Bethlehem taxpayers decided in favor of funding district-wide facilities upgrades at Tuesday’s bond vote, but opted against paying for a turf athletic field.
With a total of 4,774 people taking part in the vote, the $20.2 million facilities proposition passed 2,676 to 2,098. The second proposition, which would have funded the installation of a $3.8 million turf athletic field, failed 3,103 to 1,671.
`We’re very proud so many people came out to voice their opinion, because that’s what we’ve been asking for throughout this process,` said Bethlehem Central Superintendent Tom Douglas.
District officials began talking about bonding last August as a way to pay for needed facilities improvements, as the district was already a year behind its five-year maintenance plan due to lack of funds and staff cutbacks. Upgrades were suggested to fix the infrastructure of buildings, upgrade water and lighting fixtures, replace aging equipment and upgrade outdated technology systems.
Soon after, a group of parents who have children involved in BC sports approached the school board to see if improvements to the district’s athletics facilities, especially the football field, could be included in the bond. The board later opted to keep some improvements in the main bond but to separate the field into its own proposition as to not endanger the main bond.
Proposition two would have allowed for the installation of a new, synthetic field, a regulation-size track, improvements to spectator seating and press box and a new score board. The project would have upgraded the field to allow it to be used for multiple sporting event in the fall and spring seasons.
`It’s disappointing that proposition two didn’t pass,` said resident Scott Bonanno, a member of the group of booster parents pushing for the athletics upgrades. `I think it is really unfortunate for the kids and the community, because it would have been something the community could have used for decades to come. But at the end of the day, the field is still going to be re-worked and the drainage is still going to be dealt with.`
If both proposals had been passed by the public, annual taxes would have risen by $20.17 for a home valued at $100,000.
The booster group felt the price might have been just high enough to sway people away from paying for the field. Their initial surveys showed the public would be willing to pay an increase of $25 in taxes for a home valued at $250,000, but the district’s proposal was nearly double that amount. They also knew the votes would be harder to get once the vote was split.
`When you have two working parents like most of the families in the Town of Bethlehem, every dollar matters and its hard to justify something that in some people’s minds can be deemed an extravagance,` said Bonanno.
Douglas said the bond will help take some of the burden of the district during its budget process.
`Our fiduciary responsibility is to the community and its taxpayers to do what is best for them,` he said. `The items here have such a cost structure that the majority of them could not be placed within the budget and if we did, we would have to cut from a large portion of other needed areas to fund these types of options. The hard part for people to understand is if we put it in the budget, we are also asking the district to pay that extra 70 percent of the cost picked up by the state in aid.`
Although some minor upgrades can start soon, major construction projects aren’t expected to begin until 2014 after the projects go to bid. The next board meeting on the budget will take place on Wednesday, March 20, and focus on special education and transportation.