In their March 10th meeting, the USD 379 school board voted to move forward with a bond issue, with an intended election date of spring 2026.
The issue is likely to be the only item on the ballot, and would allow registered voters to decide if they want to pursue a bond for the school district. No amount or timeline on payment has been decided at this point.
With the existing bond set to expire, a bond approval could keep the budget revenue neutral, avoiding a tax hike. Essentially, the new bond would replace the old one, while still providing the district funds for school improvements.
“With everything that needs to be done, if we do it through a bond we can keep it neutral pretty much,” said Board President, Tracy Claeys. “If we try to fix some of these through the budget, we’re going to have to raise the capital outlay. That’s just the truth. This is a lot more stable for the community to take care of these big-dollar items, but ultimately I think the community is the one who gets to decide.”
Board member Jeff Cannizzo said projects that cost less than $75,000 should be paid for by the capital outlay funds, while those costing more would need a bond.
“Anything over [$100K] should be considered in bond because you’re never ever going to get it done if it’s not,” he said.
“We’ve been talking about the gym at the Clay Center High School for ten years and we’ve never ever done anything about it. There’s just some things that we just can’t afford to do out of our capital outlay fund.”
He also said the time to approve is while another is getting paid off. The current bond,
from 2015, is being paid early after the board refinanced during a time of lowered interest rates.
“There’s no better time now than to do it so your tax issue doesn’t change,” he said.
“Now is the time if you’re going to do it.”
Meanwhile, board member David Jermark believed voting to support a bond was “putting the cart before the horse.”
“I’ve been looking at it from all angles and I think it’s too close, a few months away,” he said. “If we’re going into this then I feel like we need to precise it, narrow down the scope between what we’re going to do with capital outlay and the projects and what can potentially be curtailed off for a future bond. I think we need to flash some common sense with the taxpayers in mind with proceeding, doing baby steps instead of looking at spring or fall of 2026. I’d rather be sure we get it right.”
Nelson said he agreed with Jermark in wanting to iron out details, but that waiting to decide on the bond would make it more difficult to plan out existing building funds vs. what needs to be completed first.
“It makes a huge difference what we prioritize in capital outlay,” he said. “We need to know if it’s an option or if it’s not an option. If we’re unsure if we’re going to ask for that
bond, it makes it really hard to move the puzzle pieces around.”
Member Linda Sleichter was the last to weigh in, saying she’s confident in the timeline and that the board has plenty of time to iron out plans before a spring 2026 election.
“I agree that we don’t need to go for all the bells and whistles or go for the top-end budget,” she said. “I’m in favor to do what we need to keep our buildings going and keep them comfortable for a good learning environment. It looks like we just need to say ‘Hey are we in favor of working toward a bond? Yes or no’ then we will have lots of opportunities to discuss and flush out the rest of this.”
Claeys made a motion to support a bond issue for the spring of 2026, which carried 5-2.
Board members Claeys, Auld, Sleichter, Bergsten, and Cannizzo voted in favor of the motion, while Jermark and Shanna Sterling opposed.
