District consultants present four facility scenarios, estimate $13M–$53M in projects; bond timing discussed

Consultants and district staff presented four options for reorganizing school facilities and addressing deferred building repairs on July 23, saying the choices hinge on priorities for student learning, program space and long‑term operational efficiency. Maria, a presenter who said she represented the project team, told the board the group had visited buildings, met with building leadership teams and developed scenarios meant to start community discussion rather than pick a final plan.

The review team tied its work to three concerns raised at recent town halls: the student learning environment (especially grade configuration), program and CTE space shortages, and staffing and operational efficiency. The presenters recommended further community engagement and a steering committee to refine which scenario to develop into detailed plans and budgets.

The most costly option, a one‑campus model that would consolidate students primarily at the high‑school site, was estimated at about $44 million to $53 million and would include a separate pre‑K–6 building near the annex; presenters cautioned that additional land, bus‑loop rework and water‑district approvals could affect feasibility. Two‑campus and three‑campus options were priced lower (roughly $24 million–$30 million and $13 million–$18 million, respectively), while a fourth option focused on reorganizing existing space and investing in targeted capital improvements rather than major new construction.

Presenters flagged specific facility problems that any plan would need to address: exterior facade repairs, asbestos and moisture remediation, electrical and fire‑alarm upgrades already underway, and high‑school program limitations. "The wood shop is in the basement," a presenter said, "their dust collection system is not adequate, and they just don't have any room to work," citing ventilation and safety constraints for CTE programs. The superintendent emphasized the district's priority: "Student learning is always at the forefront of my mind with all of this," and said reconfiguration choices should be driven by that standard.

Board members asked about practical siting questions—where pre‑K playgrounds would be placed, how consolidations would affect parking on game nights, and whether additional land around the high school might be acquired for parking or additions. Presenters said layouts and bus loops could be adjusted and that they would evaluate capacity and infrastructure constraints, including water‑district approvals and enrollment projections.

On financing, the team said the next meeting will include a finance presentation; they outlined two near‑term bond‑timing options. If the board narrows a preferred configuration soon, a special bond election could be run in late August or early September. If more time is needed to refine plans and financial analyses, the district could instead aim for the November general election. Presenters warned that design, bidding and construction take time: even after a successful bond, full implementation would require phased design and construction and likely would not be complete for multiple years.

Presenters recommended forming a representative steering committee that includes members from each town, parents, grandparents and non‑parent residents to test concepts and build community buy‑in. They said such a committee often becomes the nucleus of a bond‑support campaign if the board decides to pursue voter approval. The meeting concluded with presenters offering to return with more detailed cost and tax‑impact analyses once the board narrowed which scenario(s) it favored. The board did not take a vote at the meeting and no formal action was recorded.

Next steps outlined by presenters: form a steering committee for community feedback, schedule a finance briefing (Clayton) next month, and develop more detailed cost, phasing and tax‑impact analyses for the scenarios the board prioritizes.