District outlines $64 million bond with new pool and indoor athletic facility ahead of May 19 vote

The Springs Union Free School District on March 17 presented a proposed bond package totaling roughly $64 million that would replace retiring debt and fund building and site improvements across the district, including two ballot propositions for a community pool and an indoor athletic facility.

Sam (district business official) said Proposition 1 largely replaces expiring debt and is structured so the new borrowing would phase in as old debt retires, “so there will be virtually no impact on taxes.” He told the board the projects would be scheduled to minimize disruption — for example, auditorium asbestos abatement would be a summer project — and that detailed construction manuals and drawings will be required by the State Education Department.

Why it matters: If voters approve the propositions on May 19, the district would secure funding for multi‑year capital improvements that district leaders say will benefit students and the community (CTE opportunities for pool maintenance were cited) but will also incur recurring operating costs the district will need to budget for.

What the board presented: The package splits needs and wants; Proposition 1 contains core maintenance and building work. Proposition 2 was described as a competition‑sized, eight‑lane pool (presenters discussed community access and a CTE tie‑in); presenters said they originally estimated the pool at about $43.6 million and have updated the figure (presentation slides showed around $45 million, with a slide later listing $45.6 million). Proposition 3 would add an indoor athletic practice facility (a full‑size basketball court and an indoor turf practice field), shown in renderings at about $18.5 million.

Tax examples and operating costs: Presenters gave a worked example: for a home assessed at $6,000, Proposition 2 would add about $203 per year for 20 years and Proposition 3 about $82.53 per year for 20 years. The presenters noted those figures exclude pool operating costs; in the presentation a large annual operating‑cost figure was spoken that appears anomalous in the transcript and should be verified in the district’s posted documents.

Corrections and clarifications: Board member S2 explicitly corrected a local article’s reporting, saying, “None of the proposals included lights on the tennis court. We are not putting lights on the tennis courts,” clarifying that reported lighting was inaccurate. The board also emphasized that certain items are contingent: Prop 2 and Prop 3 can only pass if Proposition 1 is approved, and Prop 3 is contingent on Prop 2.

Next steps and formal actions: The board has agenda items to designate itself as lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and to adopt a negative declaration; it also voted to place the three propositions on the May 19 ballot (voting noon–8 p.m.; absentee-ballot instructions to be posted). Presenters said full plans and the detailed project descriptions will be posted on the district website.

What happens now: District documents and posted renderings will provide the detailed cost breakdowns and operating‑cost estimates; voters will decide on the propositions on May 19.