The Key Takeaway
In 2022, SoWashCo voters rejected a $462.7 million facilities proposal. In 2023, they approved a substantially narrower plan: $201.2 million in construction bonds focused on existing schools and a separate ten-year technology levy.
The 2023 plan preserved Newport, Crestview, and Pine Hill as elementary schools; eliminated two replacement schools and several support-facility projects; and reduced proposed construction borrowing by more than half. It retained many of the most immediate capacity, cafeteria, career and technical education, bathroom, and security projects.
Those decisions provide important context for the district’s current five-year planning process. But they do not determine its outcome. Construction bonds and technology-levy revenue have legally limited purposes and cannot simply be redirected to eliminate the General Fund operating deficit.
Two Elections, Two Different Proposals
South Washington County Schools asked voters to approve major facilities investments in both 2022 and 2023.
The results were very different:
| Election | Proposal | Result |
|---|---|---|
| August 2022 | $462.7 million construction bond | Rejected, approximately 66%–34% |
| November 2023, Question 1 | $160.9 million secondary-school bond | Approved, 56.7%–43.3% |
| November 2023, Question 2 | $40.4 million elementary-school bond | Approved, 55.0%–45.0% |
| November 2023, Question 3 | Ten-year technology projects levy | Approved, 51.7%–48.3% |
What Was Proposed in 2022?
The 2022 proposal was a ten-year facilities plan presented as one $462.7 million bond question.
It combined growth-related construction with school replacements, renovations, program relocations, administrative facilities, transportation space, and land acquisition.
Major components included:
- A new, centrally located replacement for Crestview Elementary
- A replacement Pine Hill Elementary on its existing site
- Classroom, cafeteria, kitchen, special education, bathroom, and collaborative-space projects across many elementary schools
- Additions and renovations at all four middle schools
- Major additions and renovations at East Ridge, Park, and Woodbury high schools
- Conversion of the existing Crestview building into an alternative high school
- Conversion of Newport Elementary into an early-learning center
- Relocation of other early-learning programs
- A new District Service Center
- Renovation of the existing District Service Center for transition programs
- A satellite transportation facility
- Purchase of 120–160 acres for possible future school construction
The package allocated approximately:
| Project category | Proposed cost |
|---|---|
| Early-learning conversion | $1.7 million |
| Elementary schools | $194.9 million |
| Middle schools | $58.7 million |
| High schools and alternative high school | $159.6 million |
| Support facilities, land, and transportation | $47.5 million |
| Total | $462.5 million |
Review the district’s complete 2022 proposal
Why Did the 2022 Proposal Face Opposition?
An election result shows how people voted. It does not necessarily establish why every voter made that choice. The 2022 proposal drew opposition from different directions.
Some residents objected to the cost and breadth of the bond request. The proposal combined immediate capacity needs with replacement schools, a new District Service Center, future land, transportation space, and broad modernization projects in one all-or-nothing question.
Newport families and supporters raised a different concern. The plan would have ended Newport Elementary’s operation as a neighborhood K–5 school and converted the building into an early-learning center.
Contemporary reporting identified Newport as the district’s most racially and linguistically diverse elementary school. Families argued that the school’s smaller environment provided a supportive community for students and that removing its K–5 program created an equity concern.
These objections produced the same “no” vote even though they reflected substantially different views of public-school spending and investment.
It would therefore be misleading to interpret the 2022 result as a single public mandate against school investment. It would also be misleading to dismiss the outcome as opposition based only on cost. The proposal’s scope, prioritization, tax impact, and treatment of Newport all contributed to the public debate.
Read contemporary reporting about the election and Newport concerns
What Changed in 2023?
The district returned to voters in November 2023 with a five-year construction plan divided into two questions. Together, the construction questions authorized $201.2 million—approximately $261.4 million less than the 2022 request. That was a reduction of approximately 56.5%.
The new plan:
- Preserved Newport as a K–5 elementary school
- Preserved the existing Crestview Elementary
- Replaced the proposed new Pine Hill building with additions to the existing school
- Eliminated the alternative-high-school relocation
- Eliminated the new District Service Center
- Eliminated future-school land acquisition
- Eliminated the transportation-facility project
- Removed many of the smaller districtwide renovations
- Concentrated construction at schools with identified capacity, cafeteria, security, or bathroom needs
- Divided secondary and elementary construction into separate ballot questions
What Did Bond Question 1 Approve?
Question 1 authorized up to $160.9 million in 20-year general-obligation bonds for secondary-school safety, security, expansions, and renovations.
East Ridge High School
The intended scope included:
- An addition increasing capacity to approximately 2,300 students
- Cafeteria expansion
- Additional career and technical education, STEM, and robotics classroom space
Park High School
The intended scope included:
- A new cafeteria and kitchen
- Renovated CTE, STEM, and robotics spaces
- Additional CTE space
- A secure entry
- Consolidated administration and student-services space
Woodbury High School
The intended scope included:
- A new cafeteria and kitchen
- Renovated CTE, STEM, and robotics spaces
- Additional CTE space
- Media-center renovation
- A new secure entry and student-services wing
- Parking realignment intended to improve pedestrian safety
Oltman Middle School
The intended scope included:
- A classroom addition
- Capacity for approximately 1,300 students
- Expanded cafeteria and kitchen serving areas
- New STEM and special-education spaces
Woodbury Middle School
The intended scope included:
- Conversion of the former pool area into educational space
- A secure entry and relocated main office
- A new bus road and revised traffic flow
Cottage Grove and Lake Middle Schools
The intended scope included:
- Secure entries
- Relocated administration and health-office functions
Review the district’s construction projects
What Did Bond Question 2 Approve?
Question 2 authorized up to $40.4 million in additional 20-year bonds for elementary-school additions and bathrooms. Question 2 was contingent on Question 1. Voters could approve the secondary-school work without approving the elementary question, but the elementary question could not take effect unless the secondary question passed.
Capacity Projects
Bailey Elementary
- Classroom addition
- New cafeteria and kitchen
Grey Cloud Elementary
- Classroom addition
- New cafeteria and kitchen
Pine Hill Elementary
- Classroom additions
- Gym addition
- New bathrooms
Red Rock Elementary
- Classroom addition
Bathroom Projects
The plan also funded additional bathrooms at five older schools that had only one central set of four bathroom stalls:
- Crestview
- Hillside
- Pine Hill
- Pullman
- Royal Oaks
Pine Hill appears in both categories because it received capacity additions and bathroom improvements.
The district said passage of both bond questions would avoid elementary attendance-boundary changes for the 2024–25 school year. The additions were projected to increase available elementary seats from 1,388 to 1,843.
Review the district’s 2023 ballot presentation
What Did the Technology Levy Approve?
The third 2023 question was separate from the construction bonds.
Voters approved revoking the district’s existing technology capital-project levy and replacing it with a larger ten-year authorization.
The new authorization was expected to provide approximately:
- $5.0 million annually
- $50.0 million over ten years
The previous levy generated approximately $2.8 million annually. The 2023 vote therefore increased annual technology funding by approximately $2.2 million while replacing and extending the existing authorization.
The district identified eligible uses including:
- Cybersecurity systems
- Wi-Fi, fiber, and physical cabling
- Crisis-communication systems
- Telephones, public-address systems, and intercoms
- Security cameras and electronic access controls
- Visitor-management systems
- Data storage and privacy protection
- Student and employee devices
- Technology maintenance and repair
- Classroom technology
- Instructional software
- Business software for finance, human resources, transportation, nutrition services, and student information
- Technology support staffing
- Building-automation systems, including energy management and HVAC and lighting controls
Review the district’s technology-levy explanation
How Did the Facilities Plans Compare?
| 2022 proposal | 2023 approval |
|---|---|
| $462.7 million in construction bonds | $201.2 million in construction bonds |
| One all-or-nothing question | Two construction questions |
| Ten-year facilities package | Narrower five-year construction program |
| New Crestview Elementary | Existing Crestview retained |
| Replacement Pine Hill Elementary | Additions to existing Pine Hill |
| Newport converted to early learning | Newport retained as an elementary school |
| Alternative high school moved to Crestview | Project removed |
| New District Service Center | Project removed |
| Future-school land acquisition | Project removed |
| Satellite transportation facility | Project removed |
| Renovations across most district schools | Projects concentrated at 15 schools |
| Immediate and long-range projects combined | Greater emphasis on current capacity, cafeterias, bathrooms, and security |
Why Can’t This Money Solve the General Fund Deficit?
School-district funds are not interchangeable.
Construction bonds provide money for the capital projects authorized through the bond process. The district cannot simply redirect unused building-bond proceeds to pay regular classroom salaries, transportation expenses, or other unrelated General Fund operating costs.
The technology levy also has a restricted purpose. Its revenue supports eligible technology projects, systems, equipment, software, and technology support staffing. It is not unrestricted operating revenue.
That means neither the $201.2 million bond authorization nor the $5 million annual technology levy represents a general pool of money available to eliminate the district’s operating deficit.
The technology levy may indirectly protect the General Fund by paying eligible technology expenses that would otherwise require General Fund support, but that does not make its revenue unrestricted.
Construction projects can also affect the operating budget after completion. Additions may create new costs for:
- Utilities
- Custodial services
- Maintenance
- Equipment replacement
- Staffing
- Transportation
- Other building operations
Some projects may also improve efficiency or allow the district to serve localized enrollment growth without operating another building.
How Does This Affect the Current Five-Year Plan?
The district is now developing a broader plan addressing enrollment, facilities, staffing, transportation, academic programs, student services, and long-term financial sustainability.
The completed plan is expected to be presented to the School Board for approval in November 2027. Decisions about staffing, programs, building use, attendance boundaries, transportation, and district operations generally fall within the Board’s authority. A public vote would be required only if the Board includes a proposal requiring voter authorization, such as an increase in operating-referendum revenue.
Community listening sessions and advisory committees can inform the plan. They do not replace formal School Board responsibility for the final choices. Find out more on the District’s official Planning for the Next Five-Years site.
Bottom Line
The 2023 election established an important starting point for SoWashCo’s five-year plan.
The community authorized significant investments in existing schools and district technology. Those projects should be incorporated into current enrollment, facilities, and operating forecasts. Their restricted funding cannot simply be transferred to resolve the General Fund deficit.
At the same time, the five-year plan is not another facilities referendum. Unless the Board proposes an operating-revenue increase or another action requiring voter authorization, the Board will make the final decisions.
The central questions are therefore:
- How do those investments affect the district’s remaining needs?
- What operating costs and opportunities do they create?
- How will future changes distribute benefits and burdens across the district?
- What alternatives will the Board consider before approving the plan
Understanding what the community approved (and what it did not) will help residents evaluate the next plan without misinterpreting either election.
Sources
- South Washington County Schools: 2022 Proposal for Review and Comment Complete 2022 facilities proposal, including enrollment projections, project scopes, estimated costs, financing assumptions, tax impacts, and implementation plans.
- South Washington County Schools: School Board Approves 10-Year Facility Plan and Bond Election District summary of the 2022 facilities package and referendum decision.
- Minnesota Secretary of State: August 9, 2022 Ballot Questions Official language for the 2022 $462.66 million school-building bond question.
- South Washington County Schools: 2022 Bond Not Approved by Voters District response following the failed 2022 referendum.
- Sahan Journal: South Washington County Voters Reject $462 Million Referendum Contemporary reporting on the election result, the Newport Elementary equity concerns, and other public opposition to the proposal.
- South Washington County Schools: 2023 Bond and Levy Presentation District presentation describing the two construction questions, technology levy, proposed projects, capacity effects, contingencies, and estimated tax impacts.
- South Washington County Schools: 2023 Voting Information and Ballot Questions District description of the intended scopes for the secondary-school bond, elementary-school bond, and technology levy.
- Minnesota Secretary of State: November 7, 2023 ISD 833 Election Results Official ballot language and election results for all three 2023 questions.
- South Washington County Schools: Voters Approve Bond Requests and Technology Levy District summary of the voter-approved construction and technology authorizations.
- South Washington County Schools: Technology Projects Levy Details Explanation of the prior and replacement levy amounts, eligible technology uses, ten-year term, and estimated tax impact.
- South Washington County Schools: Construction Projects Current district descriptions of the projects being designed and constructed with the voter-approved 2023 bond funding.