Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board leans toward larger bond option to replace aging middle‑school facilities
Summary
Board members discussed two bond scenarios — a larger option with SAVE and GEO capacity that could support roughly $60M in projects and a reduced option near $54M — and signaled consensus to pursue full‑program estimates and designs before selecting a ballot number.
Board discussion on May 19 focused on whether to put a scaled‑back or fuller campus project before voters after last year’s near‑miss. District staff presented two funding scenarios built from SAVE fund capacity and GEO bond capacity: a higher‑capacity option (Option A) that staff said could make available roughly $60.2 million in project funding (SAVE ~$19.7M; GEO ~$39.5M) and a reduced‑scope Option B with approximately $54.2 million available (GEO ~$34.5M).
Trustees examined tax‑levy illustrations and construction‑cost changes since the previous proposal: staff said a GEO levy example of $2.70 per $1,000 taxable valuation was a planning reference for the larger option while the smaller option produced lower levy examples (about $2.40–$2.50). Board members raised two durable themes: (1) construction costs have risen (staff cited a per‑square‑foot estimate moving from roughly $375 to $439), and (2) flexibility in design to allow future grade‑band changes is critical.
“ We were really close to getting to that 60%,” board member Christy Kessle said, urging renewed voter education about long‑term savings and the district’s needs. Several other trustees voiced support for the fuller program and stressed that cutting key shared spaces now could increase costs later.
Staff told the board they will return to FE/Carl A. Nelson with a programming sheet and more detailed cost projections to confirm whether the preferred program can be delivered within the available SAVE + GEO capacity. The board asked staff to prepare a ballot figure, petition materials and outreach plans once the firm cost and program documents are complete.
No bond authorization vote was taken at the meeting; the discussion produced direction to continue programming and community outreach toward a possible ballot measure this year.
