A central topic was the proposed fieldhouse, which emerged as a point of contention among residents. Journey Spelli, a local resident, advocated for its construction, emphasizing the importance of a modern and safe facility for athletes, particularly female athletes. Spelli cited the current Fieldhouse, built in 1943, as inadequate due to poor ventilation and limited training space. She argued that investing in the facility was essential for attracting families to the area, stressing that it was not just about sports but about future community development. Her argument was grounded in personal experience, as she mentioned her daughter’s need for a safe environment to manage her medical needs during sports events.

Conversely, Sharon Tumoudus expressed skepticism about the financial aspects, questioning the necessity of a two-story structure and the $15.4 million price tag. She pointed out that existing school facilities were overcrowded and underfunded. Tumoudus highlighted the district’s financial reserves, questioning why tax increases were necessary when surplus funds existed.

The discussion around tax implications was addressed by board members who clarified the financial impact on residents. The board emphasized that the proposed infrastructure improvements in question one of the referendum would have “no tax impact,” focusing on urgent needs like safety and security upgrades at schools. The decision to separate the projects into two referendum questions aimed to provide voters with a choice, with the second question focusing on the fieldhouse.

Financial strategies were a part of the conversation, with the board outlining plans to utilize a $10 million capital reserve to minimize tax impacts. A board member explained that issuing bonds and allocating reserves would help offset costs, keeping taxpayer contributions low despite the project’s scale. The board also clarified that surplus funds were subject to regulations and couldn’t be easily transferred back into the operating budget, highlighting the complexities of school district finance.

The meeting also included presentations on student performance and multilingual learner assessments. These achievements were part of the board’s focus on strategic goals and academic performance, framing ongoing discussions about educational priorities.

Public comments continued to reflect the community’s division regarding the referendum, with residents like Sandra Kramer supporting the fieldhouse proposal while acknowledging the need for infrastructure improvements for future generations. In contrast, others questioned the scale and necessity of the proposed facilities, urging a focus on educational needs.

As the meeting concluded, a call for accurate information dissemination was made, with a reminder of an upcoming meeting on November 4th, where an architect would provide further details on the projects. The board stressed the importance of informed voting, urging residents to rely on official sources for information rather than social media.