How the $68 million figure was reached: district cites inflation, limited grants and long-term savings

District officials walked the audience through the financial reasoning behind the $68 million referendum figure, saying earlier estimates from 2011 of $20–$25 million had grown after years of inflation and COVID-driven construction cost spikes. The business manager told the audience that a junior-high project planned pre-COVID rose from an estimated $4–5 million to $7 million after one year of delay, arguing that similar dynamics broaden the cost gap for larger projects.

Panelists listed revenue and offset possibilities but stressed they are not enough to fund a full rebuild: LED lighting grants and a $50,000 safety grant (COPS grant) were cited as helpful but small; the district said it is in line for approximately $1.2 million from state sources and has access to some TIF money (about $1 million), but together those funds remain "a drop in the bucket" compared with total capital needs. Officials described the bond as a 30-year financing instrument and said consolidation would yield operating savings of roughly $600,000–$700,000 annually that could help service debt and provide paydown options.

Audience members pressed whether the $68 million includes demolition, sewer and sitework; the district said those items are accounted for within the budget. District leaders also cautioned that state procedures sometimes permit borrowing for life-safety projects without a referendum, which still raises taxes but reduces local control over spending priorities. "Your taxes are going to go up either way," one official said; the district framed the referendum as a way to choose whether increased taxes are directed toward a sustainable new facility or repeated temporary repairs.