School board approves resolutions to finance remaining natatorium and new indoor athletics facility

Griffith Public Schools trustees approved a package of financing resolutions to fund the remaining portion of the district’s natatorium project and a proposed two‑story indoor athletic facility after a public hearing and presentations from the district’s legal and municipal advisers.

The board heard from Kristen McClellan of the law firm Ice Miller and Sean McGill of municipal adviser Baker Tilly before voting to approve (1) an additional appropriation resolution (Exhibit A, Resolution No. 2025‑9), (2) a resolution determining the need for the project (Exhibit B, Resolution No. 2025‑10), (3) a resolution authorizing execution of the lease used in the financing (Resolution No. 245‑11), and (4) a resolution authorizing the sixth supplement to the district’s master continuing disclosure (listed in the packet as 0.15‑12). All four measures were adopted by roll call.

Why it matters: the measures authorize the district to set maximum financing parameters and appropriate bond proceeds when the bonds are sold. School officials and advisers said the plan is structured so the district can complete remaining construction work while keeping debt service at or below the district’s current debt service tax rate.

What was presented and discussed: the superintendent described the new athletics element as a two‑story indoor athletics facility built into the existing natatorium footprint once the pool is filled in. “So just to be clear, we’re on the 2 story athletic facility, and the turfing,” the superintendent said, describing a ground‑floor turf surface and a second floor with sports simulators and a cardiac lab for use by athletes.

Baker Tilly municipal adviser Sean McGill presented the financing parameters the authorizing documents will set: “We’ve proposed a maximum borrowing amount, which matches the, maximum project cost at $9,400,000.” McGill said the board should treat the figures as conservative maximums to preserve flexibility. He described the financing assumptions used for the legal authorizing documents: a 20‑year maximum repayment term, a conservative interest rate assumption of 5.5 percent, and an estimated lifetime interest cost of about $6.2 million under the maximum parameters. Under those assumptions McGill said the maximum annual debt service for the new borrowing would be about $1,000,000, which he said represents roughly a $0.10 increase on the district’s debt service rate; he added the plan is not expected to raise the district’s current debt service tax rate above its present 68¢ level.

McGill also told trustees the district has already financed portions of the broader work approved in 2024 and that roughly $13,000,000 of previously approved projects remain to be financed; the current package covers a later tranche of that program. He emphasized the numbers shown in the presentation are maximums and that actual pricing may be more favorable.

Public comment and next steps: no members of the public signed up to speak during the hearing on the unified project. Counsel Kristen McClellan reminded the board that state law requires a public hearing before a school corporation issues bonds or enters leases above statutory thresholds; the hearing sets maximums that the board will later confirm when it considers the authorizing resolutions. The board recessed and then voted on the resolutions; each passed on roll call. The board said it will consider final authorizing documents and related motions at a later meeting after bond sale timing and final terms are available.

Votes at the hearing: the board adopted the additional appropriation (Resolution No. 2025‑9); the resolution determining need for the project (Resolution No. 2025‑10); the resolution authorizing execution of the lease (Resolution No. 245‑11); and the sixth supplement to the master continuing disclosure (listed as 0.15‑12). Roll‑call votes recorded trustees Emily Connor, Kathy Ruskin, Jessie Aduchi, Jason (last name not specified in the record), and Tina Adams as voting in favor on the later resolutions.

Context and limits: presenters repeatedly framed the figures as conservative maximums and noted the financing remains subject to market conditions at the time of sale and to any relevant state or federal legislative changes. The project description and financing parameters presented are the district’s plan as of the hearing; final amounts, interest rates and tax‑rate impacts will be set when the board adopts the final authorizing documents and the bonds are sold.

What’s next: the board signaled the additional authorizing steps and final documentation will follow once sale timing and pricing are known. The board also noted a second formal hearing for related business is scheduled for April 10 in the same room where trustees will consider final resolutions and documents.