Litchfield School Board settled on details of a fall operating and bond referendum during a meeting Monday, even as some members speculated about the city's commitment to moving forward on a wellness center.
The School Board plans to place three questions on the ballot in November. Those questions will be submitted by Aug. 1 to the Minnesota Department of Education for review and comment before being placed on the ballot.
One of the questions will deal with the operating levy, additional funding for classroom instruction. Meanwhile two questions will focus on bonding, which involves building construction or improvements.
Those questions will seek:
- An increase in the operating levy. The board decided to ask for a $625 per pupil increase, which will increase property taxes by $142 per year for a home valued at $137,000.
- Funding for building additions and improvements. For this, the board asks for $32.995 million, which will increase taxes by $128 per year for homes valued at $137,000.
- $11.43 million to fund construction of new pool facilities, create and improve a weight room and cardio spaces and soccer fields, said Jesse Johnson, a business manager for the Litchfield School District. As a result, this will increase taxes by $67 per year for homes valued at $137,000.
Board members questioned the commitment of the Litchfield City Council to building a gym next to the school's swimming pool, which would be two separate spaces divided by a wall.
“We have to go with what we’ve done as a district and what has been identified as the district’s needs, and (we) made a decision based on that,” Johnson said. “With the hope that we can have a conversation with the city about (their part). I don’t think it helps our cause to speak negatively, even though we are frustrated. But we got to stay positive and keep working hard to get this done.”
The city is reluctant to give the School Board a definitive answer about its contribution plans, and the nature of their cooperation with the school district, board member Greg Mathews said.
“We are sitting here right now, (and) we are in the 11th hour,” Mathews said. “We’ve got to have some answers. We’ve got to have some commitment about what they’re going to do. So we can go to the public and say, ‘Look we’re asking for $11 (million) to build an aquatic center’ … and whatever the city has agreed to do if their referendum passes. I want the city to get off and make some commitments.”
Board member Dave Huhner asked Johnson if, should the third referendum question be approved, the School District is required to build a pool, to which Johnson answered, "No."
“If I’m going to vote for that pool, it is a huge leap of faith that the city is going to follow through on what they’ve talked about with us the entire time, which is the (recreational) center,” Huhner said.
“I really want to encourage us to just step back a little bit here,” Superintendent Beckie Simenson said. “It may feel (like) us against them, but really it’s not. I’m here to tell you that it is not because if you think that a center, and a walking path, and a warm water pool, and they’re talking also about increased room for whether it’s parties or whatever the case maybe — they’re not trying to take the cheaper route. I think that the vision they have is to do something with us on that.”
The past few meetings helped crystallize what the district's referendum will look like, Simenson said.
"(The board) knows through our survey, what our voters (and) stakeholders have asked for," she said. "But we also know from the city that we're trying to do some pretty dynamic things for the community as a whole."
Based on discussions with state Rep. Dean L. Urdahl, R-Acton Township, and the city, the school board may ask for bond money from the state Legislature, Simenson said.
"What that amount will be is not completely certain at this time," she said. "But we'd like to continue to work together collaboratively to get something that is going to benefit the students and the community as a whole."
