After a comprehensive two-hour work session Monday evening, February 9th, the Fairfield Community School District Board of Education reached consensus on a phased construction strategy for the middle school that would utilize available School Infrastructure Sales Tax (SAVE) funding to begin immediate improvements while leaving the door open for future expansion.
The board reviewed four distinct construction concepts presented by architectural firm FEH Design and construction management company Canco before narrowing their focus to a phased approach that board members believe balances fiscal responsibility with the pressing need to address deteriorating facility conditions.
Teacher Input Shapes Discussion
Superintendent Zach Wigle opened the session by sharing feedback from a January 19th lunch meeting with approximately 16 middle school teachers. The educators emphasized the importance of aligning any facility decision with the district’s mission and vision, particularly the district priority of belonging for both students and staff.
Teachers expressed concerns about morale in the current facility and stressed the importance of thinking 20-plus years into the future when making design decisions. They also requested that fine arts spaces not be overlooked in planning, though they appreciated the transparent communication throughout the process.
One notable point from the teacher feedback was that facilities have not been cited as a reason for families choosing to open enroll out of the district, despite the building’s known issues. Teachers emphasized that whatever decision the board makes should ensure both staff and students feel appreciated and that they belong.
Financial Framework and Constraints
Chief Financial Officer and School Board Official Evan Marten presented detailed financial scenarios to help guide the board’s decision-making. He explained that the district could potentially fund up to $27.8 million in construction without seeking voter approval for a bond by strategically using SAVE bonding capacity, Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PEPEL) borrowing, and available cash reserves.
The financial strategy involves borrowing $8.9 million through a PEPEL note at approximately 3.35% interest and $13 million through SAVE bonds at 4.51% interest, along with using cash on hand. This approach splits the borrowing to minimize interest costs for taxpayers.
However, this maximum borrowing scenario would leave only $1 million annually for the district’s five-year capital improvement plan. After accounting for $800,000 in recurring expenses, only $200,000 per year would remain for addressing roofs, asphalt, playground upgrades, and other facility needs across all district buildings. The district currently has approximately $1 million in additional projects planned for the next two years.
Marten presented property tax levy forecasts showing the current rate at $12.73 per $1,000 of assessed valuation. Without any bond action, the levy is projected to drop to $12.71 for fiscal year 2027, then substantially decrease to approximately $10.38 in fiscal year 2028 as existing debt obligations are paid off.
The financial presentation included scenarios for various geo bond amounts and their impact on tax rates. A $26 million geo bond would increase the levy by $1.75, while smaller amounts would have proportionally smaller impacts: $20 million would add $1.35-$1.40, $15 million would add $1.00-$1.15, and $10 million would add $0.65-$0.70.
Critically, bond counsel Matt Gillespie’s analysis showed that if a geo bond were structured to keep the tax levy flat at the current $12.71 rate when it would otherwise drop in fiscal year 2028, voters would not experience a tax increase. This “level tax” scenario is considered highly favorable for bond referendums.
Four Construction Options Presented
The design team presented four distinct options for board consideration:
Option 1 featured a $14 million addition of approximately 24,000 square feet with 12 new classrooms. This option would not require a geo bond but included $1 million for repairs to the existing building. The significant drawback was that the two-story wing, believed to be the source of most water infiltration and drainage issues, would remain in use.
Option 2 proposed a new $45.5 million building on the previously identified site near the current middle school. This represented a reduction of approximately 20,000 square feet from the original referendum plan, achieved by removing the district office and reducing from two gymnasium floors to one. The design team noted this could also be configured to fit directly in front of the existing middle school, which would save on utility extension costs and avoid the well field. This option would require approximately $23 million in SAVE bonds plus a $22 million geo bond.
Option 3 presented a two-story addition with an estimated cost of $26.2 million that would remove the problematic two-story wing while maintaining the one-story fifth grade wing through a new connecting corridor. This option would provide all new classroom space sized to modern standards of approximately 900 square feet compared to the current 750 square feet. The design eliminates the areas with the worst drainage and leakage issues while making the building fully ADA compliant with an elevator. However, it would not address band, choir, library, gymnasium, cafeteria, or other common areas in the existing structure, leaving $700,000 in the budget for priority repairs to those spaces.
Option 4 was similar to Option 3 but added five classrooms on the south side of the second floor corridor, eliminating the need to maintain the one-story fifth grade wing. This option carried an estimated cost of $27.8 million and offered the most flexibility for future expansion. The one-story addition could either be demolished (at an estimated cost of $120,000) or mothballed for potential future use. This design also achieves full ADA compliance and positions the district well for future additions.
The design team noted that all options except the first would require relocating the bus lane prior to construction, but none would require temporary classroom structures during construction as the additions would be built on the north side of the existing building.
Building Condition and System Lifespan
FEH Design’s Bill Decker provided detailed information about building system life expectancies that helped frame the urgency of the decision. He explained that building longevity must be evaluated across multiple systems: structural capacity, HVAC, roofing, electrical, plumbing, and building envelope including windows.
Decker noted that windows installed in the 1970s typically lasted only 10-20 years, while modern windows are expected to last approximately 50 years. HVAC systems generally have a 20-25 year life expectancy, while electrical conductors last about 50 years.
The existing middle school’s geothermal system has pipes expected to last 70-80 years, but the heat pumps themselves should be replaced after 25-30 years. The building is approximately 15 years into the heat pump lifecycle. The good news, Decker noted, is that most heat pumps are located in classrooms, and several of the proposed options would replace most classroom spaces along with their heating and cooling equipment.
When asked how much useful life the $1 million in repairs included in Option 1 would add to the building, Decker cautioned that while it would address water infiltration issues, it would not cover the expensive updates needed for aging mechanical, electrical, and other building systems. He characterized it as a band-aid approach suitable for buying time but insufficient for long-term use without additional major investments.
Legislative Uncertainty Adds Urgency
A critical factor that emerged during discussion was uncertainty about future availability of SAVE funds due to potential legislative changes. Bill Decker explained that during the most recent legislative session, significant discussion occurred about changing how districts can access SAVE revenues.
According to current projections, if pending legislation passes as currently proposed, the district could lose access to approximately $3.8 million in SAVE revenue over the next 10 years. The governor’s office bill proposes increasing SAVE from $1.00 to $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation but then splitting it with the state taking half, effectively reducing district access by 25%.
Decker emphasized that because legislation can take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature, the district should move as quickly as possible to lock in current SAVE bonding capacity rather than waiting until a July 1st deadline.
Board members expressed significant concern about this risk, with discussion focusing on how to secure SAVE funding for construction before potential changes could eliminate or reduce that option.
Board Deliberation and Consensus Building
The board systematically worked through the options to reach consensus. Early in the discussion, members quickly agreed to eliminate Option 1, with one board member noting it “gets us nothing” as they would still have the old building with more classrooms than needed.
Discussion of Option 2 as a standalone new building revealed board concerns about the political climate. With a governor’s race anticipated to focus heavily on property tax issues, multiple board members expressed doubt about voters approving a significant geo bond increase in the current environment, despite three previous bond attempts coming close to passage.
One board member made a strong case that Option 2 represented the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, noting the construction cost per square foot of $505 compared to $576 for the phased options, and arguing that a completely new building designed for long-term use made the most financial sense. However, concerns about asking voters for another increase after three failed attempts, combined with uncertainty about whether the community would support it, led to hesitation about this approach.
The discussion shifted to exploring how to proceed without a geo bond, at least initially. Board members grappled with the challenge that proceeding with Option 4 at its full cost would severely limit funds available for the five-year capital improvement plan, potentially creating problems at other district buildings by deferring necessary maintenance.
Marten explained that cuts would need to come from either the capital plan or from recurring expenses, and that every cut is difficult in a school system. The largest recurring expenses identified were bus leases at $184,000 annually, technology allocation at $200,000, and an Apple device lease, though none represented easy reductions.
The “Out of the Box” Solution
A pivotal moment came when Bill Decker proposed an innovative two-pronged approach. He suggested the district could move forward immediately with building the classroom wing using SAVE funds, which would not require voter approval, and then run a two-question referendum in November 2026.
The first question would ask voters to approve approximately $14 million to repair and renovate the remaining portions of the existing building. The second question would ask for approximately $20-21 million to build the remainder of the facility new, matching the square footage that would have been in Option 2.
This approach would allow the district to lock in SAVE funding before any legislative changes, guarantee that new classroom space gets built regardless of the referendum outcome, and give voters clear choices about how to proceed with the remainder of the facility. Decker emphasized that the questions must be carefully written so that if both pass, only the larger amount would be authorized, avoiding voter concerns about approving more total spending than intended.
Decker noted that he had seen districts successfully use multiple-question referendums, though more than half the time his experience involved only two questions rather than more complex scenarios. He acknowledged this would be a unique approach that would require careful communication and community engagement.
Board members responded positively to this framework, seeing it as a way to move forward with certainty on the most critical needs while maintaining options for completing a comprehensive solution. One board member noted this approach addresses what the board had asked for in requesting a phased option.
Design Flexibility for Future Phases
The design team explained how the phased approach would work from an architectural standpoint. If the district builds the classroom wing first using Options 3 or 4 as a framework, and voters later approve funding to complete the building, the design from Option 2 could be adapted to wrap around the existing school rather than being a standalone structure.
Chris Smith from Canco noted that building the classroom wing first and then adding the remainder would result in very similar total square footage and functionality to Option 2, just configured differently on the site. The design team confirmed they would structure the first phase to support future vertical expansion, designing foundations and the first-floor roof deck to carry additional loads if a second story were added in specific areas later.
The team also confirmed that adequate space exists on the property to accommodate a future second gymnasium, either as part of a comprehensive phase two or as a standalone fundraising project. A standalone gymnasium would cost approximately $5.8 million, though this could be reduced by sharing locker rooms with the existing or new gym and eliminating one exterior wall if built adjacent to other construction.
Bill Decker suggested that if the referendum for the second phase passes, the district should immediately begin a campaign for a second gymnasium, as the design and construction timeline would provide an opportunity to add it before construction is complete.
ADA Compliance and Safety Improvements
An important distinction between the options emerged regarding ADA compliance. Options 3 and 4 would make the middle school fully ADA compliant through the addition of an elevator in the new two-story wing and fully accessible restrooms on both floors. Currently, the building has significant accessibility limitations, including a chair lift on stairs to access certain areas.
The new connecting corridor to the fifth grade wing in Option 3 would actually provide a more gradual slope than currently exists, improving accessibility. While some restrooms in portions of the existing building that remain would not meet current ADA standards, having fully compliant facilities in the new construction would satisfy accessibility requirements.
One board member raised a concern about Option 3 regarding safety and security. With the middle school office relocating to the new wing, the fifth grade wing would be significantly farther from administrative oversight compared to the current configuration. This concern provided additional support for Option 4, which would eliminate the need to maintain the distant fifth grade wing.
The new construction would also create a proper secure entrance facing the west parking lot, replacing the current configuration where visitors must walk along the front of the building to reach the entrance. All the addition options would create an improved facade toward Fillmore Street, enhancing the building’s curb appeal and public face.
Future-Proofing and Educational Trends
Board members asked about designing the facility to remain relevant for the next 20-plus years, given how dramatically educational approaches have changed over past decades. Bill Decker acknowledged this challenge, noting that if asked in 1970 to design for the future, he likely would have gotten it wrong, citing open-plan schools and round schools that are no longer favored.
Decker explained that current thinking focuses on appropriately-sized classrooms with flexible furniture arrangements rather than fixed rows of desks. The proposed 900-square-foot classrooms would provide significantly more flexibility than the current 750-square-foot rooms.
Kevin Eipperle from FEH Design discussed the concept of “houses” or “pods” in middle school design, which create smaller learning communities within the larger building to help students transition from elementary school. While this approach has been popular for several decades, it requires additional square footage for corridors and can create supervision challenges with blind corners.
The design team noted that the proposed linear corridor approach, while having less dedicated breakout space, offers more flexibility for adjusting which grade levels occupy which classrooms as enrollment fluctuates. If one grade has significantly more or fewer students than others, classrooms can be easily reassigned without the constraints of separate pods designed for specific capacities.
Timeline and Next Steps
The board reached consensus to eliminate Option 2 as a standalone new building at an alternate site and to move forward with a phased approach based on Options 3 and 4. The exact configuration will be determined by the maximum amount the district can afford to borrow against SAVE capacity, which staff will finalize with bond counsel Matt Gillespie.
Superintendent Wigle indicated he would follow up with Gillespie to determine the precise bonding capacity and to get references of other districts that have successfully used two-question referendums with different facility approaches. Marten will work with attorneys on the process for paying off current bonds while establishing criteria for new SAVE bonds.
The board plans to vote on the specific approach at their next regular meeting. Once approved, design work would begin immediately with construction potentially starting in March 2027. Students would be able to occupy new classroom spaces by fall 2028.
If the district proceeds with a referendum in November 2026, the questions would be developed over the coming months with extensive community engagement. The referendum, if structured to keep the tax levy level in fiscal year 2028, would not represent a tax increase for property owners despite authorizing significant new construction funding.
Community Considerations
Throughout the discussion, board members remained keenly aware of community sentiment following three unsuccessful bond referendums. Multiple members noted feedback from community members who believed the board had committed to moving forward with repairs using available funds rather than seeking additional voter approval.
The phased approach addresses this concern by using funds the district already has access to for the most critical improvements—replacing failing classroom spaces and eliminating the problematic two-story wing—while still giving the community a voice in whether to complete a comprehensive renovation or build entirely new common areas.
Board members acknowledged that even a “level tax” referendum would require significant communication and education efforts to help voters understand they would not see a tax increase despite approving new bonding authority. The concept of using reduced future tax obligations to fund new construction rather than simply enjoying lower taxes requires explanation and community trust.
The urgency created by potential legislative changes to SAVE funding availability adds a complexity to community messaging, as the board must act quickly to preserve options while also ensuring the community understands the rationale for the approach and timeline.
The board’s decision represents an attempt to balance multiple competing priorities: addressing urgent facility needs, being fiscally responsible, respecting community input, preserving future flexibility, and moving forward with certainty despite political and legislative uncertainty. The phased approach with a potential future referendum provides a pathway forward that board members believe addresses these various concerns while making meaningful improvements for middle school students and staff.
