Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Bond topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Superintendent proposes lease bond to fund HVAC and athletic upgrades while keeping tax rate neutral

Brown County School Corporation Board of School Trustees · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The superintendent recommended a two-part capital program — district HVAC upgrades (Van Buren Elementary and remaining high-school HVAC) and athletic facility improvements (turf, lighting, scoreboard, restrooms/locker rooms) — to be combined under a single lease bond intended to keep the school tax rate at about 57¢; cost ranges and remonstrance thresholds were discussed.

At the Feb. 3 board meeting, the superintendent laid out two capital project packages the district could fund under a single lease (building corporation) bond: district-wide capital projects focused on HVAC replacements (priority: Van Buren Elementary and outstanding high-school gym/science-wing HVAC) and a separate athletic-facility package including turf, upgraded lighting, a scoreboard and new restroom/concession and locker-room space.

The superintendent said using a 10-year lease bond to fund the two projects would keep the school tax rate roughly neutral at 57¢ because several older debt obligations roll off in 2025. "We are able to take out an additional, lease bond where we have 2 proposed projects for the board to consider that will keep our tax rate neutral at 57¢," he told the board.

Cost estimates presented in the meeting were ranges (reflecting contingencies and unknown conditions): the capital-project scope (Van Buren HVAC plus high-school science lab HVAC and gym/weight-room upgrades) was estimated roughly between $4.7 million and $5.7 million; the athletic package (turf, lighting, scoreboard, restroom/locker improvements, resurfacing or replacement of the track) was estimated in the $5.2 million to $6.0 million range. Turf-specific costs were given as roughly $1.9 million to $2.02 million; lighting upgrades were estimated at $300,000 to $375,000. The superintendent repeatedly noted ranges reflect contingencies and unknowns related to environmental constraints (floodplain) and site conditions.

On the turf field the administration described three engineering options: moving the field out of the floodplain (ruled out for cost), raising the field (estimated to add about $1 million), or keeping the field and using high-end drainage/absorption technology. The administration said engineers recommended using high-absorption turf systems if the field remains in place.

The superintendent also compared maintenance costs: annual upkeep for natural grass on their fields was estimated at $20,000–$24,000, while annual turf maintenance was estimated closer to $3,000–$5,000 in the first 8–10 years, with a replacement lifecycle cost later on (roughly 50% of initial installation cost at replacement).

Procedural steps and timing given during the meeting: Performance Services will present a final scope at the Feb. 18 meeting; the board could approve resolutions at the March 3 meeting to begin the bid process. The superintendent said the district would not sell bonds on projects it could not complete (if a regulatory issue arose); unsold bonds simply reduce the principal borrowed.

Board members and attendees raised questions about timeline, safety, community use for larger events (July 4), and the potential for upgrades to attract families. Administrators said additional items (baseball/softball turf) were intentionally deferred to avoid crossing the remonstrance threshold that would require a petition and referendum. If a project exceeds the county remonstrance threshold (discussed as about $6.6 million in the transcript), the district would face a petition process that can force a referendum.