Riverview School Board hears debate over $10 million bond, balancing building plans with staffing and taxes

Riverview School District officials on Monday laid out a proposed capital plan funded in part by a $10,000,000 bond while also presenting the administration’s proposed 2026–27 general fund budget and listening to more than two hours of public comment.

The board president opened the meeting by reminding the audience that the final budget vote is scheduled for June 8 and that the evening would include a presentation from the district’s bond advisor and a finance director budget review.

Alicia Henry, an investment banker with PNC Capital Markets, told the board the district’s outstanding principal was $18,825,000 and explained how a tax‑exempt general obligation bond would work. Using a wraparound amortization in her pro forma, Henry showed a structure that would keep near‑term debt service relatively flat while extending some principal into the 2040s; she said she buffered modeled interest rates by 50 basis points because of recent market volatility and geopolitical events. “If you issue $10,000,000 or less in a calendar year, you get advantageous refunding features,” Henry said.

Sheila Lewbert, the district’s director of finance and operations, presented the proposed final general fund budget and the millage scenarios the board has discussed. Lewbert said the board‑approved portion of the millage increase is 0.3294 mills and that applying the full example Act 1 index of 0.8925 mills would raise the district’s general fund to roughly $30.0 million. She translated those increases into homeowner impacts under several assessed‑value examples (for the already approved portion: roughly $49.41 at $150,000 assessed value up to $115.29 at $350,000; the full 0.8925 example would raise those figures). Lewbert included assumptions such as an illustrative $9,000,000 assessed value increase in her projections and noted estimated savings from retirements used in multi‑year planning.

Board members pressed administrators and the bond advisor on leverage ratios, contingency budgeting and alternatives to borrowing. Several trustees asked for clearer line‑item forecasting and sensitivity analyses on major cost drivers such as transportation contracts, benefits and construction inflation. Administrators said the district has roughly $5 million in capital reserves and could apply $2–3 million of district funds toward the project while pursuing grants and other alternatives, but they cautioned that sizeable grant funding for a project of this size is uncertain.

The public comment periods drew both opposition and support. Several residents and board members urged caution, saying the district should prioritize hiring teachers, counselors and other staff before taking on more long‑term debt. “Buildings don’t teach kids,” Stephanie Garbe told the board, urging the board to delay a bond and to hold a town hall or a referendum. Parents and students countered that current instructional and support spaces are inadequate for programs like choir and band; sophomore Sophia Leisure said the choir serves more than 110 students in a space that was not designed for that size of program and called the renovation a way to better align space and curriculum.

Other commenters framed the project as an investment in the community that can raise property values and expand program opportunities; supporters also suggested pursuing naming rights, sponsorships and philanthropic campaigns to offset borrowing. Several speakers asked the board to pare the design (for example, reduce the amount of glazing on an entrance) and to explore phased options that would lower immediate borrowing needs.

On administrative business, Lewbert read a slate of motions to be considered at the next voting meeting, including adoption of the 2026–27 final budget, capital improvement payments and contract authorizations. One line item noted in the packet was a $70,191.26 payment for professional services to Draw Collective related to designs and bidding; board members requested more detailed invoices and clearer descriptions of consultant work for public record.

What happens next: the board has placed the 2026–27 final budget and related items on the agenda for a vote on June 8. No formal vote on the bond or the budget was recorded in the meeting transcript; board members asked administrators to provide additional scenario analyses, clearer contract descriptions and further public outreach before taking final action.

(Reporting note: Quotes and financial figures above are drawn from presentations and public comments recorded in the meeting transcript and as stated by the presenters.)