Board questions long‑term implications of Bethany Charter’s proposed gym on district land

Board members discussed a draft contract for Bethany Charter School that included provisions for proposed construction on district‑controlled property. A board member raised concern that the charter might invest about $1 million to build a gym on property the district (or county) technically owns, asking whether the district had discussed a sale or deed provisions to protect district interests.

"My concern was that they're gonna throw down a million dollars to build a gym on our property, which is an asset we have on our books," said a committee member (S4), pointing to the possible optics and legal consequences if the district later sold the property. Superintendent Kim Lisonbee explained the site is county property and zoned agricultural, which affects valuation and options; she said she would follow up with the charter about purchase interest and that the draft contract will return in June as an action item. Board members proposed options including deed language with reversion clauses if the charter failed to meet agreed metrics, or asking the charter to buy the property outright.

Why it matters: When a charter school builds substantial permanent infrastructure on property controlled by the district—especially when that property is county‑owned—questions of long‑term stewardship, public asset value, and community perception arise. The board asked for clearer long‑range plans (site footprint, timeline, and usage agreements) before consenting to construction in later contract action.