Superintendent outlines $75 million school referendum; council votes to back proposal

Rich, the district superintendent, presented the school district’s proposed capital plan at a council meeting and asked the council to adopt a resolution supporting placement of the referendum on the ballot.

The superintendent said the district studied several options — from targeted upgrades of existing buildings (estimated at about $30 million) to partial replacement and a full replacement plan (estimates ranged in the presentation from about $34–36 million up to roughly $75 million). He said the preferred proposal would be phased over roughly two to three years and include a new middle/high school, a new elementary, a common cafeteria, upgrades to existing facilities and a new CTE (career and technical education) wing.

Why it matters: the superintendent told the council a state program will cover roughly 53% of the total project cost (he described that as about $40 million), reducing the local share. He delivered examples of tax impacts: he said a typical $150,000 home would see an increase of about $18 per month under the proposal; he also used his parcel as an example, saying his $281,300 property would see an annual impact he cited in the presentation (the superintendent provided the figure during his demonstration). He noted households on fixed incomes might qualify for refunds under homestead provisions and encouraged voters to research the district’s referendum website for parcel‑specific tax calculators.

During the presentation, the superintendent emphasized safety and accessibility shortcomings in older buildings, citing failing fire alarms, outdated secure entrances and classrooms that do not meet current instructional‑space guidelines. He described phasing in new construction so students can continue to be educated on site during work and said construction timing was a factor in the district’s choice of an August 12 election date: waiting to November could delay construction start and increase overall cost.

Council action: a council member moved and another seconded a resolution expressing the council’s support for the referendum. The council voted to adopt the resolution; one member voiced opposition. Detailed roll‑call tallies were not specified in the meeting transcript.

What’s next: the superintendent urged residents to vote early or by Aug. 12 and to consult the district’s referendum website for more detail. The superintendent said staff will continue outreach and return with additional information as needed.