Board members and staff reviewed recommendations from the facilities advisory committee about capital projects including a proposed short capital levy period and a possible land purchase to support a transportation facility.

A staff presentation summarized a multi‑year facilities plan and said the advisory committee recommended a four‑year capital levy intended to address immediate needs and to help the district acquire property for a transportation and operations facility. The staff report provided 10‑ and 25‑year projections for capital needs and noted costs would vary with the scope of projects. Staff referenced a “major ticket item” of a land purchase and work on road access and said some aspects of the plan — such as roof, fencing and intercom upgrades — are high‑priority facility maintenance items.

Board members expressed differing views about timing and scope. One board member said the four‑year plan was “a hard pill to swallow” for taxpayers and urged broad community outreach. Another board member recommended proceeding with a phased approach: use initial levy proceeds to purchase land and start design/requirements work in parallel with road negotiations and then return to voters for a larger bond after preliminary work is complete. That approach, the member said, would buy time for design and reduce the risk that plans become obsolete.

Staff described alternatives including pursuing phased design work (preliminary design and requirement studies) to make grant and bond requests more competitive; one board member said other districts that spent significant sums on design before voter approval had risked losing that upfront expenditure if later votes failed. Board members discussed the legal and timetable constraints for putting bond measures on a ballot and noted state legislative conversations about changing the voter threshold for bonds. Several members said capital levies historically pass at higher rates than bonds and urged careful outreach.

The board agreed to schedule a public facilities work session to continue detailed planning and community engagement. The meeting record shows board and staff set a work session for March 3 (evening start, time confirmed in the record) to review goals, projections and community outreach plans. Board members encouraged public comment, letters and direct contact to staff and board members ahead of the work session.

No final bond or levy was adopted at the meeting; rather, the board directed staff to continue planning, produce more detailed cost projections and community engagement materials and return with options at the scheduled work session.

Board members asked staff for a clearer breakdown of project timing, design costs, and the estimated overlap between any existing levies and future bond payments. One member suggested early architectural and requirements work (30% design) could be useful to secure grants and demonstrate planning at the time of a larger bond request; other members cautioned on spending large sums on design prior to voter approval.

The record shows ongoing discussion about road‑construction timing tied to a land purchase and that the facilities advisory committee will continue to provide input. The public and committee members were invited to the March work session to review options and ask questions.