Two-part referendum would call for $22.9 million for projects, $300,000 annually for operational costs
By Kellen Olshefski
SLN Staff
The Elkhorn Area School District Board of Education discussed how to word a two-part referendum question slated for the November election at its regular meeting Monday night.
The two-part referendum, which asks for $22.9 million in district projects and for $300,000 on a recurring basis for operational costs, was brought forth as a recommendation from the district’s Facility Advisory Committee at the board’s last regular meeting in June.
According to the presentation from the committee, provided by the school school district, the first question would ask for $22.9 million to cover the acquisition of property east of the high school and middle school along the future East Market Street, improvements to the high school’s auditorium, development costs for the Market Street expansion, the improvement of traffic flow at the middle school and greenhouse and support facilities at the high school.
The second, operational question would call for the public to allow the district to exceed the levy limit by $300,000 on a recurring, annual basis to cover costs of utilities, maintenance and repairs and equipment for new buildings and equipment. For further details on the proposed referendum, see next week’s Elkhorn Independent.
Discussions at the July 13 School Board meeting centered around perfecting the two-part referendum question and ensuring the district is actually asking for what it is looking for.
Board member David Stebnitz said with the operational question only covering costs for new buildings and additions, he questioned whether the board should include funds for operational costs for already existing facilities.
“Those costs aren’t going down,” he said. “Are we going to need to go for an additional referendum in a year or two to cover those costs and should we be putting that in there now.”
District Administrator Jason Tadlock said to get more flexibility, the board could opt to take out the word additional from the question, to allow monies to be used for all facilities.
Business Manager Bill Trewyn explained while the district’s maintenance budget was originally $300,000, it was reduced to $50,000 last year, with this year’s preliminary budget adding another $100,000, still $150,000 short of previous levels.
In the short-term, Trewyn said in terms of maintenance, the district is getting a lot done through previous referendum dollars, though noted “it will not last forever.”
“That’s certainly an area that if the board felt it wanted to increase it, we could look at that and do that because we know we could use additional monies for ongoing maintenance,” Tadlock said.
Shifting gears, Board Member Daniel Thompson questioned whether or not having the property acquisition in the first question could ruin an opportunity for the district if the referendum were to fail.
Tadlock said it was a possibility, though with the City of Elkhorn’s timeline for the Market Street expansion project, the School Board would still have time to get a referendum for the acquisition on the April 2017 ballot.
Overall, the board opted in favor of sending the referendum questions to the Building and Grounds Committee for further discussion before making a final decision.
Project tax impact
In looking at how this would effect taxpayers, Tadlock first noted the projected tax impact from the first referendum didn’t occur because the district received more state aid, resulting in the overall tax levy going down.
With updated state aid numbers released recently, Tadlock said those are also better than originally anticipated and the district is looking at another decrease in the tax levy. Trewyn said before updated estimates were released, the district was looking at an about 1.2 percent drop in the levy, which could be even more if newly released estimates hold true.
