Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members weigh saving money by exiting gymnastics lease, selling office or farming/selling 15 acres
Summary
Board discussed potential cost savings tied to the gymnastics center lease (about $50,000 plus utilities), constraints on leasing the district office (purchased with bond funds) and an offer to buy 15 acres behind the high school; no votes were taken, and staff were asked to gather more information.
Get email alerts on the Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board members used the Jan. 6 meeting to review several facility and revenue options tied to budget pressures: the gymnastics center lease, the district office building, and 15 acres of farmland behind the high school.
Leadership said the district currently pays about $50,000 annually for the gymnastics center lease plus roughly $50,000 in utilities and upkeep. The lease can be terminated with six months’ notice; leadership raised alternatives including moving equipment into the community education center for the October–March season but noted that would limit other community uses (pickleball, youth basketball) and risks lost rental revenue.
On the district office, leadership explained the building was purchased in 2021 using bond proceeds for $650,000. Because it was acquired with bond funds, state statute prevents leasing it to generate revenue; selling the property would return proceeds to taxpayers rather than to the district general fund. Ongoing savings from selling the building were described as modest (roughly $8,500/year in utilities). Staff said moving records and securing special‑education files would be feasible but would displace current community‑use office space.
The board also discussed a post‑referendum offer for 15 acres behind the high school. Leadership said the land is farmed under a share agreement that produces about $5,000–$6,000 per year and that potential conservation programs were briefly considered but may be on hold. Leadership recommended either continuing the farming arrangement or soliciting realtor bids before deciding to sell; no sale decision was made.
Board members asked staff to gather additional revenue/expense comparisons (including rental revenue lost vs. lease costs) and to investigate conservation program eligibility and realtor options for the acreage. No formal votes were taken on facilities at the Jan. 6 meeting.

