Board reviews three‑part capital proposal; facilities committee recommends high‑school field for Proposition 3
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Facilities committee recommended keeping Proposition 1 tax‑neutral at about $44.5M, presenting Proposition 2 (classroom additions, $21M, partly tax‑impacting) separately, and proposing a high‑school baseball/softball field as Proposition 3; board discussed tax‑impact messaging and next steps toward a March vote.
The board reviewed a three‑proposition capital project package that facilities committee members recommended to go before voters later this spring.
Committee chair Jim said Proposition 1 would remain at about $44.5 million and be structured to be tax neutral by using existing capital reserves and expected debt‑service relief. Proposition 2 — roughly $21 million and described as a classroom‑focused project that would be only partially tax neutral — would be kept separate to preserve clarity for voters. Proposition 3 would fund athletic improvements; the committee recommended building a high‑school baseball/softball field (one field in Prop 3) for reasons including program support, scheduling relief, and drainage advantages described by Buildings & Grounds Director Walter Moran and Athletic Director Jason Simo.
Committee members discussed whether to reallocate roughly $10 million of additional fiscal capacity into Proposition 1 or apply it to Proposition 2. They concluded there was no single project that fit cleanly into that gap without changing the character of Prop 2 (from a pure classroom proposition to a mixed‑use package). The facilities committee therefore recommended keeping the existing boundaries between propositions and refining voter messaging to show net tax impacts.
Board members discussed potential taxpayer impacts in concrete terms: the committee estimated roughly $5.25 per $1,000 of assessed value; using a $350,000 assessed home as an example, Prop 1+2 would be about $18 per month and all three propositions about $40 per month. Committee members cautioned that these were preliminary figures that could fall if additional state building aid is achieved.
The board did not take a formal vote on the propositions at the Feb. 9 meeting; staff said a formal board vote would be required by the second meeting in March to place the propositions on the ballot. The facilities committee will continue to refine cost breakdowns, messaging materials, and a homeowner impact calculator for public use.