Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Facilities Investment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

St Charles CUSD 303 board reviews $295.6M facilities package, asks administration for prioritized plan before August ballot decision

St Charles CUSD 303 Board of Education · May 12, 2026
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 St Charles CUSD 303 board on May 11 reviewed a facilities investment package totaling about $295.6 million — including roughly $136.6 million in deferred maintenance — and instructed administration to return with a prioritized criticality list, clearer cost confidence and funding scenarios ahead of an August decision on whether to place a referendum on the ballot.

At its May 11 meeting, the St Charles CUSD 303 board heard a detailed presentation on a proposed facilities investment package that administration said totals approximately $295,600,000 and touches projects across 21 district buildings.

Amanda, the district’s facilities lead, told the board that about $136,600,000 of that total is for deferred maintenance and facility renewal — items intended to preserve existing infrastructure rather than add new space. "This is money that would be allocated towards taking care of our existing infrastructure," Amanda said, explaining that the package mixes roof replacements, mechanical and electrical system upgrades, safety and intercom systems, parking and accessibility projects.

Board members immediately pressed for more granular information. "We need to understand what our projections are from a finance standpoint," the chair said, urging administration to marry the facilities spreadsheet with long‑term operating projections. Several members asked for a rank‑ordered criticality list so the board and the public can see which projects are essential now and which could be staged or deferred.

Amanda described prioritization methods the district is using, including facility assessments, work‑order history and infrared roof scanning, and said the current project estimates come from construction partners and are conceptual. "These costs are still rounded estimates," she said, noting that design and engineering work has not yet been funded for the package as a whole.

Members repeatedly asked about confidence ranges for the price estimates; one member suggested aiming to be in the "85–94%" confidence range for the numbers the board relies on. Amanda said the district will return with additional detail, including a criticality ranking for each project and more precise school‑level estimates.

Key elements in the presentation included large categories of need: roofing (about 1.9 million square feet district‑wide), mechanical/electrical and building automation (boilers, chillers and controls with some parts no longer available), safety and communication systems (intercoms, clocks and fire alarm panels), parking and site improvements, bathroom and interior renovations, and athletics and playground work including pool equipment and field turf maintenance.

Board members also discussed the public communications timeline. Amanda announced a district survey for D303 residents that will be mailed and posted online; administration will present survey results to the Business Services committee on June 22. That public input will inform the board as it approaches an August meeting the administration identified as the milestone date to decide whether to place a referendum on the ballot.

A resident during public comment, Diana Soltis, urged the board to "scrape through the referendum items just like they've been scraping through the budget," saying many residents she spoke with oppose a large referendum unless line items are justified. The board echoed the call for transparent, itemized priorities and asked administration to prepare materials that will be clear for public review.

Next steps: administration will return with a prioritized criticality list for each project category, more school‑level cost detail where available, and explanations of potential funding paths and operating impacts. The board may consider additional presentations in June and July before the August decision date.