Bethany board hears STEM-building estimate, wide-ranging athletic upgrades and bond timing

Consultants from Detroit D. Rhodes and Company and the district’s financial adviser presented cost estimates and financing options for a proposed STEM building and a menu of athletic facility projects at the board’s December meeting. "Tonight is gonna be primarily about numbers," the consultant said, walking members through hard-construction, owner and contingency estimates.

The consultant summarized the STEM building estimate as approximately $1.67 million in hard construction, about $200,000 in soft costs and roughly $300,000 in additional owner costs, yielding a combined placeholder near $2,220,000. For athletics, the consultant presented a set of project-specific low/high ranges — examples included renovation/expansion for football locker rooms ($7.36M–$8.88M), a press box/concessions package ($3.17M–$3.65M) and a larger softball facility replacement (about $1.0M–$1.2M). The presenter said these figures include contingency allowances and that per-year escalation is commonly modeled at about 6 percent.

The board’s financial presenter outlined options for bond financing and the timetable to place a question on a ballot. The adviser said the district’s earlier strategy of accelerating bond series has kept the district near a target millage of about 41.97 mills (current reported level ~41.5) and warned that, "If we don't accelerate something... it's gonna drop down to 27." He noted the practical schedule constraints: the board would need to act in time for filing deadlines (Jan. 30 mentioned for a March filing) and cited April 1 as an election date referenced for a June bond sale if the board voted in April. The adviser also displayed scenarios showing how different bond series and term lengths affect near-term levy rates and the district’s ability to issue larger bonds in future years.

Board members and staff pressed on sequencing and prioritization. The consultant emphasized that bundling multiple projects could reduce overhead and general-condition costs, while delaying projects exposes them to compounded escalation. Staff noted the STEM building is relatively well defined compared with the athletics menu and that the board can treat the STEM project independently if it chooses to isolate bond funding.

The board did not make a final decision on a bond question at the meeting but was told it can act at an upcoming regular meeting (Jan. 14) or call a special meeting before the filing deadline. Next steps identified were: refine scope and estimates, confirm survey and site details for athletic work, decide which projects to include in any bond or financing package, and confirm a ballot timetable if the board opts for election financing.