Moscow School District board workshops plant‑facility levy and bond options to pay for $60M–$150M in projects

Trustees at a special Moscow School District workshop on Aug. 7 discussed how to pay for a multi‑project facilities plan that supervisors estimated in different models at roughly $60 million to $150 million. Superintendent Sean led an interactive financial model and described options including a plant‑facility levy, a bond and lease‑to‑purchase structures.

"If I slide this up to a 150,000,000 ... we certainly hit a bond threshold," Sean said while demonstrating the district’s online slider model and noting that a large bond could push annual debt service to about "$8,500,000 a year." He told trustees the district could also apply $12,000,000 in district savings to reduce the overall ask and that the state school facilities fund might contribute roughly $1,800,000 a year, subject to legislative appropriation.

The superintendent laid out five guiding goals for any long‑range plan: expanding career and technical education, maximizing space efficiency, upgrading community and after‑school spaces (including a proposed performing arts center), balancing new construction with maintenance, and securing long‑term infrastructure investments. He presented headline cost estimates that included a $67,000,000 new middle school, a $55,000,000 high‑school conversion, a $6,000,000 Russell remodel and approximately $3,000,000 for Lena Whitmore HVAC replacement.

Board members spent substantial time testing scenarios in the model. Sean showed a plant‑facility scenario that, after applying the district’s savings, produced a modeled total near $93,000,000 with a corresponding annual levy around $9.37 million and explained thresholds at which a plan would legally require running a bond rather than a plant‑facility levy. He warned about interest accumulation on long bonds: "If you stretch that over the 30 year period, you ... end up in the range of paying interest back," he said, underscoring tradeoffs between up‑front cash and total long‑term cost.

Trustees also discussed operational impacts and construction staging. Several trustees raised concerns that multi‑year construction at an occupied middle school would be disruptive; Sean said the district would phase work to maximize summer construction windows and suggested starting with lower‑disruption items like parking or a performing arts center. He emphasized that escalation of construction costs is the largest risk to any extended schedule.

The board did not take any formal vote at the workshop. Trustees were asked to make a decision on term, dollar amount and ballot language by the district’s Aug. 26 deadline so staff can finalize ballot language for the November or May election window and begin pre‑election educational outreach.