Fountain Hills board reviews $20M$35M bond scenarios, staff recommends bond over override

The Fountain Hills Unified School Board met in a special session to review financing options for repairing and upgrading district facilities and to discuss whether to pursue a capital override or a bond election.

The board heard a presentation from Rhonda Stein of Stifel, the district's bond consultant, who laid out four authorization scenarios — $20 million, $25 million, $30 million and $35 million — and three amortization options (10, 15 and 20 years). Stein said the district's bonding capacity is driven by full-cash assessed value and noted that, by statute, a unified school district may bond up to 20% of that value. Using the district's illustrative assumptions, Stein showed that a $20 million bond issued in a short amortization could increase average annual tax costs to roughly $114 for a residential property with a $400,000 taxable value under one 10-year scenario; longer amortizations lower the annual tax rate but increase total interest paid.

Superintendent (district) told the board that the administration does not recommend pursuing an override now and instead favors a bond because capital needs are larger and more urgent. The superintendent acknowledged the district must address community concerns about transparency and promised to circulate a written recommendation later in the week that will include pricing estimates, category allocations and proposed oversight committee membership "days in advance before your vote." The superintendent also said staff has been trimming expenses and would provide a capital-spending breakdown.

Board members questioned the interest-rate assumptions and asked Stifel to confirm voter-pamphlet language and numbers; Stifel confirmed a heading typo on one handout but said the underlying numbers were correct. Counsel and bond officials explained that a single election may include multiple ballot questions (for example, a bond authorization and a separate site-sale question) and that the county asked to be notified if the district is contemplating an election, with practical deadlines in May and a recommended resolution by June 10 to place items on a November ballot.

Several board members and public commenters urged caution. One resident said the district must restore public trust before asking taxpayers to approve another measure; another asked for more itemized, line-by-line detail showing how previously authorized bond proceeds were spent. In response, the superintendent pointed to prior public reporting on bond expenditures and reiterated a forthcoming, itemized report and a plan for an oversight committee if voters approve a bond.

No resolution calling an election or adopting a bond authorization was voted on during the special session. The board approved only the meeting agenda at the start of the session. The superintendent and Stifel will provide written materials, detailed cost estimates and recommended oversight procedures to the board and the public ahead of any future vote.