Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westmont administrators propose $68 million bond to replace two elementary schools; board sets June 30 public meeting
Summary
Administrators recommended a referendum asking voters to authorize up to $68 million in bonds to build a new K–5 school replacing JT Manning and CE Miller, citing consolidation savings and rising construction costs; the board agreed to hold a June 30 special meeting to record public comment and refine ballot language.
Administrators for Westmont Community Unit School District 201 urged the board June 16 to place a referendum on the ballot that would fund construction of a new K–5 school to replace JT Manning and CE Miller and would authorize bond issuance of up to $68 million. A district presentation said building a single new facility would create operational efficiencies and projected conservative annual savings of $600,000–$700,000.
“We think this is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen our school district and the community at the same time,” a district staff member said during the presentation, framing the request as a long‑term solution to aging elementary facilities. Administrators argued that delays have increased costs — noting an example that a new building estimated at $20 million in 2011 would cost much more today — and said they worked to lower the architects’ estimate from the low–to–mid‑$70 million range to $68 million.
The presentation included the district’s draft ballot language: “Shall the Board of Education of Westmont Community Unit School District 201, DuPage County, Illinois, build and equip a school building to replace the JT Manning and CE Miller elementary school buildings, acquire land, improve the site, including playgrounds and parking, and issue bonds to the amount of $68,000,000 for such purposes.” The administration said the district is exploring land acquisition options and reported that six of seven property owners the district has approached have offered tentative, amicable agreements.
Board members pressed administration on timing and public process. Several members expressed support for holding a special, recorded board meeting dedicated to public comment and discussion before any vote on ballot language. The board directed staff to work on public‑comment mechanics and outreach and tentatively scheduled a special meeting for June 30, 6:00–8:00 p.m., with location to be determined.
Board members discussed public‑comment limits for the June 30 meeting: a five‑minute default per speaker with the board president’s discretion to grant brief extensions, and an overall time cap to allow broad participation. The board also asked administration to provide printed packets, presentation slides on screen, and website materials, and discussed a targeted postcard mailer to publicize the meeting.
What happens next: administrators said they will return ballot language and supporting packet materials for board review in July and recommended a July vote to allow time for November referendum planning if the board approves placing the question on the ballot. The board has not yet voted on the referendum language; the June 30 meeting is intended to gather public comment and finalize board direction.
