Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum Fieldhouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Caldwell-West board over $15.4M Fieldhouse referendum, citing ADA, Title IX and tax concerns
Summary
At the Oct. 21 board meeting, several residents urged replacement of a 1943 Fieldhouse for safety and equity while others criticized the $15.4M two-story design and potential tax impact; the board defended the split referendum structure and said the architect will return Nov. 4 with detailed drawings.
At a public conference meeting on Oct. 21 at James Caldwell High School, Caldwell-West residents used the board’s open-comment period to debate a proposed $15.4 million Fieldhouse project that would appear as Question 2 on a future referendum ballot.
Resident Journey Spelli told the board the current Fieldhouse, constructed in 1943, creates health and safety risks for student-athletes, particularly female students and those with medical needs. "The current Fieldhouse constructed in 1943 presents serious health concerns…inadequate ventilation, mold growth, insufficient space for proper training," Spelli said, and added that a new facility would provide sanitary, private space for female athletes and students who need medical care during events.
Other speakers echoed concerns about equity and access. Sandra Kramer described the existing facility as “nothing to offer” students with disabilities or female athletes and urged voters to visit the building before the March 11 vote. Kramer also cited the example of a prior bond a decade ago that provided air conditioning and turf improvements as precedent for long-term payoff.
By contrast, resident Sharon Moodus said she agrees that the Fieldhouse needs replacement for ADA compliance but questioned the necessity of a two-story, $15.4 million design and worried about broader capital needs at aging elementary and middle schools. "As much as I would really like to support the building of the Fieldhouse, I do not believe we need a two-story Fieldhouse," Moodus said, adding she was concerned about prioritization and the per-household tax estimate.
Board leaders responded with design and finance context. The presiding officer said the referendum was split into two questions: Question 1 covers critical infrastructure and safety items that the board says will produce no tax impact, and Question 2 addresses the Fieldhouse. The board said it plans to apply $2 million of capital reserves to the Fieldhouse to lower its net cost to taxpayers and that the per-household estimate uses an average assessed home value of $450,000. "We split the question because the infrastructure issues the district cannot afford in its operating budget are in Question 1 at no tax impact," the board speaker said.
Attendees also flagged inconsistencies in plan details. The architect (Greg) had previously said one locker-count figure; the board corrected that the design calls for 60 lockers for boys and 60 for girls, not 80 as earlier reported. The board invited residents to a Nov. 4 session where the architect will present detailed drawings and answer questions.
Questions at the meeting probed capital-reserve accounting and borrowing mechanics: board staff said the district expects a roughly $10 million capital reserve balance next June, plans to allocate about $3.3 million to Question 1 and about $2 million to subsidize the Fieldhouse, and that final debt-service aid figures from the state Department of Education are pending. Board staff emphasized that capital reserves are restricted for capital projects and cannot be used for operating expenses.
No vote was taken on the Fieldhouse at the Oct. 21 meeting. The board scheduled an architect presentation for Nov. 4 and reiterated that the public vote is expected March 11; residents were urged to consult district-provided materials before voting.
A motion to adjourn the public meeting and return to executive session was made and seconded at 8:11 p.m., and the board proceeded to executive session.
