Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming City officials outline multi‑phase plan and proposed bond levy to rebuild three elementary schools
Summary
District presenters described a master plan to replace Elm, Vermont and Hilltop elementary schools with new K–4 buildings, a two‑phase construction schedule using temporary modular classrooms, demolition and abatement estimates, and a property‑tax bond levy with estimated homeowner impacts.
Get email alerts on the School Facilities Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wyoming City school officials presented a multi‑phase master plan to replace three aging elementary schools and outlined a proposed property‑tax bond levy to pay for construction and demolition.
The presenter (speaker 2) told the meeting the district plans three new K–4 buildings — roughly 200 students each at Helen and Vermont and a larger Hilltop facility the presenter characterized as about 350 students — and said the designs shown were conceptual and to scale. He said current facilities suffer from multiple functional problems: undersized student dining rooms and gyms, kitchens the presenter described as “way too small,” limited storage and small or remote administrative spaces. He also noted special‑education rooms and small group learning spaces are insufficient and that teachers and students are sometimes working in hallways.
“These projects can be stressful for parents, and I think this community now has lived through this, and seen that it is possible to have temporary school experience,” the presenter said, describing plans to site modular temporary classrooms on school‑controlled properties such as the high school and the middle school to host students during construction.
The presenter gave several cost and footprint figures. He said about 74,000 square feet would require abatement and demolition at an average of $50 per square foot, which he summarized as “about 1,100,000.0 in abatements and demos.” The transcript also records the presenter mentioning an additional figure of $6,500,000 but does not include completed context for that amount in the provided record.
Staff member (speaker 3) explained how the district would finance the project: by selling bonds backed by a property‑tax levy. He described how assessed valuation and millage interact (an example using $100,000 market value and assessed ratios) and reviewed prior bond history: a March 2012 middle‑school bond of approximately $25,000,000 that was voted at 4.79 mills and is currently collecting about 2.64 mills; and a May 1998 bond of about $24,000,000 that was approved by 60% of voters and voted at 8.2 mills, with current collections around 3.36 mills. He said those collections are expected to roll off when final debt payments are made (the staff member cited the final payment in December 2024).
Using the district’s example, the staff member said the new bond ask would require ballot language of 7.98 mills even though the net added cost to homeowners could be lower once older levies expire. He summarized an illustrative net homeowner impact as roughly $161.61 per $100,000 of market value after accounting for rolling‑off debt, and cited a net cost figure of about 4.62 mills for the new debt as presented.
The presentation included schematic site footprints (the presenter pointed to a dashed outline of the Elm footprint as a place to consider pulling back from neighbors) and an administrative area estimate of about 22,364 square feet for office/reception spaces on the proposed plans. The presenter said modular units, playground replacement, furniture, contingencies and soft costs are included in the process budget.
No formal vote or final action appears in the provided transcript. The session recorded an informational presentation and financing discussion; next procedural steps (a formal bond resolution, ballot scheduling or public hearing dates) were not included in the excerpt provided.

