Fountain Hills board hears options to seek voter approval to sell three undeveloped district parcels

At the Feb. 23 meeting the Fountain Hills Unified School District governing board received a consultant briefing on three undeveloped district parcels and the legal and practical steps needed to seek voter authority to sell, lease or exchange them.

Superintendent Sweeney introduced outside consultants and described the three parcels by acreage and current zoning. "The first one is out here, off of Aspen. It's approximately 20.2 acres. Currently, it's zoned R1‑35, which means on that property size, a maximum of 24 homes could be built," Sweeney said. On the house‑count estimates for the other sites she noted terrain and right‑of‑way limitations that would reduce theoretical maximums: Arroyo Vista Drive was described as "approximately 17 and a half acres, zoned R1‑18" and El Lago as "35.1 acres currently zoned R1‑10" with a stated maximum of 155 homes that the consultants said was unrealistic given topography and realistic build‑out.

Consultants explained the sequence required to sell school property under state practice: obtain written approval or confirmation from the School Facilities Board as applicable, call an election seeking voter approval (the ballot could combine parcels or separate them), obtain an appraisal (or broker opinion of value), and then list the property for sale and entertain offers. "That approval is just — it's approved. It doesn't say that we're gonna sell them," a consultant said, stressing voter authority does not mandate a sale.

On timing the consultants advised that an appraisal typically takes two weeks to a month, hiring a broker can proceed via an RFQ, and simple sales without rezoning can close in 60–90 days; with rezoning and developer due diligence the timeline more commonly stretches to six to nine months. They also urged early engagement with the School Facilities Board to determine whether written approval is needed before scheduling an election.

Board members focused on how proceeds can legally be used and how to frame voter materials. Consultants and district staff said sale proceeds would go into the district’s bond/building fund and that state law constrains use: proceeds typically must be used for capital improvements, bond indebtedness, or acquisition of school sites and are not generally available to pay salaries or ongoing M&O obligations without conforming to statutory limits. A consultant recommended broad but non‑binding language in voter materials so the board is not legally boxed into spending allocations.

Trustees debated whether to retain parcels as a long‑term "rainy‑day" fund or pursue sales to finance immediate capital needs such as roofs, HVAC and fire‑alarm systems. One trustee summarized the stakes bluntly: "we are in a desperate situation," noting the district’s failed capital override and ongoing infrastructure needs. Consultants recommended pre‑election polling and careful messaging and said bundling parcels on a single ballot question is common and cost‑efficient, though the board could choose different configurations.

Next steps discussed included obtaining informational broker opinions of value before the election, approaching the School Facilities Board to confirm procedural requirements, drafting an RFQ for brokers (to be held in reserve until after a ballot decision), and developing voter information materials that explain categories of intended capital use without legally binding allocations.

No sale authorization vote was taken at the meeting; trustees asked staff to return with additional information, valuations and options for ballot language and scheduling.