Litchfield School Board took a second look during its meeting June 26 at funding sources for improvements at the high school-middle school complex.
Board members were introduced to the options — issuing tax abatement bonds of up to $1.995 million, and employing “left over” funding of $1.5 million from the district’s 2019 building bond — during a meeting in early June. Last week, Business Manager Jesse Johnson provided a deeper explanation of the proposals and some visual support of the work that could be done.
“After the last meeting, we just wanted to be very clear on the possible scope and what these funds would be used for when we’re making these decisions,” board Chairman Alex Carlson said.
If the board were to pursue both the tax abatement bonds and the remaining 2019 bond funds, local property owners would see a tax increase. Though the exact impact is unknown, Johnson said, he distributed a handout created by Ehlers, the district’s financial advisor, with estimates. It showed a residential homestead with a market value of $250,000 paying an additional $59 in property taxes beginning next year.
Even for board members, Carlson acknowledged, the funding sources and tax impacts create “a measure of confusion,” so it was important to take the time for an in-depth review, both for the board and the public.
Adding to that confusion somewhat is how the proposed improvements to a parking lot and tennis court might play into the Litchfield Area Recreation Center project, a joint city-school effort that is slated for construction on the south side of the high school.
Public understanding is important, because before it can tap into the tax abatement bonds, the district must hold a public hearing and take comments from district residents on the plan.
Issuing tax abatement bonds is a special authority given to school districts — the only decision related to a tax increase that school boards can make without seeking voter approval in a referendum. How the abatement bonds can be used is limited and still requires the board to hold a public hearing before deciding to proceed.
The two sources would create about $3.5 million that could be spent on “deferred maintenance” projects. In this case, that would mean repairing or replacing the south parking lot at the middle school-high school and relocating the eight tennis courts currently south of the high school.
During the first meeting in June, and again Monday, board members appeared to agree that both projects have been on the “to-do list” for quite some time, with the parking lot being a “must-do” for a number of years.
“We do need this,” board member Greg Mathews said of a parking lot upgrade during the earlier meeting, adding that the current shape of the lot was “disgraceful. It looks like a minefield.” He also called the tennis courts “beyond redeemable.”
Initial LARC plans call for building the wellness-recreation facility on top of a portion of the south parking lot, with the existing tennis courts becoming part of the high school-LARC parking lot. If the school district decides to go ahead with the funding proposals, the tennis courts would be relocated across North Gilman Avenue, east of the high school and south of Litchfield Civic Arena.
The city and school district have been working on the Litchfield Area Recreation Center project for a couple of years. The plan was for the city to bear the cost of a four-station fieldhouse, with elevated walking track, while the school district would build an eight-lane swimming pool to replace its current five-lane pool.
Both entities went to the public for approval of funding mechanisms. The city’s request to impose a local sales tax received voter approval in November. Revenue from that tax, combined with $6 million in state grants, will fund the fieldhouse.
However, the school district’s $13.99 million referendum to build the pool and make other site improvements has been rejected by voters twice, first in November and again in May.
While the pool will have to wait, the school district still can participate in the LARC by helping make land ready for fieldhouse construction, while accomplishing the parking lot improvement and tennis court relocation through the two funding sources discussed by the school board.
The board has the option of employing both funding sources, one or neither. But most members seemed to be supportive of moving ahead with something.
Mathews said he thought it possible that if the school district didn’t make at least some improvements it was possible the city “may decide not to build here.”
Meanwhile, Carlson said that “underbuilding would be a big mistake. It could be a real disappointment for our community.”
And while tax increases rarely bring a positive response, Superintendent Beckie Simenson said she hoped district residents understood what was needed.
“These are not new things,” she said of the parking lot and tennis court upgrades. “They may be disappointed that their taxes are going up. However, we’ve been waiting and waiting (to repair the parking lot).”
In fact, Simenson said, “I would encourage anyone that has questions about (the parking lot) to take a drive through there.”
The board voted unanimously to hold a public hearing on the tax abatement bond at 6 p.m. Monday, July 24.
