Fountain Hills board debates selling three parcels as June ballot deadline approaches

Fountain Hills Unified School district leaders on Tuesday laid out a timeline and trade‑offs for possibly asking voters to approve the sale of three undeveloped district parcels, stressing that a decision to place the issue on the November ballot must be made quickly if it is to proceed this year.

At a work‑study session, a district presenter said June 11 is the critical statutory cutoff to call a special election for the November ballot and warned that Aug. 12 is the county deadline to submit pro and con ballot statements. “If this is an item that’s going to get addressed, we need to address it by that date,” the presenter stated.

The board and staff reviewed three parcels under consideration—Aspen (about 20.2 acres), Arroyo Vista (about 17.5 acres) and El Lago (about 35.1 acres)—and emphasized zoning and physical constraints that limit how many homes can realistically be built. The presenter cited a 2016 professional land evaluation estimating 16–18 buildable lots on Aspen, 19–21 on Arroyo Vista and roughly 45–47 on El Lago, below the theoretical maximums calculated purely from zoning.

The board repeatedly clarified that voter approval would authorize the district to sell property but would not rezone or develop it. “We are not a realtor. We are not a developer,” the presenter said, adding that, if voters approved a sale, the district would obtain an appraisal and likely issue a request for proposals to find a buyer.

Members and residents discussed how sale proceeds could be used under law. One trustee noted statutory constraints require some proceeds to be used to pay debt, which could lower the secondary tax rate; other trustees stressed that sale revenue would not replace the need for capital investment. District staff said the recently recovered District Additional Assistance (DAA) payment of about $700,000 improves the near‑term capital balance but does not eliminate a sizable backlog of facility needs.

The Gordian facilities assessment was cited during discussion: trustees and staff referenced multi‑million‑dollar short‑term needs for roofs, HVAC, doors and life‑safety systems and an estimate of tens of millions over a 10‑year horizon. One board member summarized the choices: seek voter approval to sell assets, place a bond before voters, pursue a district additional assistance (DAA) override in the future, or consolidate buildings to reduce operating costs.

During public comment, resident Cheryl Stiles urged the board to remove Lot 40 in Plat 602A from any sale listing, calling a sale “a band‑aid approach that will not solve our school district’s future financial needs” and citing the Neighborhood Property Owners Association’s declaration that prohibits subdivision without a variance. The board president responded that the board has not yet voted to place a land‑sale measure on the ballot and that community members would have an opportunity to submit arguments opposing any ballot measure if one is called.

The board did not take action on the land‑sale question Tuesday. Trustees directed staff to provide more information about the tax impact of a bond versus proceeds from a sale and to consider an additional May work study session so members can review facilities‑committee recommendations before the district’s June 1 business meeting, when the board may need to decide whether to place a measure on the November ballot.