The Aspen School District will not ask voters for a tax increase on the November ballot.

The ASD school board directed district staff in June to consider funding through the Debt-Free Schools Act for the November ballot after council members declined to pursue a bond measure. Voters would have been asked to approve a tax increase so the district could collect an additional $4 million annually to fund deferred maintenance. If approved, that would have cost taxpayers $49.52 annually for every $1 million in property value.

But after speaking with its constituents throughout the summer and seeking advice from the district’s Finance Advisory Committee, the school board decided against continuing the funding at its first meeting of the 2024-25 school year to ease the burden on taxpayers who faced significant increases in property values ​​last year.

“I spent a lot of time over the summer talking to a lot of different people and was told in a lot of different ways that they recommend that we don’t put anything on the ballot for a lot of different reasons,” said board chair Christa Gieszl.

The school board also decided that adding a tax question to an already crowded November ballot would cause voter fatigue. In addition to the presidential election and other national and statewide elections, Pitkin County voters will be asked to vote on the implementation of a countywide property tax to fund affordable housing initiatives, a citizen’s initiative on the airport, a possible county-initiated question on the airport and other local ballot questions.

For months, board members debated issuing another bond as funds from the 2020 $114 million bond ran out. The district wanted to fund additional employee housing purchases, a new bus station, a new preschool and theater renovations – projects that the 2020 bond could not handle. At one point, district leaders discussed issuing a $175 million bond, with $100 million of that to be used to purchase 100 employee housing units.

But the board overwhelmingly expressed concern about the possibility of another bond measure and the burden it would place on taxpayers. Instead, it decided in June to pursue funding through the Debt-Free Schools Act. This funding was approved for school districts by the state legislature in 2016 and provides for the collection of additional tax levies for investments in construction, new technology, upgrading existing technology and district maintenance.

The district had to notify the Pitkin County Clerk-Recorder’s office by Sept. 6 if it wanted to be on the ballot. Rather than rush the development of a ballot question, the board decided to wait, particularly because the Finance Advisory Committee wanted to discourage applying for Debt-Free Schools Act funds.

“The FAB wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about the debt-free schools and felt that people were being ripped off, and that people felt like they were constantly asking for a small amount of money and then coming to voters later with a larger bond when they felt like they were being ripped off,” said board member Stacey Weiss. “They think the priority should be the bond request. If we don’t do that this year, we shouldn’t cloud or confuse the issue by asking for something else that seems to contradict what we’re asking for in the bond.”

The board voted to have more discussion in the future about another bond, possibly to be placed on the November 2025 ballot. County leaders had originally proposed putting a bond on the ballot this November because presidential elections typically have the highest voter turnout, but board members pointed to the high voter turnout in several odd-year elections in Pitkin County. Two school board seats would also be up for election in the November 2025 election, making the election more targeted for the school district.

If district leaders wait to ask voters for more funding—either through the Debt-Free Schools Act or through a bond—they will have more time to determine the district’s funding needs and address the depleted reserves that have put the district in a precarious financial position.

Mary Rodino, ASD’s assistant director of economic affairs, is in the process of forming a cost-savings task force to replenish reserves. The task force will also work with Joe Waneka, ASD’s director of operations and facilities, to determine what deferred maintenance work is needed in the district and what funding will be needed to complete it.

These discussions would help the district determine exactly what to finance with a bond in the future.

Board member Sarah Daniels was the only member to support the tax increase on the November vote. An annual revenue to fund deferred maintenance would allow future bonds to be put toward major capital improvement projects rather than deferred emergency maintenance that would eat into the 2020 bond.

But Daniels ultimately joined the rest of the board in deciding not to pursue the financing. Rodino encouraged the board to keep the option open for future years.