom-use practices, staffing ratios and occasional reconfiguration provide short-term flexibility but that sustained higher enrollments would require long-term solutions. Members also asked how apartment development in the area affects enrollment modeling; consultants said they model yield from new multifamily development and that apartment construction does not automatically translate into more students because of declining birth rates and other demographic factors.

Budget and funding discussion: consultants recommended planning in 2027-dollar terms to account for a projected 5% per‑year escalation and showed two funding scenarios: one that targets immediate needs only and one that phases work so an initial 2027 program would be roughly $150 million and a second phase would follow. The district’s financial adviser, Piper Sandler, previously presented a menu of debt‑management options and estimated a potential $150 million bonding capacity in 2027 under certain assumptions. Staff also noted the district’s current capital capacity: the annual capital appropriation has grown from roughly $2.5 million in 2023 to about $9 million today (the figure includes technology leases and bus purchases) and the operating-to-capital transfer currently averages about $5 million per year for ongoing maintenance work, but staff and board members agreed that the annual capital budget alone would not be sufficient to address the immediate $134 million of 2027‑dollar needs.

District staff described a possible no‑tax‑increase approach that would pair a bond question with a debt‑service levy transfer. Staff summarized earlier Piper Sandler modeling indicating that, under the assumptions shown to the board, a levy transfer could free an estimated $264,000 for operating purposes while preserving bonding capacity. No final decisions were made; staff said the next steps are to validate line‑item budgets, refine scope, and return to the board in December with final recommendations and possible ballot-timing choices (Piper Sandler’s scenario targeted April 2027 for a bond question).

Site-level issues called out during public questions included the Holland (Central) campus pavement and circulation. Staff acknowledged the site subgrade and paving are deteriorated and said comprehensive remediation is on the project list; they cautioned that interim fixes could be duplicated if a future bond funds full reconstruction, so timing matters.

Interim Superintendent Mark Lane summarized the district’s stewardship responsibilities: "we have about 2,900,000 square feet of property as as part of the comp part of the district," and the board discussed using phased capital planning and frequent re-evaluation to avoid large deferred-maintenance backlogs.

What’s next: consultants will take feedback, make a final pass on budget estimates for the learning-environment items, and present a recommended phase 1 package and implementation timeline in December. If the board chooses a bond path, staff and advisers outlined a likely schedule that would place a no‑tax‑increase bond question and a debt‑service levy transfer on an April 2027 ballot with phase 1 implementation through about 2032.