BISD facilities director discusses potential bond projects

Published 1:30 am Thursday, April 9, 2026

Levies are for learning, and bonds are for building — and the time may have come to begin building at Bainbridge Island schools.

School board members and staff leadership at the Bainbridge Island School District held a special study session March 26 to discuss how a potential bond in November may fit into long-range planning goals at the district, including necessary infrastructure upgrades, conversion to sustainable energy systems and improvements to district amenities.

Staff from the capital projects and facilities department, including director Dane Fenwick, outlined how the district evaluates building conditions, forecasts future needs and prepares for major construction and renovation efforts. At the center of the discussion was the district’s Strategic Long-Range Plan, a framework that guides decisions about when and how to repair, replace or upgrade school facilities.

The plan incorporates a range of factors, including building age and condition, student enrollment trends, programmatic needs and compliance with state and federal requirements. Fenwick emphasized that the process is ongoing and data-driven, relying on regular assessments to identify priorities across the district.

BISD’s facilities department has a broad scope of responsibilities, including overseeing new school construction, modernizing existing buildings and managing infrastructure systems such as utilities and safety upgrades. In addition to construction work, the department handles regulatory compliance, property management and coordination with contractors, including maintaining a roster of local firms eligible for smaller public works projects.

With funding from the 2016 bond and 2019 supplemental levy, BISD completed about 19 projects, including several sports fields and court renovations, safety system installations, and transportation fleet maintenance. The 2019 levy is funding several more ongoing projects, including HVAC system upgrades at Woodward Middle School, lighting improvements district-wide, and modernization of school elevators and restrooms.

One major potential project funded by a new bond would be the Central Campus Athletic Complex, an overhaul of the sports fields that span the district property between Ordway Elementary and Bainbridge High School.

Preliminary planning places the project in the context of multi-million-dollar investments typical of past bonds, which have ranged from about $42 million in 2009 to $81 million in 2016. Its inclusion in a future bond would depend on how it is prioritized against core infrastructure needs and whether it can be justified to voters alongside more urgent facility improvements, Fenwick said.

A significant portion of the presentation focused on how these efforts are funded. Large-scale capital projects in the district are primarily supported through voter-approved bonds, supplemented at times by levies. Fenwick walked through the district’s history of successful bond measures over the past two decades, highlighting how those funds have enabled major facility improvements but also underscoring the district’s reliance on continued community support.

That reliance introduces both opportunity and constraint. Because bonds must be approved by voters, the district must balance identified facility needs with what it believes the community is willing to support financially, explained Fenwick. Staff noted that taxpayers in the district are also impacted by overlapping taxing jurisdictions, which can influence the timing and scale of future bond proposals.

The presentation also touched on past funding challenges.

In particular, the 2016 bond measure, approved at approximately $81 million, fell short of covering the full costs of two major replacement school projects. As construction progressed and expenses increased, the district faced a funding gap that could not be absorbed within the original bond amount. To address the shortfall and complete the projects, voters later approved a six-year, $15 million capital levy in 2019, underscoring the financial uncertainties that can arise in long-term construction planning.

Board members did not engage in extensive debate during the session, but the information presented pointed to several underlying issues that are likely to shape future discussions. Among them is the need to prioritize projects within a finite funding capacity. As facilities age and educational demands change, the list of potential improvements continues to grow, making it unlikely that all needs can be addressed at once.

Another key consideration is transparency and public trust. Because capital funding depends on voter approval, the district must clearly communicate both the necessity and the benefits of proposed projects, said Fenwick. Ensuring that investments are perceived as equitable across schools and aligned with student needs will be critical in building support for future measures.

The evolving nature of education also emerged as a factor in facilities planning. Staff emphasized that school buildings are not static assets; they must adapt to changes in teaching methods, technology and student services. This adds another layer of complexity to planning efforts, as projects must account not only for current deficiencies but also for future flexibility — including sustainability.

Overall, the study session served as a foundational briefing for the board as it prepares to make decisions about future capital investments. No specific bond measure or timeline was proposed, but the discussion made clear that the district is beginning to lay the groundwork for its next phase of facilities funding.

Future board meetings are expected to build on this information, with more detailed discussions about project prioritization, cost estimates and potential ballot measures. Fenwick will re-approach the district’s consulting team to reassess the financial projections of a bond in November.