By Clayton Ledger in Board of Education — 21 Jan 2026

Clayton Board of Education — January 21: a $135 million bond election for April

The board voted unanimously to place a $135 million, no-tax-rate-increase bond question on the April 7 ballot -- the funding step for a facilities plan two years in the making.

What happened

The School District of Clayton Board of Education met on January 21 and voted unanimously to put a $135 million bond question on the April ballot. The board also heard a long-range facilities update, took the first readings of five policies, and renewed its agreement with the City of Clayton for school resource officers.

What the board decided

The headline action was a resolution calling a bond election for April 7, 2026. It asks voters to authorize the district to borrow $135,000,000 in general obligation bonds for facilities:

seeking voter authorization to borrow $135,000,000 for the purpose of constructing facility improvements— January 21, 2026 — Meeting Minutes [#qf35ce6bf]

The question is structured so that the district's debt-service levy of $0.5110 per $100 of assessed valuation would remain unchanged, which is why the minutes call it a "no tax rate increase" bond issue. Passing it requires a four-sevenths majority (about 57.1%). The motion, made by Ms. Chris Win and seconded by Mr. Jason Growe, carried on a roll-call vote of the members present.

In a single motion it approved consent-agenda items 8.1 through 8.9, including the renewed SRO contract with the City of Clayton and the November and December disbursements of $2,073,347.89 and $3,775,546.16.

Who was there

The minutes record that board member Kim Hurst was absent, an excused absence.

What they debated

The vote was unanimous, so the discussion was less a debate than a rationale. Superintendent Nisha Patel framed the request as a $135 million, zero-tax-rate-increase investment, and stressed that it followed about two years of community process — a 33-person steering committee and more than 100 people in building committee meetings.

Board member Leo Human, thanking the team for two years of work, took up the question he expected from residents — why Glenridge rose to the top of the first phase. The board returned repeatedly to its decision to do the work in phases specifically to avoid raising the tax rate. Student representative Nina Satorius relayed what students told her in school meetings: that they wanted more modern, collaborative learning spaces, especially at Glenridge.

Also at the meeting

The board heard the first readings of five policies — on compulsory attendance, grade-level assignment, the A+ Scholarship Program, student discipline, and behavioral threat assessment — and gave second-reading approval to Policy KB on public information.
The board recognized school resource officers Jack Boeger, Herman Whittaker, and Ryan Riley; Dr. Pamela Lyss-Lerman reported from the Equity Committee; and Ms. Siwak noted three candidates for the three open board seats. Filing had closed in December, leaving three candidates after a fourth withdrew; the new members would be seated at an April 15 reorganization.
The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m..

In context: a plan two years in the making

The bond is the funding step for a Long-Range Facilities Master Plan the board had been developing for nearly two years. It selected Paragon Architecture to lead the work in spring 2024, and by early 2025 had laid out the plan's scope and priorities through community forums and committee review.

In the weeks before the vote, the district had begun previewing the results to families. A January "Inside Clayton" special edition described early designs, including a STEM Learning Lab at the high school and possible performing-arts upgrades. The district also went into the bond on sound financial footing: its FY25 independent audit earned the highest rating in December.

Public comments

Two residents spoke during public comment. A resident named Bernstein addressed academics and the district budget, comparing the district's per-pupil spending with neighboring districts. Marcell Williams spoke in support of Proposition O, calling the district's aging buildings a barrier to staying competitive.