Question 1

What are the current challenges facing Helena Public Schools?

Accepted Answer

• Aging technology and facilities
 • Ongoing budget shortfalls
 • Declining birthrates impacting enrollment
 • Changing neighborhood demographics requiring new boundaries
 • Rising employee health insurance costs
 • Federal funding uncertainty

Question 2

What changes is the Board of Trustees considering?

Accepted Answer

• Seek bonds to build a new Helena High, new Kessler Elementary, and renovate Capital High
 • Redraw school boundaries to balance enrollment
 • Decide the future of Hawthorne Elementary
 • Sell or lease district properties
 • Purchase land for transportation and future needs

Question 3

What are the goals of these changes?

Accepted Answer

• Provide basic technology for teaching and learning
 • Preserve Helena’s strong education model
 • Ensure safe, modern high school facilities
 • Avoid emergency consolidation into a single high school
 • Offer equitable opportunities across schools
 • Maintain competitive compensation for staff

Question 4

What is the timeline for these decisions?

Accepted Answer

• Bond decisions by June 2025, with potential construction starting so new schools can open Fall 2028
 • Hawthorne Elementary decision by June 10, 2025
 • Boundary adjustments implemented in the 2026-27 school year

Question 5

Why is the district seeking a high school construction bond?

Accepted Answer

Helena High’s 1955 steam heating system is near failure. Replacement or repairs would cost millions and be disruptive. Other Montana districts have upgraded high schools in the past decade; Helena hasn’t significantly invested in its high schools in decades.

Question 6

What happens if the school construction bond fails?

Accepted Answer

If Helena High’s boiler fails, all high school students could be forced into Capital High on split shifts. Helena High is deteriorating, with ongoing water damage and outdated systems.

Question 7

What is the difference between a bond and a levy?

Accepted Answer

Bonds fund buildings; levies fund learning. Bond funds pay for construction and renovations. Levies support staffing, programs, supplies, and curriculum.

Question 8

What has the district done to address the budget shortfall?

Accepted Answer

Since 2021, the district has made $7 million in cuts and savings through staff reductions, building consolidations, and leasing properties. The district has also worked to generate revenue by leasing facilities like the Ray Bjork Learning Center.

Question 9

Will hard copy handout information be available in addition to online info and school visits?

Accepted Answer

Yes, hard copies are available at the weekly Community Engagement Meetings.

Question 10

How many years will we be making this additional tax payment?

Accepted Answer

• Elementary School Bond: Additional tax payments will be made for up to 20 years.
 • High School Bond: Additional tax payments will continue for up to 30 years.

Question 11

How many years do we have left to pay on the previous bond for the elementary school buildings and how much were those monthly costs?

Accepted Answer

In May 2017, Helena voters approved a $63 million bond to tear down and rebuild three elementary schools (Bryant, Jim Darcy, and Central), plus upgrades across all K–8 facilities, including safety, security, and technology enhancements 
 • The bond had a 20-year repayment term, starting in 2017 and projected to conclude around 2037.

Estimated Monthly Cost for Property Owners
From coverage at the time of the vote:
 • Homeowners with a $200,000 property were projected to pay about $10 per month, which equates to $120 per year

To recap:
 • Years left to pay: ~12 years (through 2037).
 • Monthly cost: roughly $10/month for a $200k home.

Question 12

Why is the cost of the new Helena High School so high?

Accepted Answer

The $147.1 million budget for the new Helena High School—part of the total High School bond—was carefully developed to reflect full project costs. It includes construction expenses, furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E), and a comprehensive range of soft costs including architectural and engineering design fees, permitting, testing, inspections, project management, owner’s representative services, legal fees, and bond administration. The budget also includes contingency funds to manage risk in today’s volatile construction climate, along with projected inflation through project completion.

By contrast, Gallatin High School’s $93 million budget accounted for construction costs only—not the full scope of project-related expenses.

Helena High School's budget also accounts for the demolition of the existing school and potential asbestos abatement, which were not required at Gallatin High due to its construction on a new, undeveloped site.

The new Helena High School is being designed to serve up to 1,300 students, providing capacity for future enrollment growth and potential redistricting.

Cost estimates were based on current and projected construction pricing for comparable projects currently under construction or bidding throughout Montana. Additional information about how the budget was developed can be found on the “Budgets & Tax Impact” page at HelenaSchoolBond.org.(https://www.helenaschoolbond.org/what-are-the-bond-measures)

Question 13

Are the High Schools getting equal investments if the bond were to pass?

Accepted Answer

What are the proposed projects at each of the High Schools:

1. Equal Opportunity Across the District
 • The objective of the high school bond is to create equal learning environments and opportunities for all students, no matter which school they attend.
 • Budgets differ because the scope of need is different, not because one school is being prioritized over the other.

2. Why Helena High Costs More
 • Construction type matters: Helena High (1955) is a primarily wood-framed  structure at the end of its useful life. Moisture issues, pest problems, failing systems, and nearly $30M in deferred maintenance mean that replacement is the best investment.
 • In contrast, Capital High (1965) is concrete and steel construction with good bones, making renovation and selective additions more cost-effective.
 • Costs for Helena High include significantly more demolition costs ($2.8M vs. $43K)
 • The square footage costs to renovate is only 60% of the  cost for new construction.

3. Core Systems Upgrades
 • Both schools are receiving new or renovated HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems to replace infrastructure that is outdated and past service life.
 • These updates will resolve issues like inconsistent temperatures, poor air quality, and electrical failures that currently disrupt learning.

4. Athletics
 • Both HHS and CHS: renovated main gyms + new auxiliary gyms.
 • CHS: locker rooms will be new or heavily renovated; practice field upgraded with turf  and a 6-lane track—bringing equity between high schools.

5. Performing Arts
 • HHS: new  performing arts center (~400 seats).
 • CHS: renovated auditorium to meet student and community needs at a similar scale.

6. Student Commons / Cafeteria
 • Both schools will have new/improved commons and cafeteria spaces, designed to be equitably sized and serve as community hubs.

7. Career & Technology Education (CTE)
 • Both schools currently rely on detached, undersized metal CTE buildings.
 • In both projects, CTE will be brought up to standards, connected to the main school, and sized equitably to ensure equal learning opportunities.

8. Site Circulation & Safety
	Both schools will see site and entry circulation improvements, including secure vestibules and 	main office placement at the student entrance—critical for student safety and supervision.

9. Special Education
 • At Capital, special education spaces are      currently small and isolated. Renovations will improve the size, quality, and location of these areas so students can access services more      equitably and be better integrated into the school community.
 • Helena High’s new construction will include dedicated, fully integrated special education spaces built to today’s standards.

Question 14

How were the budgets for the High School and Elementary Bond established?

Accepted Answer

In 2022, SMA was selected to lead Helena’s Facilities Master Plan, which included building assessments, interviews, and analysis to establish responsible planning budgets. For three plus years, these developing budgets were based on local and national cost data, recent construction trends, and direct comparisons to similar projects like Gallatin High School, which was bid in 2017 for $93M (construction cost). Since then, construction costs in Montana have risen 5–8% per year (depending on what area of construction is considered), driven by inflation, materials, labor shortages, scarcity of major subcontractors that can handle larger projects, code updates, and as it relates to High Schools specifically, …the complexity of high school programs that include theaters, gyms, labs, and CTE shops. By 2026, the same Gallatin project would likely cost $165–170M, or $560/sf, showing that Helena’s proposed budget is actually conservative. While some adjustments may be needed during design, the district is committed to maximizing long-term value and minimizing life-cycle costs with durable 50–70 year facilities. These numbers are not inflated—they reflect the real costs of building a modern, AA high school in the projected Montana construction market.

In 2022, SMA was selected to work with the district to develop a Facilities Master Plan.  The Master Plan process, which included District leadership and staff, included a comprehensive discovery, confirmation, analysis, and prioritization of primarily the educational facilities in the district.  We performed building walk-throughs and interviews, utilized the most recent Deferred Maintenance Report provided by the District and in some cases, more precise inspections/evaluations.  The Master Plan eventually culminated into a handful of priority projects, which our team of licensed architects and engineers generally estimated to inform planning budgets for the District to utilize.  This is a very common process for planning and budgeting construction projects, especially for larger institutions like school districts.    In fact, to responsibly determine a construction budget for existing or replacement projects, I am not sure what other methods should be used.

The most market-knowledgeable parties to assist with construction budgeting, are local architects, engineers, construction firms and even suppliers and subcontractors.  We also utilize national cost trends and reports, commodities pricing information, local economic influences/markets and our own database of similar construction projects, labor and material pricing.

Additionally, and at an interestingly more macro level (but includes the more micro data included above and below), one of the best ways to budget a project is to learn what a similar project recently cost.  One of the challenges here, is recent, new High School construction projects are limited within this construction market.  There has been one in the last 10 years.  Gallatin High School in Bozeman was bid (“purchased”) in 2017.  A new Helena High School would be bid (“purchased”) 9 years later in the fall of 2026.  Additional considerations include the quality and quantity of all program elements, amenities, and more costly materials.  Even the process used to design and construct a school can affect the final pricing.

What are more recent related or somewhat related projects:

• High School: 
    • Gallatin High (Bid in 2017): $93M Construction Cost, ~300,000 sf, 1,500 students →       $310/sf.
 • Elementary:      
    • 2018 Central Elem Helena $17.2M / 64k sf ≈ $268.75/sf
 • Belgrade Elem budget $425/sf (planned to bid in late 2025)

Regarding the construction cost trend of these two elementary schools, that’s ~58% total increase 2018→2025, ~6.8%/yr …depending on what is included in this calculation, it could be up to 63% increase

Similarly, general construction costs have increased by 5%-8% per year since 2017.  This includes data from dozens of construction projects that our firm and our partners (contractors and engineers) have participated in over the past several years.  This ranges a lot because there are vast variations in complexities in these projects.
  
 • What affects construction pricing in general and how that relates to school construction specifically:
    • General inflation: Materials & labor costs rise year-to-year (historically 4–7%/yr for schools, higher in recent spikes).
    • Commodity swings: e.g. Steel, lumber, concrete, copper, and glass fluctuate with        global markets.
    • Labor market: Wage escalation when contractors/subs are scarce (especially in MT’s relatively small but recently [last 10-15 years] busy market).
    • Code/standard updates: Every few years, building/energy/fire codes get stricter (more        insulation, more efficient HVAC, seismic upgrades, etc.).
    • Technology & security expectations: schools require extensive IT, Wi-Fi, cameras, controlled entries, mass-notification systems — things not often in older projects.
    • Educational program: Added CTE labs, STEM spaces, career/tech shops, performing        arts, bigger commons — typically more scope per student than in past decades.
 • General Cost Factors (Regional / Project Specific)
    • Climate / structural demands: If a person is evaluating construction costs in other states it is important to make sure to include such factors related to code: snow load requirements, thermal insulation, seismic detailing, and robust HVAC (adds structure + systems cost).
    • Location & logistics: Remote supply chains higher freight, fewer local        fabricators/vendors.
    • Market size: Fewer bidders --less competition, higher unit pricing.
    • School type complexity: A high school = theater + gyms + labs + kitchen + office + industrial shop all in one. Far more complex than an office or  elementary.
    • Site conditions: Soil quality, utilities extensions, grading, stormwater  detention can vary by project.
    • Design decisions: One-story vs. multi-story, exterior materials (brick vs. metal panel), window area, roof spans.
    • Procurement  method: CM/GC vs. hard bid can impact escalation risk and pricing        certainty during the design process.  Do we want to sacrifice  “confidence staying within budget” by chasing relatively smaller $$” by hard bidding something? We have seen this backfire in large ways over  the last few years.  The district is engaging third party construction experts to assist with the management of these  decisions.  
 • Additional premiums above non-high school construction projects (more on what makes       high school construction cost more):
    • Today,  Mechanical/Electrical costs can consist of 35%-45% of the total construction costs….these costs easily have had the highest/steepest construction inflation.
    • Mechanical (HVAC)
       • Occupancy density & diversity: High schools pack 1,200–2,000+ students, with         schedules that swing from half-empty to bursting (lunch, assemblies, gym classes). Code requires systems designed for peak occupancy  ventilation (ASHRAE 62.1 for schools = 15–20 cfm per person in classrooms vs ~5–10 cfm/person in offices).
       • Varied  spaces: Auditoriums, gyms, science labs, kitchens, and shops each         demand different systems:
       • Labs/shops: Exhaust hoods, dust collection, special fume extraction, makeup air.
       • Kitchens: Type I hoods with fire suppression, grease exhaust, tempered makeup         air.
       • Theater/performing arts: may include underfloor air distribution or enhance insulation in  ductwork (to avoid noise).      
       • Gyms:  High-bay destratification fans, big rooftop units with economizers.
       • Energy  codes: IECC/ASHRAE 90.1 require higher insulation, economizers, demand         control ventilation, energy recovery (enthalpy wheels/plate  exchangers). 
       • Controls:  Zoning must be fine-grained (different wings/classrooms on different         schedules). Schools often need DDC (Direct Digital Controls) integrated         with BAS (Building Automation System).
    • ⚡        Electrical & Technology
       • Load  intensity: A commercial office has workstations + lighting. A high school adds:
       • Theater & stage lighting (100–200 kVA demand).
       • CTE  shops with welders, CNC machines, kilns.
       • Large kitchen equipment.
       • Gymnasiums  with special lighting, scoreboards, AV systems.
       • Technology:  Each classroom is wired for AV, security, and data. Entire building         needs dense Wi-Fi coverage + robust fiber backbone.
       • Emergency  power: NFPA 110 requires emergency/standby power for egress, fire         alarm, sometimes kitchen refrigeration. High schools often include         generators, unlike a small commercial office.
    • Fire Protection & Life Safety
       • Sprinklers: NFPA 13 required throughout, including gyms, stages, and high-bay         spaces (sometimes with special coverage for bleachers and catwalks).
       • Auditorium/theater stages: NFPA 80/101 trigger proscenium fire curtains or deluge         curtains, stage smoke exhaust, and specialized detection/suppression.
       • Fire alarm/notification: NFPA 72 requires voice evacuation systems, not just         horns/strobes (because of assembly use).
       • Emergency  egress lighting & smoke control: High-occupancy assembly spaces         (auditorium, gym) may require dedicated smoke exhaust fans, curtain boards, or smoke control systems — things you almost never see in a  normal office building.
    • Plumbing
       • Fixture  counts: Schools must size restrooms to handle 1,500+ simultaneous users         during breaks (IPC fixture tables → much higher fixture counts than offices).
       • Specialty  plumbing: Science labs, art rooms, CTE shops need acid waste systems,         emergency showers/eyewashes, floor drains, compressed air, natural gas         distribution.
       • Kitchen: Full commercial food service with multiple grease interceptors and         high-temp dishwashing.
       • Athletics:  Large locker rooms with 20-50 showers, training whirlpools, ice         machines.

Escalate Gallatin’s original $/sf by the same rate (2017-2026 = 9 yrs)

$310/𝑠𝑓×(1.067)9≈$560/𝑠𝑓

2026 Estimate:
$560/sf × 300,000 sf = $168M

Per student (1,500): ~$112k

Another route…..Cross-check with elementary benchmark

2018 $269/sf → 2026 at ~6.7% CAGR ≈ $447/sf elementary-level

Add 20–25% for HS complexity → $540–$560/sf

Lands in the same range ($162–168M total).

If Gallatin High were bid in Fall 2026, using local escalation trends, it would likely cost ~$165–170M total, or ~$560/sf, which is about $112k per student capacity.

High schools typically run ~10–20% higher than elem in unit costs (specialty spaces, MEP, athletics, performance, CTE).  Depending on what details, elements are included

Our proposed budgets are less than these unit numbers but are still within reason of possible.

The Helena SD has appropriately been quite adamant about being responsible with costs related to these proposed projects and requested that we work hard to budget conservatively but not undermine the project.  It is difficult right now to say that the new HHS will be the same quality as…or will have the same program elements as Gallatin HS, but we did utilize recent numbers for similar projects to create what we feel is a responsible budget for what would be a relatively typical new AA high school in Montana.

Competent, professional architects and engineers and contractors will be engaged to refine, program, design and construct all these projects within the budgets given.  Sacrifices may have to be made, unknowns will be discovered, contingencies will be utilized. School Districts must maximize value (50-70 year buildings/systems….as opposed to other commercial buildings that are built with life cycles of 25-40 years in mind...before major upgrades are required), minimize life-cycle costs and maintenance costs over time, which will typically, almost certainly, cost more initially.

SUBMIT YOUR OWN QUESTIONS