[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6202124,"mediaKeyId","3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4","parentId",3787699,"title","Board weighs hiring demographer, facilities study and forming community advisory group","audioSeconds",2252,"startMs",3899000,"endMs",6151000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4&start=3899&end=6151","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4/thumbnail_3899000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6202124/Utah/Board-weighs-hiring-demographer-facilities-study-and-forming-community-advisory-group","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6202124-8efb0ad4ca5552cc59eee151d5cf923d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089951&Signature=Jf1HDnJcNCj1ncWLiNGLcHNl4DBY0kiEdk5yqRiEAvRMBQx2m4YXQZOmpMkychlWQWd~RzkWpEsHLoDLzOeaJzLa1jg4iprXod6qJ6ZOd9EplPC3IU9HFX8xzpSSBoSXAQkGXGg93jmCDEdIH0AGd7C-qFgpbThFez-dTm9-FGvAoMZ9ayM4I9Eme~lnV9f4-brCjIgBZqSPUO0gjlRGiN7JS7p5kxZg6c1t3kksu6y~qVXUv9BL51U8~I1AaueDu0bZXhU7PpqFL64jPSkTH-kRRXoWRGXwPdnhVu4UCCDejVB7g3gEmCmyvZWiAADBw-k3YBYx5WC1OGyM6lPF7A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Box Elder School District","date","2025-05-27T22:43:23Z","article","District staff presented three levels of professional services to improve planning: an interactive boundary-mapping tool, an annual demographer service and a comprehensive facilities master plan with community outreach. The board discussed costs, timing and the role of a community advisory committee to review findings.

Neil and Corey described the vendor package: interactive GIS-based boundary mapping (staff cited roughly $10,000 per year plus initial training), a demography service (presenters recommended a three-year engagement; staff cited $25,000 per year for a multi-year contract to establish trend data), and a full facilities and educational programming master plan (presenters quoted a range from about $86,000 for a basic facilities-only study to roughly $200,000 for a comprehensive facilities-and-programming engagement including community outreach). Staff recommended the three-year demographer contract for trend stability rather than a single-year snapshot.

Board members asked how quickly the advisory group should convene. After discussion of schedules and member selection, the board agreed to begin outreach to recruit community members and to aim for an initial meeting in early June (staff and several board members discussed June 2 or nearby dates for a first evening session; staff will circulate the invitation list and confirm a final date). Board members said they wanted a volunteer pool representative of precincts and stakeholders (parents, community council members, small-business owners and educators) and requested that district staff provide the survey respondent list for targeted invitations and help with precinct matching.

Members also discussed what the advisory group should do. Staff suggested the committee's first role should be informational: review the district's updated cost estimates and demographic trends, give feedback on draft facility scenarios, and help the district communicate the options to the broader public. Board members said they did not intend to give the committee a formal vote on district policy but expected the advisory members to be a two-way conduit to their communities.

The board asked staff to return with a recommended vendor contract scope and price options for the demography/boundary tools and for a facilities master-plan firm, plus a finalized membership list and a confirmed date/time for the first advisory meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","BESD School Board Work Session - May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board members discussed a proposed demographer, a facilities master-plan vendor and creation of a facilities-advisory community committee. Staff outlined costs and recommended a phased engagement to inform long-range decisions.","taxTitle","Box Elder School District , Utah School Boards, Utah","taxId",65811,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6202129,"Board reviews bond-era project list as construction prices push estimates higher",420,2416000,2836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4&start=2416&end=2836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4/thumbnail_2416000.jpg","/articles/6202129/Utah/Board-reviews-bond-era-project-list-as-construction-prices-push-estimates-higher","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6202129-60bbf307f98a2ba4a5e16f55eaa2d6f4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089951&Signature=dp3-FbzCPZEDD8~an7qcx4i9AnC~phjPk7slINbKpoKg466IWelz4i5~l1JHPr9YHnkvGb~EaHHp5br6C1lv4q9Mnh5bsyr6mC9V8gtf9uPk~3C7QtMejJbkFv-YI6CokRXFBdHq4Mvkp205dQk7EUeLu-Ya7RuOmrMrZTzWoYwalCDbvlyZC-5y2xQDodbFqvVNALfVMVa~nu-I~WQteIJvr6UlXonY4PqcUTFuvDLXTd7CvrOTFrwkxDn2lIrfMP-xNX15OGRagk0GZfhBpVhKytPOHHkII8ugsGu6CAEognguOKKvQPskx5xKUjnNsOjj-kmHGSbCQPCvNuiPqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","District leaders and consultants told the board the construction-market picture has shifted since the district last modeled a bond package, increasing projected costs for several planned projects.

Corey and other district staff presented recent bidding and cost information gathered from multiple architecture and construction firms. They said per-square-foot estimates for elementary schools varied widely in the last 18 months, with reported ranges roughly from $3.25 per square foot on the low end to $4.50 and in some local bids up to $5.00 or more per square foot. Presenters specifically cited firms and estimates: VCBO and Hughes provided earlier numbers used in the prior bond planning; DWA and other firms provided more recent figures that lowered or raised estimates depending on the building type and the bid window. For high-school additions and field-house work, district presenters reported vendor estimates for venue gyms and field houses in the $5 million to $10 million range depending on scope.

Board planners summarized several package options the district had modeled. The full package discussed during prior bond planning was about $72 million for one larger high-school plan; some revised estimates put a different two-high-school-additions-and-elementary combination in the $120 million to $140 million range. Staff said one scenario to deliver two high-school additions plus an elementary and other work would require roughly $134 million in funding, and their calculations showed that pursuit of truth-in-taxation to support that scale would push average homeowner impacts substantially higher. Neil's levy illustrations showed that maxing all available local levies could produce about $12.6 million annually and would yield an estimated $431 per-home annual increase under current valuations; staff noted that net revenue available to fund debt service would be lower after state equalization and other offsets.

Board members discussed phased approaches and trade-offs. Options discussed included: building two elementary schools to reduce portable-classroom reliance on the north end; adding to existing high schools to provide PE and CTE space; or prioritizing a single elementary school to reduce immediate overcrowding. Board members and staff raised the practical differences between lease-revenue financing (used for some projects) and general-obligation bonds, including differing term lengths (lease revenue bonds commonly modeled at 20 years) and amortization profiles (interest-only early years, graduated payments) that affect the average annual household impact. Corey noted repeating design work and reusing prior plans for multiple sites could achieve savings; staff also warned that design fees, contingencies, CM/GC fees and FF&E (furniture, fixtures, and equipment) can add several million dollars per school beyond raw construction cost estimates.

Board members did not adopt a final project package at the session. They asked staff to return with refined scenarios that (1) incorporate updated per-square-foot bids, (2) show phased options with clear near-term and long-term costs, and (3) include the effect of projected increases in commercial assessed value and expiring debt service that come back on the district's books in later years.

The session included discussion of timing: staff noted several revenue events in the coming decade (expiring community reinvestment increments and a general-obligation bond payment that fall off the district's budget schedule) that could materially change long-term capacity to fund projects. Members emphasized the importance of returning hard numbers after receiving firm hard-bid data and asked for a clearer presentation of what a 20-year financing path would cost in present-dollar terms versus an amortized average. The board left the door open to a future bond or truth-in-taxation approach, contingent on refined estimates and a community engagement plan.","Administrators told the Box Elder School District board that construction pricing has increased since the last bond effort, putting some previously planned projects over budget and prompting discussion of phased alternatives and household impacts.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6202134,"Box Elder board reviews levies, tax math and possible truth-in-taxation steps",1543,212000,1755000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4&start=212&end=1755","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3787699-710ff600d5167e0dd69f594344c6e1e4/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6202134/Utah/Box-Elder-board-reviews-levies-tax-math-and-possible-truth-in-taxation-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6202134-840b90cb679ab21d757cf782401235de/orig.mp4?Expires=1771089951&Signature=Uun-uyvi9KnozYZAVwPVFehVljOc19JuVf7FHzMs-t8LDvdpr~nDIcVHNeuqDu1i-VAGz9LzUKjVInlAyZ3rbV3rg7at1RsMw3ME9vbyO2doqaQiFtgBgQh-YRU8W7SufXNdcMZ00yZiEfah1jANf8B6tG0KG23IGmM5fcMmGyxxk1G0zScratJB5DgWoz3Wc3tFREuG0csA-S~SSLSXo7LHOX1LhwQb3T6eVlAABB2N5eejpBPEiFw~-VJQqo-WBzbPZ49zxrQ9syTz24T32EewV5Jb8Uy0fuHB276It4lYcLVG1gG0QzVKTvnnZuaIcAz7jQ4jIDoTwgmT~oA8Aw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Neil, the district's business administrator, explained levy types, how certified tax rates are calculated and the mechanics of state equalization at a May 19 Box Elder School District work session. The board discussed possible truth-in-taxation steps to raise local revenue, how much additional revenue certain levy increases would generate and what that could mean for an average homeowner.

Neil told the board the district collects three levies it controls: the voter (voted) levy, the board (local) levy and the capital levy. The state and county control other pieces, including the basic school levy and a charter-school pass-through levy. He said the board's local levy and the capital levy are expressed as static rates (for example, the board local levy proposed by the district for the most recent year was 0.00221). \"Our levy is a basic local levy ... board local levy,\" Neil said while presenting the spreadsheet used to calculate revenue.

The presentation emphasized two points that matter to voters and to planning: property valuation changes and state equalization. Neil said the districtwide assessed value used in the calculations was roughly $7.5 billion and that the county typically posts about 2.75% new-growth in a given year (he used a $206 million new-growth example). He explained that as local levies rise, state support for K-12 can be reduced under Utah's equalization rules. As an example, he said local increases last year produced a roughly $2 million swing from state to local support in the basic school rate: \"Local went up $2,000,000, state went down $2,000,000.\"

Board members asked for and received illustrative granular numbers tied to household impact. Neil showed modeling that adding roughly $988,000 by raising the voted levy to its allowable cap would increase the average Box Elder home's taxes by about $45 per year, based on an average single-family home value of about $465,000. Maxing the board levy in an illustration produced an additional $2.2 million and, combined with the voted-levy increase, roughly $3.2 million of new local revenue and an estimated $119 per year increase per average homeowner. Another scenario that assumed raising all three levies to current maximums produced roughly $12.6 million in new annual revenue and an estimated $431 increase per average homeowner (about $35.92 per month), Neil said.

The board reiterated procedural timing constraints. Neil reminded members the county auditor and state tax commission certify rates on their schedule and the district must file a proposed budget and announce the date/time/place for any truth-in-taxation hearing by the statutory deadlines; a tentative budget must be transmitted by June 30. He also noted that the certified property tax data the district uses is a year behind the fiscal year being budgeted.

Board members flagged two operational caveats: 1) equalization and recapture mean the district will not retain the full amount of any local increase (some of the revenue effect is offset by reduced state support), and 2) property type mix matters because only about 55% of a primary residence's market value is taxable in the district's model, while commercial and secondary property are taxed at higher effective rates. Neil also noted that some tax-authority caps changed recently (he referenced an increase in the capital-levy cap under a statewide measure) and that those changes materially increased the district's theoretical capacity to raise local revenue without a bond.

The board did not take a formal levy vote at the session. Members asked staff to return with refined options and recommended amounts after further modeling of equalization and estimated net new revenue.","At a May 19 work session, the Box Elder School District business administrator reviewed the district's levies, how state equalization affects local revenue, and illustrative household impacts if the board moves toward truth-in-taxation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board weighs hiring demographer, facilities study and forming community advisory group

Board reviews bond-era project list as construction prices push estimates higher

Box Elder board reviews levies, tax math and possible truth-in-taxation steps