A topic at the meeting was the discussion on the potential refinancing of the general obligation school building bond series 2016A. The board considered the opportunity to refund approximately $55 million in bonds, initially issued for funding the construction of Horizon West and Dorothy Dods. Matt Hammer from Ellers Public Finance Advisors explained that the refinancing aimed to leverage lower interest rates to reduce the future tax burden on property owners. The district is approaching the call date for these bonds in February 2026, allowing for a tax-exempt current refunding to take place. Hammer compared this process to refinancing a home mortgage, with new bonds potentially issued at interest rates around 2.8%, compared to the existing 3% to 4%. He clarified that the savings could not be utilized for the district’s budget but would instead reduce future debt service levies. The projected savings of $700,000 would be reflected in future tax levies, benefiting taxpayers over time.

Board members inquired about the locked-in rates of the outstanding bonds and how the refinancing would directly benefit taxpayers. Hammer reiterated that any reductions would appear in future tax levies rather than immediate tax collection. The board approved a resolution stating their intention to issue the refunding bonds, with all members present voting in favor.

The meeting also highlighted the urgency surrounding the failed 2024 referendum and the upcoming levy election. Following the referendum’s failure, the district had already implemented $4 million in budget cuts. The board outlined that an additional $5 million in cuts could be necessary if the upcoming levy does not pass, affecting classroom resources and support services more than previous reductions. The board proposed two ballot questions for the fall: one addressing operating funds and another concerning capital projects, collectively generating approximately $5.887 million annually. The estimated monthly cost for taxpayers with a median home value of $250,000 would be about $23.74, commencing in 2026.

To ensure voters are well-informed, the board has engaged in a comprehensive communication campaign. This involves presentations, newsletters, social media outreach, and a video strategy. Since launching the campaign website on August 13, over 3,800 visits from 3,200 unique visitors have been recorded, with significant engagement across platforms. The board emphasized that state refund and credit programs, such as the homestead credit refund and the senior tax deferral program, are available to help offset potential tax increases.

A comprehensive safety and security audit that began in July is also underway, with findings expected by November or December. These results will guide improvements in facility security and emergency preparedness, potentially funded through the proposed levies.

The board discussed past budget cuts following the previous referendum’s failure, which included reducing instructional coaching positions, eliminating the Chinese language program, and cutting $100,000 from activities and athletics. If the levy fails, further cuts would likely impact instructional areas significantly, leading to larger class sizes and reduced support for special education and career programs. In total, about 44 positions across the district could be affected, impacting every school and student.

Transparency and effective communication with the community were emphasized as crucial elements in preparing for the levy vote. The board intends to clarify the consequences of a failed levy and maintain ongoing dialogue to ensure residents understand the stakes involved.

In addition to financial matters, the board addressed routine items, including the approval of the Indoor Air Quality Management Plan for the 2025-2026 school year and a nomination for the Lakes Country Service Cooperative board election. The board supported Melissa Burgard’s nomination unanimously.

Superintendent updates included a proposal for collaboration between the school district, city, and county regarding potential changes in community facilities due to upcoming developments. The suggestion to form a joint facilities committee was made to discuss mutual needs and opportunities for collaboration.