Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews November referendum plan: $2.1M recurring operational ask and $97.5M high‑school capital recommendation
Summary
The committee reviewed options for a November operational referendum to replace $2.1M in expiring funding with a four‑year recurring levy and a recommended capital package reduced to $97.5M through use of roughly $4.5M in clean‑energy rebates; the committee set an August timeline for updated financial plans and public outreach starting Aug. 11.
Committee members reviewed the district’s proposed operational and capital referendum strategy for the November ballot.
District staff said the administration recommends a four‑year operational referendum to replace expiring recurring funds (the $2.1M that falls off) and provide permanent funding for compensation and inflation adjustments. Staff described flexibility to levy less if state aid increases.
On capital planning, staff recapped prior options: an original high‑school estimate near $102.1M and a workshop‑favored option around $99.5M. After additional options and cost‑management steps, the administration recommended a $97.5M capital package. Staff said part of that reduction rests on using approximately $4.5M in IRS clean‑energy rebates from the middle‑school project, proposing allocations of roughly $1M for rooftop solar at the high school, $2M toward a geothermal system, and about $1.3M to moderate tax‑levy impacts. The committee was told that up to $4.4M would be set aside for athletic fields, with a needs assessment to prioritize specific projects.
Staff said the district will request an updated financial plan from PCMA based on any committee approvals and expects to bring the financial plan back in early August so the board can consider a resolution at the August regular meeting. Community outreach would begin Aug. 11.
Committee members emphasized clear public communications about why the district is asking for funds and suggested assembling slides showing cost‑savings and comparisons to peer districts for outreach. Staff agreed to return with a more detailed financial plan and a communications approach.
