Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines three-option referendum plan as board weighs $24 million capital ask
Summary
A Nexus consultant reviewed task-force findings and three referendum options for the East Grand Forks Board of Education, including a capital question near $24 million, an operating levy tied to a school-resource officer, and a preschool/fifth-grade renovation option; board members asked for more data before a future vote.
Rob, a consultant from Nexus, walked the East Grand Forks Board of Education through a task force's recommendation and three referendum options, saying the priorities identified by the community were safety and security, HVAC and special-education space. "Safety and security was item number 1," Rob said while reviewing survey rankings and tax-impact modeling.
Rob described option one as an operating question that would increase ongoing operating funding (the discussion referenced raising per-pupil operating support from an earlier $500 to $600 per year for the duration discussed). Option two would ask voters for capital funding aligned with the district's tax tolerance, not to exceed $24,000,000; Rob said staff and parent groups tested support at different levels but that the community tax tolerance modeled in the survey was roughly $221 per year on a $300,000 home. "We told them it was $24,000,000 but we said your tax tolerance is the $221 on an average home of $300,000 in this community," Rob said.
A third approach focused on preschool and a possible renovation to house fifth grade at the middle school. Rob said renovating an existing wing to move fifth grade could cost about $7.5 million, far less than a standalone preschool center estimated at about $14.2 million. He also noted the district could use LTFM funds for some preschool work without asking taxpayers, and that multiple options remain for how to package questions on the ballot.
Board members pressed for clarity on sequencing and contingency plans. One member asked whether the district could stagger questions so passage of one did not depend on another; Rob explained some configurations would require two or three yes votes, while other structures could separate capital and operating asks to improve chances of passage. Rob emphasized transparency in public messaging and recommended the board decide whether certain questions should be contingent on others.
No formal vote on the referendum occurred at the meeting. Board members set a deadline for follow-up questions and said they would continue discussions at the next meeting; Rob said he would share slides and materials with the board to support further review. The board noted a possible November ballot date, with the option to shift to April or August depending on timing and strategy.
