Now it’s up to the voters.
After years of discussion, the Litchfield Area Recreation Center will be on the ballot in November. If voters approve a half-cent sales tax and a proposed school bond, a new field house, walking track and eight-lane swimming pool will become a reality.
If city voters approve the sales tax, but not the school bond, they will get a four-station field house and walking track, minus the pool and other school facility improvements.
If they approve the school bond, but not the half-cent sales tax, they will get the pool and school improvements, but not a community field house and indoor track and fitness center.
If voters turn down both questions, the recreation center won’t happen.
Whether additional amenities, like a separate, warmer-water aquatics area, become part of the complex will be up to local donations, fundraising and partnerships with the county board and the county hospital, which have ben approached for contributions. An additional pool area would add about $1.8 million to the total cost of the $26-$27 million joint project.
This scenario was spelled out in detail at a Litchfield City Council meeting, two weeks ago. On July 18, the Litchfield City Council took action to effectively place its share of the project on the ballot for city residents to decide.
City Administrator Dave Cziok made it clear that, without the half-cent sales tax (which most other cities Litchfield’s size and larger are already collecting in this area), it would be “difficult to impossible without the sales tax revenue.”
He showed the council how money from this tax could pay back most of the construction bonds sold to build the project, over a period of 20 years. This, together with fees charged for people to use the facility, private and public donations, and use of reserves, could keep the rec center from forcing the council to raise city property taxes to repay the bonds.
Cziok also cautioned that, if the ballot question fails, the city might need to turn back the $5 million that has already been allocated toward the city's $13.6 million share by the Minnesota Legislature. “And if we don’t succeed in November, the cost will only rise between 2022 and 2024,” he said, referring to the earliest date the council could go back to voters for another try at a citywide sales tax.
“We are looking at funding it with little to no impact to property taxes,” Cziok told the council. “That’s our goal.”
By unanimously voting to place the sales tax question on the ballot, the council agreed that it is time for voters to let them know if they want a recreation center or not.
More action on the school’s share of this joint project is expected within a few weeks.
