Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds And Capital topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Trustees approves GO bond authorization, keeps central office addition after amendment fails
Summary
On June 24 the Board of Trustees approved a general-obligation bond authorization and building fund budget while rejecting an amendment to remove the district office addition from the FY26 list of projects; trustees debated cost volatility, tariffs and whether to pause the DO addition.
The Board of Trustees on June 24 voted to proceed with the administration’s FY26 general-obligation (GO) bond authorization and building fund budget, rejecting an amendment to remove the planned central office addition from the list of projects.
Trustee Scott Cochran moved to amend the recommended bond package by removing the central office (district office) addition; Trustee Doolin seconded. The roll-call on the amendment recorded one yes, ten no and one abstention, and the amendment failed. The board then returned to the original motion to authorize the bond package as recommended; the motion carried.
Superintendent Dr. Royster told trustees the bond money pays for long-range capital projects, debt service and that the district’s plan is structured to stay within the current debt-service millage (48.5 mills). He said administration recommends selling GO bonds in the fall to fund projects and that the board’s approval allows staff to proceed with planning and sale preparations.
Trustees spent significant time debating cost volatility in the construction market and the effect of potential tariffs. Dr. Royster said the district is seeing higher construction prices across the Upstate and emphasized that delaying projects can increase total costs: “If you push something out, you’re going to pay more for it,” he said. Trustee Cochran had argued that the district’s recently tallied increase across several projects totaled about $17.2 million and proposed removing the DO addition to reduce near-term pressure.
The record includes two different figures cited in the meeting about the bond program’s size. Dr. Royster described the authorization as “not to exceed $215,000,000” to fund debt service and capital needs. Later in the discussion a finance staff member stated that the planned bond sale is $228,000,000; administration explained the final sale amount will be set in the weeks before the sale depending on the market and cash-flow needs.
Board members who supported keeping the DO addition noted the building’s age and the district’s need for additional workspace and meeting areas, while those favoring the amendment said pausing a discretionary addition could reduce immediate borrowing. The chair called the original motion after the amended motion failed and the administration’s recommended bond authorization and building fund budget were approved.
Next steps: staff will finalize the bond-sale timing and amounts in the weeks leading up to the sale and return to the board with any required implementation details.
