Frequently Asked Questions

Our facilities are aging, and they just aren't meeting all of our district needs. As we look to the future of our schools and community, we want to ensure that our buildings match the top-quality of education and opportunities we strive to provide our students.

This process has included facilities assessments, community surveys and forums, Board of Education Work Sessions, and the formation and regular meetings of a Steering Committee. For more on this process, please visit our facilities planning webpage.

The district is considering a bond proposal because it is the only funding mechanism available to a public school district that could fund all of the priorities identified by the District, the Steering Committee, and the Board. For more information on bonds and finances, please visit our School and Bond Finances webpage.

A bond proposal is how a public school district asks its community for authorization to borrow money to pay for capital expenditures. Voter-approved bond funds can be spent on new construction, additions, remodeling, site improvements, athletic facilities, playgrounds, buses, furnishings, equipment, and other capital needs. Funds raised through the sale of bonds cannot be used on operational expenses such as employee salaries and benefits, school supplies, and textbooks. Bond funds must be kept separate from operating funds and expenditures must be audited by an independent auditing firm.

After the SJPS community did not approve the 2024 bond, we surveyed the community and applied that feedback to our process going forward. We conducted Board workshops and formed a representative Community Facilities Steering Committee that has met regularly from August-November. This group has helped to hone priorities and determine scenarios for the potential bond proposal. We also surveyed the community with Steering Committee priorities. A finalized proposal will be provided to the Board of Education in November. We would then proceed through the Department of Treasury's process before the Board votes on a resolution to adopt a ballot question regarding the proposal in January.

The Steering Committee, Board of Education, and District administration are still in the process of prioritizing needs and potential projects, surveying the community, and finalizing a proposal. This will not be final until late November. More information will be available once the Board has officially approved the pursuit of a bond proposal.

In short, no. We do not plan to close any buildings.

Together with the Community Steering Committee and the Board of Education, we considered a few different scenarios that looked to address any facility and operational inefficiencies at Eureka, specifically. However, after hearing from the community and consulting the Board of Education, we have decided to keep Eureka open, and to invest in upgrades to the building. This will allow us to continue our focus on neighborhood schools and keep the overall cost of the bond proposal lower by not building a new elementary-level building in town, while still addressing the needs of the building and the learning environments of the students there.

We are considering an Early Learning Center for a multitude of reasons:

1. Current inefficiencies and challenges: Our current dispersed model means we have to pay for licenses at four separate buildings and staff them all separately. Collaboration and attraction/retention of teachers is challenging in these distinct spaces.

2. Capacity limitations: Currently, we have 200 children eligible for our GSRP program and only 80 spots available. We also have 71 children on the waiting list for Little Wings and only 40 spots available in our spaces.

3. Attracting and retaining Young Families in our community: An Early Learning Center provides support for young families and makes our community and schools more appealing for them to stay.

4. Attracting and retaining staff: Providing space for Early Learning professionals to excel would help us appeal to more high-quality staff for our youngest learners. Dispersed resources, full-capacity classrooms, and aging buildings do not help to attract or retain.

5. Preparing for the future: Initiatives at the State level have indicated that there will be funding available for preschool for all students in the near future, meaning that districts will be expected to support an influx of preschool students.

6. Learning, socialization benefits: Top research supports numerous significant benefits of high-quality early education. 

If a new facility is built to support Early Learning, all of the appropriate security, code, and traffic flow requirements would be implemented to be sure this space supports our earliest learners and their families effectively.

Yes. Early Learning Centers are becoming increasingly common as a growing body of research supports the educational and developmental benefits. This is furthered by initiatives at the State level that will require districts state-wide to provide preschool to all students. Districts are preparing for the greater enrollment that will come from these initiatives.

We currently offer childcare for birth-5 years old in our Little Wings Program that is housed at East Olive. We offer Adventure Club before and after school for our school-aged children at Gateway and Oakview. Both Little Wings and Adventure Club are tuition-based programs, meaning families pay for these programs. Families sign up for these programs and we often have a waitlist for these programs. We also offer preschool at Riley and Oakview Elementary schools. Preschool is for children who are 4 years old and we get a grant from the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) and Headstart to fund this program. Families enroll in preschool and selection is based on age, then family income.

For GSRP (4 year olds), we have about 200 children eligible in the school district, and only slots for 80. 

For Little Wings (0-5 years), we have 40 slots available right now, and there are 71 children on the waiting list. This is not counting the families that inquire about care and do not add their names to the list once they hear how long it is. 

For Adventure Club (School-age), we have 72 slots available and 10 on the waiting list. 

The idea to put turf at the soccer field originated because of the significant issues that the field is facing including drainage, irrigation, foundation, grass condition, lack of lighting, no bathrooms, lack of seating and overall condition. To address all of these, a total field and structure replacement would be needed at that location. Turf would be a high-quality, long-term solution for this.

The Steering Committee continues to explore this and discuss other locations for turf rather than the soccer field. Please stay updated via our website as decisions are finalized in coming months.

The East Olive building has aged and is no longer up to code or conveniently located. It would need fire suppression and significant remodeling of most of the building that already does not meet standards for early childhood centers. We also have rented the facility to the East Olive Community Center for the past five years: this would require us to force them out of the space.

While the proposal is yet to be finalized, the District and the Steering Committee are considering the following improvements in regards to Safety & Security:

• Increased Exterior Door Monitoring through expanded access control systems and improved security camera systems

• Secure Entrances with new entrance vestibules at Eureka, Gateway, and Oakview that mirror those of other buildings on campus

• Replacement Doors and Locks to bolster security within the building

The specific construction schedule will be determined once the potential bond proposal has been finalized. Please stay tuned via this website.

Together with the Community Steering Committee and the Board, we have considered a few different scenarios throughout this process. One of those scenarios included a new 3rd-5th grade building in town that would provide updated learning spaces for today's upper elementary students as well as free up space in Gateway for centralized early learning needs. 

This scenario would be more expensive but would address robustly the prioritized classroom environments. However, this scenario is preliminary and the impact on Riley and Eureka is still being explored. Stay tuned on this webpage for information as the community weighs in and a potential bond proposal is finalized.

Our SJPS maintenance team is hard at work to ensure our facilities stay in top shape. Many of the needs that we have discussed are not maintenance-related; they are large-scale improvements that need heavy duty repair or replacement. 

We are working closely with our architect and construction manager to ensure that any new facilities are built with quality and longevity in mind in order to reduce future efficiency failures.

We will continue to make sure our facilities staff are equipped to service all of our facilities. For specific questions on how this team functions, please contact Rob Gleeson, Director of Operations, at gleesonr@sjredwings.org.

Yes--the Steering Committee and District administration teams have had repeated conversations about fine arts improvements throughout the process. Fine arts continue to be a priority. More information will be available upon finalization of the proposal.

Over the past few months, the District has re-considered the projects proposed in the last proposal and developed a few different possible scenarios as alternate options. We presented these to the Community Steering Committee and the Board of Education. 

One of the scenarios explored the option of investing in current buildings rather than building a new Early Learning Center. Ultimately, there was little support for this idea on the committee and among the School Board because of this scenario's inability to address the licensing and consolidation issues (see the Early Learning question).The Committee came to consensus that exploring a centralized facility, while more expensive, would be a more logical investment of district dollars, as it would provide a space dedicated to our youngest learners where licensing and staff resources could be consolidated and where staff could collaborate more effectively.

We have been diligent to maintain our high school classrooms. No significant needs have presented themselves outside of some minor updates, but stay tuned on this web page as the potential proposal is finalized.

Yes, one of the scenarios that the Steering Committee Considered was to build a New Riley. However, the Committee and the Board came to consensus not to pursue this idea through a cost-benefit analysis.

1. Building a new Riley in addition to the other top priorities that the Committee identified would increase the total amount of the bond proposal greatly, necessitating an increase to the tax rate. This idea was not supported by the Committee or the Board.

2. Building a new Riley instead of other discussed projects could keep the tax rate from increasing, but it would result in a great reduction to the proposal and thus eliminate many of the projects that the Committee identified as top priorities to address district needs.

As the Steering Committee creates a potential bond proposal, Riley continues to be a high priority. Stay tuned via the webpage for the improvements planned for Riley.

We are very proud of our facilities in SJPS and work hard to keep them updated. However, as our needs grow and we seek to attract students and families to our District, we hope to keep pace with what other districts provide and  continue to offer our students a variety of high-quality opportunities in high-quality spaces.

The bond proposal is still in development as the District administration, Board of Education, and Steering Committee work together to decide on the key projects that will be included. Once this is finalized and approved by the Board, more information about the projects within will be provided to the community.

We are only considering options for a bond proposal that would not increase the tax rate over the prior year’s levy. This means that the millage rate would remain at 7.00 mills. For an explanation of millage rates, please watch our financial videos.

If approved by voters, the District’s Architect/Engineer would design the proposed projects and prepare construction documents and specifications for the projects. Once the projects are designed, the district’s Construction Manager will assemble bid packages and publicly advertise to solicit competitive bids for all work. This is required by law, as outlined in the Revised School Code. This process ensures that the district selects the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. All qualified contractors will have an opportunity to attend a pre-bid meeting to obtain additional information and project clarification. All qualified contractors will have the opportunity to participate in the competitive bid process.

As we plan for our facilities, we are also planning for how these will impact our need for staffing. We are prepared to hire the teachers necessary to ensure that new classrooms are utilized well and that students receive a high-quality education in smaller class sizes.

The graph below shows how the zero-mill increase compares to our neighboring districts.

We will continue to update these facilities web pages as we finalize the potential bond proposal. The community can expect to rely on our website for all up-to-date information. For additional questions, continue to monitor our FAQs or submit questions here.

As we are near completion of a bond proposal for the Board of Education to approve, we are, unfortunately, no longer accepting applications to join the Facilities Steering Committee.

However, this doesn't mean you can't be involved! We encourage you to continue to attend community forums, stay in touch with Facilities Steering Committee members and offer input, participate in surveys, and help us spread the word about our process and eventually the finalized proposal.