New London BOE discusses levy issue for November ballot

New London Local Schools Board of Education spent much of their Monday night meeting discussing a 23 year bond issue that was passed by voters in 1998 to build the current school campus and how to fund the maintenance of the that building.

The bond issue is set to be retired this year, one year earlier than expected, according to superintendent Brad Romano. “The good news is the issue will retire a year early and has potential tax relief for the community.” He added, “The flip side of that is if the board wants to roll the bond issue into a permanent improvement levy we have a short time frame to have that conversation and how to address it.

“We have documented the expenses we are going through currently with maintaining the building. Our current budget isn’t necessarily enough to maintain those big ticket items such as the roof and sidewalks.”

He noted the finance committee met recently to discuss some of the options the board has.

“We talked a lot about income taxes, bond issues and emergency levies versus traditional levies, operating expenses versus permanent improvement. I feel the community was generous and gracious enough to pass a bond issue 20 years ago to build a building. It is in our best interest to ask them to maintain the building they pledged to build 20 years ago. For that reason I think if the board decides to do anything it should be a permanent improvement levy. The revenue would be earmarked specifically to maintain the building the community gave our kids.

District treasurer Jim Hudson said, “We recognize the rollback isn’t there anymore and we want to make sure it doesn’t cost the community any more than what is currently on the books. My suggestion would be to explore between one and one and a half mills.” He noted, “The second piece to this is there is a half mill set to expire next year. The effective rate is .36 mills and is not renewable. Taxpayers will see a decrease there.”

One and half mills would generate $181,000 per year, 1.25 would generate $151,000 and one mill $121,000. Those funds would be for permanent improvement only and would be for five years, he stated. “That is something the auditors review in depth to make sure the rules are being followed.

Romano said their goal is two fold, provide some tax relief to the community by not doing a complete swap out dollar for dollar of any issue and to ask the community to help maintain the building using revenue they already pledged back in the 1990s. Our goal is to be on the ballot in November.

During the board discussion Dominic Maiani said, “To lose revenue at this point would be a bad idea. We want to replace that revenue and if we can save money for the community even better. To just let it drop off would be a bad idea. The problem becomes that a lot of the money the feds are pouring into us (federal CARES Act) makes the books look decent, but that money is going to be gone.” He added. We have been very lucky with some financial issues, but counting on continuing luck is not a plan.”

Fellow board member Abby Fawcett pointed out the district has many positives and mentioned a number of grants have been received including one for community Wifi. “But those grants are earmarked for specific use and cannot be applied to things like building maintenance.”

Board members debated the merits of a property tax levy request versus income tax.

Romano said a quarter percent on the income tax does actually generate greater revenue than the one and half percent on the property tax, but the bond issue was on a property tax originally.

Bill Given stated, “The imposition of property taxes is very disproportionate.”

Also under discussion was a combination request, property tax and income tax.

A decision for any levy request, according to Hudson, in order to be on the November ballot must be made soon.