Blue Valley board weighs scaled bond package, 3-mill scenario and priorities for asset preservation
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Board members debated a scaled bond package and a possible 3-mill increase to restore capital investments, with trustees and advisory groups urging prioritization of asset preservation while noting public sellability concerns.
The Blue Valley Board of Education discussed scaled bond options and a possible 3-mill increase to fund capital projects, with trustees pressing staff on how reductions would change what gets done.
At the start of the meeting, a board member asked what would be cut moving from a $50,000 funding request to $25,000 and how the district would prioritize “pavement, mechanical, [and] electrical” repairs if the bond package is reduced. A staff presenter described Option 1 as roughly $12,000,000 (versus smaller alternatives) and said some programs would not be implemented under lower funding scenarios.
Trustee discussion highlighted two competing priorities: maintaining asset preservation for aging facilities and protecting programmatic investments such as career and technical education (CTE). “They do not want to lose that, and they said that that’s important for our students,” a board member said of the advisory group’s input on caps and CTE.
A staff member framed the potential 3-mill increase as a response to falling assessed valuation in recent years: raising mills would largely restore revenue the district has lost and would put the district “up where we would have been anyway,” the presenter said. Several trustees noted that, while advisory-group members largely supported the full recommended package, they doubted a districtwide ballot measure would pass without substantial community education. “There’s a lot of education to do,” one trustee said, urging an outreach effort to explain trade-offs to voters.
Board members discussed bond timing as well: staff described a three-year bond cycle for facilities planning as a way to keep pace with changing technology and shifting needs, rather than longer six- or seven-year cycles used historically.
The board did not take a vote on a bond measure at the meeting. Trustees asked staff to return with clearer prioritization guidance and outreach plans so the board can decide whether to pursue the full package or a reduced plan.