School district asking taxpayers to fund athletic complex upgrade
The Glenwood Community School District is putting the prospect of a potential $5 to $6 million overhaul of the Glenwood Athletic Complex to a vote of the people.
In a resolution unanimously approved by the Glenwood Board of Directors at last Monday’s monthly meeting, the district will ask voters to approve additional funds from a Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) consisting of a tax on all taxable property in the school district to pay for the improvements.
The PPEL resolution will be on an April 4 special election ballot and requires a simple majority to pass. The resolution asks for a dollar amount not to exceed $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value on district properties for up to 10 years. The district currently has a .33 cents per $1,000 PPEL it uses for vehicle replacement.
If the PPEL resolution passes, the project could begin late this summer and be completed by the Fall of 2018, according to Glenwood Superintendent Devin Embray.
The resolution does not specifically say the PPEL funds will be used for the athletic complex but the dollars are earmarked for the district’s aging and out-of-date athletic complex that contains Ram Memorial Football Field, A.C. Nuckolls Baseball Field and the softball field along Sivers Road.
Plans to overhaul the athletic complex have been discussed for several years but plans began in
earnest just over three years ago as a proposal for a privately-funded project, coordinated by a committee of volunteers and the Glenwood Booster Club, emerged.
The ambitious $5 million facelift for the complex first presented in 2015 was to include new seating for up 2,700, artificial field turf, a new track, a multi-tiered grandstand, expanded press boxes, locker, meeting and training rooms, more parking and a dedicated bus and vehicle unloading zone.
The original plan was met with a positive response for its vision of a modern athletic showpiece capable of hosting football, soccer, youth programs and marching band competitions to rival any facility in southwest Iowa. But, a feasibility study by Lukas Partners, a Omaha-based consulting firm, conducted last year with the assistance of dozens of residents selected by the district, showed a lack of financial commitments necessary to privately fund the project.
The district considered both a scaled-back project and doing renovations in multi-year stages, but, after cost considerations and discussions with the committee of volunteers that began meeting with the booster club more than three years ago, and now calling themselves the Youth for Action Committee, the idea of using a 10-year PPEL was hatched.
“Seventy five percent of the people who responded (in the feasibility study) were in favor of the project,” said Curt Wilwerding, a member of Youth For Action Committee (YAC) who has been involved with the project for nearly three years. “Only 60 percent were willing to put up private dollars for it. They estimated we could raise a million or a million and half in private money but that wasn’t going to cut it with what’s needed to be done at the complex.”
The PPEL funds will cover the bulk of the project’s costs, Wilwerding said, but he didn’t rule out a fundraising campaign to help offset costs.
“The PPEL gives us the flexibility to back off how much we’d need to draw from the public to complete the project,” he said.
The board passed the resolution only after the YAC committee promised to hold at least two information meetings about the project prior to the April 4 vote, according to Embray.
Plans for those “town hall type meetings” are already underway, Wilwerding said, but no dates have been set. He added there will also be focus groups and an advertising campaign to support the project. Embray has said he plans to be on hand at the meetings to provide answers to questions about the project’s funding.
Embray expects the project could face some scrutiny “one way or another,” but that the need for a revitalized athletic complex is well known. The district, he went on to say, took some criticism for funding the $3.8 million auxiliary gym addition at the high school via a revenue bond, which does not require public approval, but that “99 percent” of the comments he’s heard about that project have been favorable. The auxiliary gym, which opened in the Fall of 2015, is being paid for by a revenue bond financed with the district’s Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) dollars it receives through a one-cent sales tax levy. That bond has $2.98 million remaining and will come off the district’s books in 2030.
The school board considered both the PPEL and general obligation bond options for funding the athletic complex project but went with the 10-year PPEL due to it’s cost savings. By going with PPEL as opposed to a 20-year general obligation bond, the district could save more than $2 million in interest, Embray said.
“The cost of doing this project is not an outrageous amount,” Embray said. “It’s 10 years. It’s not a 20-year, locked in, bonded indebtedness thing. And I think it’s something that could be put in place and last 50, 60 or 70 years. The field and track will need maintenance but that facility itself could stand for many generations to come.”
Wilwerding said the board saw a need for the facilities upgrade, has been very supportive along the way and is committed to seeing the project through.
“I go back to three years ago when they (the board) asked this committee be formed because they knew there was a need,” Wilwerding said. “They wanted a comprehensive plan that was done in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. I’ve talked to the board for three years and the makeup has changed a lot but I don’t recall much opposition to it. There’s concern the money is spent responsibly and that whatever we do is a long term fix. That’s what we all want.”