Working through capital projects planning can be a daunting task, especially when considering public scrutiny of the high associated cost. Projects like roofing and paving are relatable to any homeowner. Repeating annual budget line items for these types of projects are relatively stable from year to year providing a level of security, proof of fiscal responsibility, and predictability to the taxpayer. Familiarity as a pattern becomes foundational to public support as it does less to challenge and more to maintain a known threshold of capital investment.
However, when potential capital projects go beyond this threshold and trigger a substantial tax increase, they will most likely not be pursued. A bond referendum could provide the solution by creating a longer-term funding mechanism that has a lower annual tax impact. Consideration of a bond referendum sets the scene for a coordinated planning discussion about the need, desire, prioritization, timing, and potential alternate funding sources of future capital projects. It links financial planning and capital project planning together in support of an improved student and teacher experience within the built environment.
Larger scale projects in a bond referendum foster the need for a deeper level of communication and idea exchange. For a community to support a potential raise in taxes over and above the regular school budget they need assurances of the needs, and of the ‘why’ of those needs. This will also be true if the proposed bond is to be “tax neutral.” Quantifiable details regarding infrastructure needs, mixed with the qualifiable impacts of the physical environment to the activity of learning are necessary to develop and share. What must be “fixed” and what could be “transformative”?
To initiate the planning process for a bond referendum, District Administration should assemble a design team to coordinate an advisory exploration of work scope, then organize a community committee to directly engage the discovery phase and take ownership of the process. The committee should first become familiar with the district’s vision, then take a deep dive into supportive data through a built environment lens. The committee’s charge is to understand “what is” then imagine “what could be” in its development of consensus of what potential projects should be included. Consensus should come through the expression of thoughtful activities, discussion, and debate leading to the designation of “priority” or “deferral” work scope components.
The committee translates its prioritized consensus-building work to the Board of Education. Within this committee work is a highly developed embedded sense of familiarity regarding the uniqueness of each building’s infrastructure and learning space needs. This familiarity lends credence to the “why” of recommended work scope selection. The Board of Education can then engage with the public to further refine work scope before defining the final bond referendum work scope for the community to vote on.
______________________________________________
Dr. Drew Patrick is a contributor to this article. Dr. Patrick has been the Superintendent of Scarsdale Public Schools in Scarsdale, New York since February 2023. He is deeply committed to promoting the student experience through learning, living, and leading.
For more information about this article, please contact Kevin J. Walsh, AIA, ALEP, LEED AP, Partner at BBS Architects, Landscape Architects & Engineers at walsh@bbsarch.com and (631) 475-0349.