Lockport Twp HSD 205 hears public comment, weighs $15 million life-safety bond for Central Campus

The Lockport Township High School District 205 board held a public hearing Feb. 20 on a proposed $15,000,000 life‑safety bond to repair Central Campus, including roof replacement, shoring and tuckpointing of exterior masonry, window replacement and electrical work to be staged over the next two summers.

Superintendent Dr. McBride framed the hearing as part of a two‑track approach: address short‑term critical repairs while the district’s master facilities planning council continues a longer feasibility study. He told the board, “Tonight was just this conversation, listening to the public. March 17 is when you would actually vote on a resolution.”

During the hearing, candidate and community member Tammy Hayes urged caution about committing to long‑term investment in the historic Central building. “So tonight, you’re gonna be voting on this $15,000,000 life and safety. This is for Central Campus only,” she said, and warned the board against a sequence of bond issues that she said could amount to “$30,000,000” or more across campuses if additional projects proceed.

Treasury and finance staff presented a five‑year financial forecast modeling a bond sale in April and staged spending across three fiscal years (approximately $2 million this summer, $8 million next summer and $5 million in fiscal 2027). The presentation described placing bond proceeds into the fire prevention and safety fund and using existing fund balances to abate debt‑service levy so taxpayers would see no immediate increase in the levy rate if the board approves annual abatements as it has in 2023–24. As staff explained, “The assumption is that the bonds would be issued in April,” producing a temporary increase in cash balances and then staged spend‑down.

Board members pressed staff on assumptions and risks: cash reserves (the forecast keeps roughly nine to ten months of cash on hand), projected assessed‑value growth, the visibility of an abatement on a homeowner’s tax bill, and the contingency impact of construction‑material price volatility on estimates. Treasurer’s staff said the projection includes modest new property growth and modest CPI inflation assumptions and that abatement decisions are made annually as part of the tax‑levy process.

Several trustees argued short‑term safety and building‑stability work is necessary to avoid repeating last year’s operational disruptions. Supporters said staging the work across two summers and issuing one bonded amount reduces the risk of further market‑driven cost increases and enables the district to invest bond proceeds temporarily to offset debt service. Others urged continued scrutiny of the master facilities plan and community feedback before committing to final design choices.

Administration outlined next steps: bid packages are being prepared and initial bids are scheduled to be due March 11 for early packages, with the board asked to consider a parameters resolution at its March 17 meeting that would authorize the bond sale documents and retain bond counsel and a financial advisor. Dr. McBride and finance staff emphasized that no formal vote on bond issuance was taken at the Feb. 20 meeting.

What’s next: The board is expected to consider a parameters resolution on March 17 that would set the ceiling for an offering and authorize engagement of Chapman & Cutler (bond counsel) and PMA (financial advisor). If approved, the district would proceed to issue the bonds and begin the multi‑summer construction schedule described in the forecast.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this article come from public comments and board discussion recorded during the Feb. 20 meeting.