Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Roof topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Officials warn Farmington High roof could cost $7M–$10M; district to consider LTFM levy or sale proceeds
Summary
Activities Director Miller told the board consultants flagged the Farmington High School roof as nearing end of life; preliminary estimates put construction alone above $7M and total project costs potentially near $10M. The board discussed using the LTFM levy (no referendum) or applying proceeds from a pending property sale to cover costs, with a likely multi‑summer project in 2028–29.
Activities Director Miller told the board inspections and consultant reports show the Farmington High School flat rubber roof is approaching end of life and that work already performed under the membrane revealed additional hidden damage. Miller said consultants estimate construction costs are already over $7,000,000 and that, depending on required code upgrades and insulation work, the total project could approach $10,000,000. "I'm just gonna say I'm hopeful that that is high," Miller said of the $10,000,000 figure, but cautioned the number could be substantial.
Miller described the roof type (ballasted flat rubber membrane), common end‑of‑life issues (shrinking membranes, failing fasteners and leaks), and the complexity of adding insulation or complying with newer codes. Because of the size and the fact that work would be disruptive to school operations, Miller said a full replacement would likely have to be phased across two summer seasons, with earliest work in summer 2028 and follow‑on in 2029.
The board discussed funding options. Miller and Finance Director Jane Huska said recent LTFM rule changes allow districts to include large capital projects in their LTFM plan and levy for the work without a bond referendum. Huska said levies are part of the regular tax levy process and could be structured to manage taxpayer impacts. Board members asked whether proceeds from a previously approved property sale (the Angus property) could be used instead; staff said if sale proceeds arrived they could offset levy needs, but timing and statutory rules around levies and adjustments would require further review.
Miller suggested the district plan to present LTFM options at the next finance committee and board work sessions and to narrow construction estimates with contractors before finalizing funding decisions. He said the district would follow standard public bidding statute for a project of this size, with a likely fall 2027 bid for phase 1 if the timeline holds.
The discussion produced no formal funding decision; board members asked staff to return with refined cost estimates and options for minimizing taxpayer burden if a levy becomes necessary.
