District hears NexSys facilities study and approves community survey to test referendum support
Loading...
Summary
Consultants presented schematic designs and a mailed household survey that tests tax tolerance for capital projects and an operational levy; survey closes in March and results will be delivered to the board in April.
Consultants hired to study the East Grand Forks Public School District outlined a multi-year facilities plan and a community survey the board will mail to every residential household to test priorities and tax tolerance.
The consultant said the eight-page packet will include a letter from the board and superintendent, project descriptions for HVAC and plumbing, safety and security, exterior repairs, a new bus garage, special education and career/technical education upgrades, and tax-impact tables. "This is what everybody will see," the presentation lead said while walking trustees through the mailed survey sample. The vendor will provide the survey in Spanish and Somali and will issue unique codes so respondents cannot file duplicate returns.
Why it matters: the survey will inform whether the district moves toward a bond referendum and whether it should ask for an operational levy. The consultant said the district is one of the few in the state without an operational levy and proposed testing roughly $500,000 in additional levy revenue (about $250 per pupil) to gauge support. "If the community says they'll support $20 million and we go for $70, it's probably not going to work," the consultant said, describing how the study will help the board set realistic ask levels.
Details presented included schematic-design options for high school tech-ed additions, secure main entrances for the middle and elementary schools, a dedicated early-childhood option, and a new or rebuilt bus garage. Hans Noel, the technical lead, summarized building system needs: "Air handling units and rooftop units need to be replaced; some low-voltage and fire-alarm systems are 20-plus years old," he said, noting many items are at an age when planned replacement is more cost-effective than emergency fixes.
The consultants also reviewed funding alternatives beyond a referendum, including the abatement levy and health-and-safety grants, and said their spreadsheets include contingency and inflation for projects likely to start in a year or more. They described a public engagement timeline that includes a facility task force meeting in early March and presentation of survey results to the board in April.
The board took no formal action on the plan itself. Next steps: the vendor will print and mail the packet (expected first week of March), the survey will close in late March, and the consultants will present compiled results and recommendations to the board in April. Any decision to seek a referendum would be a separate board action after those steps.
