Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Bond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District 11 previews $750 million bond plan ahead of November 2026 ballot
Summary
Colorado Springs School District 11 staff outlined a proposed $750 million bond that would rebuild key secondary schools, address HVAC needs and allocate baseline funds to every school; staff outlined three financing options, a community engagement plan with school-based bond liaisons, and a tentative ballot timeline.
Superintendent Gaul and district staff on the board’s work-session agenda presented a framework for a proposed $750,000,000 bond to be considered for the November 2026 ballot, describing it as “a hallmark opportunity for this board and our community to finally come together,” and urging trustees to help shape community engagement ahead of any formal vote.
Staff said the bond package would prioritize large district-level projects and leave roughly $275,000,000 for baseline investments that every school would receive. They identified high-priority rebuilds for Palmer High School and Holmes Middle School and said the district would address HVAC needs systemwide, citing an estimated $75,000,000 for HVAC projects. Staff also showed renderings of possible projects and an interactive online planning tool designed to let school leaders and bond liaisons view facility-condition scores, projected costs and potential allocations for their schools.
District presenters said the portfolio is large because the system has not had a recapitalization in two decades and that facility-condition indices and educational-adequacy measures place many buildings in the fair-to-poor range. “We only have 5 schools in the entire portfolio in the good category,” a staff presenter said, arguing that delay increases cost and risk.
On financing, staff described three structure options: a level 25-year tranche approach split across three tranches (proposed issuance in 2027, 2029 and 2031), an all-upfront 25-year issuance and a longer-term (30-year) option that would lower monthly impact. Staff presented an illustrative tax-impact calculation of about $4.50 per $100,000 of assessed value under one scenario and compared that to recent, smaller local bond measures in nearby jurisdictions.
Staff emphasized that the next steps are project selection, expanded polling and a community engagement campaign led by trained school-based bond liaisons. They said the board would approve ballot language only after project selection and polling, at which point district communications would be required by law to be limited to factual pro/con information.
Trustees asked about equity, household tax burden and how the district would show a measurable return on investment to community members who do not have students in the schools. Staff pointed to recent investments — including self-funded work at Palmer — as demonstrations of stewardship and said the district would extend the engagement timeline to build broader support.
The board did not take a vote on the bond at the meeting; staff said they will return with refined project selections, polling results and a draft ballot resolution for the board’s consideration.
