Superintendent Marty summarized a proposed two-question bond the district plans to put before voters this spring, saying the package focuses first on core facility needs — safety, roofs, HVAC, parking and career and technical education expansion — and second on extracurricular facility improvements such as turf. "Preserving our past, building our future," Marty said, framing deferred maintenance as the bond's core purpose.

The presentation cited work done by an architect and a district facilities assessment, a randomized phone survey of 300 residents (±5%), and financial modeling with Raymond James. The board was told there are two ballot questions: if both pass, the total would be $35,000,000. Marty gave an illustrative tax impact: an estimated 0.746 mills increase that would cost about $34.32 per year on a $400,000 home (about $2.86 per month) if both questions pass.

Board members pressed staff on alternatives, timing and what would be cut if the bond failed. Marty warned that the district's annual operating budget—where roughly 85% goes to personnel—cannot absorb large capital replacements. "If you were gonna make payments out of Capital Outlay...that's Capital Outlay money that's not available for other things," he said, explaining that paying $6 million out of operations would likely require reductions in staffing, student supports and CTE expansion.

As part of the financial review, staff presented an ESCO (energy savings contract) as a narrower option focused on roofs and LED lighting. Under an ESCO scenario covering $8.3 million at a sample 5% interest rate, the district could face annual payments that would still require finding nearly $950,000 per year from existing operational funds after projected energy savings — a trade-off board members said would strain the budget and leave other capital needs unmet.

The superintendent pledged outreach and transparency: building-by-building breakdowns, public presentations at school sites and evening meetings for community groups. He noted state aid on new bonds is estimated at 3% under current law and that existing bonds would remain separate from any new borrowing. The board did not vote on the bond at this meeting; members asked for additional data and schedules for public meetings before materials are finalized.