Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmington staff outline $10.5M estimate for high-school roof; board asks for tax-impact scenarios
Summary
Facilities staff recommended a full replacement of the high-school roof estimated at about $10.5 million and described a funding approach combining immediate pay-go levies and later bonding (bond portion shown as about $8.85 million); board members requested detailed homeowner tax-impact examples from the district's financial advisor.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dan Miller, presenting the district's long-term facilities maintenance (LTFM) plan, told the board the high-school roof is nearing end of life and engineers recommend a full replacement. He said recent legislative changes allow districts to levy specifically for roofing projects as part of LTFM and outlined a financing approach that mixes pay-go levy collections and later bonding.
Miller said consultant estimates put the total project at about $10.5 million (an estimate that could change in 2–3 years). "We are estimating at about 10 and a half million dollars," Miller said, adding that the $8.85 million figure shown elsewhere on the presentation represented the bond portion and does not include the pay-go portion.
Board members pressed for concrete tax-impact examples (e.g., the previous referendum analysis that showed impacts on a $350,000 home) and asked how levy/debt fall-off affects net taxpayer burden. Miller said he did not have homeowner-impact figures in the work session packet but that the district's financial advisor (Ehlers) could prepare those numbers and a breakdown by payer type (homeowners, businesses, ag homesteads). The presentation also noted that some roofs across the district were already replaced in 2015 deferred-maintenance work, and that the high school is the primary major remaining roof-replacement need.
Board members discussed options including partial pay-go, bonding a portion later to reduce immediate tax impact, and potential use of proceeds from district land sales (if that sale occurs) or other funding sources; staff said additional details and tax-impact modeling would be provided before any formal board vote.
No formal action was taken at the work session; the board asked staff to return with detailed tax-impact models and a clear pay-go vs. bond recommendation.

