Board of Education Update — February 27 and 28, 2026 Special Meeting

The February 27 and 28, 2026, special meeting of the Board of Education focused on phase two of facilities master planning. To review the meeting presentation, please click here.

The following topics were discussed:

District Operating Needs

Treasurer/CFO Andrew Geistfeld started by discussing the difference between a bond issue and an operating levy. A bond issue is typically for construction or renovation of buildings, and an operating levy funds the day-to-day operations of the school district, such as staff salaries, classroom and district supplies, and utilities. In light of the conversation in the state on property taxes, Geistfeld shared that the Financial Advisory Board requested that the district begin the process of exploring potential alternatives for funding day-to-day operations after this upcoming levy cycle

He reviewed the most recent update to the financial forecast in February, including district revenue and expenditures. Unrestricted state aid accounts for 5.92% of total district general fund revenue, while 80% is tied to local taxes. 

As property values increase, voted millage decreases to generate the same dollar amount for school districts. This is due to a state law known as House Bill 920. For the most part, there are no inflationary increases in property tax revenue for the district due to property values increasing. Additionally, unrestricted state aid base funding is still using 2022 base cost inputs. So, looking at the district’s funding overall, for more than 94% of revenue there is little if any inflationary growth. 

Geistfeld shared that the updated forecast reflects what has been expected for some time — that, after stretching the last operating levy for an additional year, expenditures are beginning to outpace revenue. This will begin to impact the district’s ability to maintain a 90-day cash reserve balance, as required by the Board of Education. Maintaining a 90-day cash reserve balance helps the district mitigate risks and have stronger credit ratings, which impacts the interest rates on future debt.

The district typically asks for a new operating levy every three to four years. As Geistfeld shared, an operating levy would fund the day-to-day operations of the school district, and it would be continuing. 

Geistfeld shared possible scenarios for an operating levy request for the fall of 2026. The community experts on the Financial Advisory Board also reviewed these scenarios. He planned to return to those scenarios later in the meeting during a discussion on capital needs.

Capital Needs

Superintendent Robert Hunt, Ph.D., shared reflections on the success of phase one of master planning and the impact the new and renovated learning spaces at the elementary and high school levels have had on our students. Phase two of facilities master planning has focused on the district’s remaining buildings and the preK-12 experience in the district.

He shared insights on the district’s enrollment, which is projected to continue to steadily increase. Right now, there is a bubble of enrollment at the elementary level that will soon be pushing into the middle schools and then eventually the high school. He shared that the enrollment projections utilized in phase one have resulted in facilities to meet the needs of the district’s growth while not building excess space that the district would not need in the future.

Phase two of master planning began in the fall of 2024, with a variety of opportunities for community engagement, including building teams, community engagement sessions and surveys. There have been over 5,000 touchpoints with stakeholders throughout the process so far.

The assessment phase began with a current look at the state of the aging middle school and Burbank Early Childhood School through a third-party analysis of both the physical condition and the educational adequacy. While the buildings have been well-maintained over the years, the building systems are simply reaching the end of their useful life. Dr. Hunt shared that there is no zero-cost option — based on the physical assessments, it will cost $124.8 million to maintain and repair all three buildings. That does not address the concerns identified in the educational adequacy assessment — undersized classrooms, music rooms and athletic spaces; outdated science labs and safety equipment; and insufficient natural daylight in some classrooms.

Springboarding from these assessments, the building teams helped to develop options for each building ranging from repair — addressing the needs identified in the physical assessments — to renovate or rebuild, which would address both the needs in the physical and the educational assessments. 

One of the challenges that Geistfeld identified is that construction costs have risen exponentially since the phase one facilities master plan and are expected to continue to rise. The costs associated with the options for Hastings, Jones and Burbank reflect the total project costs, accounting for inflation and other factors. 

Dr. Hunt walked through the options for each building:

Burbank Early Childhood School

• Repair ($16,530,000): addresses the physical needs only 
• Rebuild ($35,330,000): addresses the physical and educational needs
• Rebuild with additional classrooms ($39,450,000): addresses the physical and educational needs while also expanding the classroom space to meet demand growing demand in both the federally required special education program and the tuition-based program

Hastings Middle School

• Repair ($59,700,000): addresses the physical needs only 
• Rebuild on current athletic field ($110,800,000): addresses the physical and educational needs; students would stay in the current building while the new school is built
• Rebuild where building currently sits ($130,430,000): addresses the physical and educational needs; students would use temporary, modular classrooms while the new school is built

Jones Middle School 

• Repair ($48,590,000): addresses the physical needs only 
• Renovate ($153,030,000): addresses the physical and educational needs; students would use temporary, modular classrooms while the school is renovated
• Rebuild and retain front wall facing Mallway Park ($144,750,000): addresses the physical and educational needs; students would use temporary, modular classrooms while the new school is built
• Rebuild and replace front wall facing Mallway Park ($134,740,000): addresses the physical and educational needs; students would use temporary, modular classrooms while the new school is built

Ballot Millage Overview

Geistfeld shared an overview of how bonds work on the ballot and how the millage is calculated. There are four factors in this: total dollar amount of projects, maximum length of repayments, estimated interest rate and total assessed property valuation of the school district as of the ballot calculation date. Two of these factors — the project dollar amount and the maximum length of repayment — cannot change, but the other two — estimated interest rate and total assessed property valuation — will likely change after the issue is placed on the ballot. He shared that this makes it very confusing to share the ballot millage, because what voters are ultimately approving is the project dollar amount and the maximum length of repayments. Therefore, the actual bond millage that is collected may actually be different than the ballot millage.

He shared the ballot language from 2017 as an example, which included a bond millage of 6.92. In this case, the actual increase in the tax rate was 5 mills. The difference would be more impactful on a November 2026 bond request due to the decrease in debt payments. He also noted that ballot language on an operating levy will change due to a new state law. 

Geistfeld also shared that there is a planned drop in debt payments in 2028-2029 that would help reduce the tax increase for homeowners over what they are currently paying for district bonds. For example, if the ballot millage calculation were to be 5.65 mills, homeowners could expect to actually see an increase of 2.75 mills from the tax rate they are currently paying for debt.

Facilities Options

Geistfeld presented various scenarios that were reviewed by the Financial Advisory Board for Hastings, Jones and Burbank, looking at the difference between the estimated millage rate that would appear on the ballot versus the estimated millage increase needed to pay off the future debt. 

Financial Advisory Board

Dr. Hunt discussed the formation of the Financial Advisory Board (FAB) including the professional expertise of the members and the commitment they brought to the work.  This team of community experts in business management and the financing and management of facilities improvement projects were tasked with providing independent, community-informed analysis and recommendations on the funding, phasing and scope of the second phase of the facilities master planning process. Dr. Hunt and Geistfeld summarized the topics covered in each of the four meetings of the FAB. What resulted from their robust discussion over these meetings was a final report to the superintendent and treasurer to inform a final master plan recommendation and a combined bond/levy proposal to the Board of Education.

Before jumping into the very specific recommendations on the buildings, Dr. Hunt shared some of the context from discussion by the team around those recommendations — including a significant amount of discussion on the historical nature and future of Jones Middle School. The team’s discussion led to the identification of the following additional considerations for a phase two master plan:

• The formation of a historical advisory board for Jones Middle School
• The addition of turf fields for the middle school athletic facilities
• The educational experience during construction and the recommendation to look at all possible options for transitional educational space
• The long-term investment in these buildings

Dr. Hunt shared that the FAB wrestled with the costs associated with the options but put an emphasis on the long-term investment.

A summary of the FAB’s recommendations is listed below. To review the full Financial Advisory Board Report, please click here. 

Phasing

The FAB reached a consensus on addressing all three buildings in a single phase due to the immediacy of the needs and the escalating costs of construction. 

Scope

The FAB reached a consensus that the following options were most appropriate for each building:

• Burbank Early Childhood School ($39,450,000) - rebuild with additional classrooms
• Hastings Middle School ($110,800,000) - rebuild on site of current athletic field
• Jones Middle School ($134,740,000) - rebuild without retaining the facade, consider forming a historical advisory board to advise on the project

Funding

The FAB agreed that the bond issue for these projects should not increase the current bond tax rate by more than 2.5 mills of actual collection.

Operating levy millage

The FAB reached consensus that the operating levy portion of the ballot issue should not exceed 5 mills.

Administration Recommendations

Dr. Hunt recommended moving forward with a $287 million phase two master plan that would include:

• Burbank - rebuild with additional classrooms
• Hastings - rebuild on athletic field
• Jones - rebuild entire building (not retaining the existing facade)
• Hastings and Jones athletic fields - turf

Geistfeld recommended that the bond request associated with this plan be offset by $14 million that the Board of Education had set aside in the Capital Projects Fund. That would result in a bond issue request of $273 million and an estimated 2.0 mill increase over current bond millage. This would assume that collections over 37 years, not using level payments and an estimated interest rate at .25% over current rates.  Current bond millage tax rate is 5.7 mills

He also recommended moving forward with a 4.9 mill operating levy request, which would result in an estimated total millage of 6.9 mills. If approved, this would increase the property tax of a $500,000 home (as valued by the county auditor) by approximately $1,210.

Before finalizing any master plan recommendations, the district plans to receive feedback from the community at the March 25 community engagement session at 6 p.m. at Upper Arlington High School and through an online survey available at www.uaschools.org/facilities from March 26 through April 9.