Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City, county and USD 383 explore joint ballot and survey for SECO Park improvements, including indoor aquatics
Summary
City of Manhattan officials told the USD 383 board they are exploring a coordinated survey and possible joint sales-tax question to fund improvements at SECO Park, citing expiring taxes and prior joint projects; board members voiced support but raised concerns about timing and operating costs.
Jason Hilgers and Aaron Stewart of the City of Manhattan asked the USD 383 board on July 16 to consider partnering with the city and county to ask voters about funding improvements at SECO Park, including indoor aquatics, playgrounds and facility upgrades.
"We are all 3 owners of, numerous properties in the community, but SECO Park is one in which we all share," Hilgers said, arguing the three taxing entities have worked together on past projects and that a joint approach could be more attractive to voters.
Hilgers said two existing sales taxes are near expiration (0.20 for streets and 0.25 for parks and recreation, combined 0.45) and that the city has capacity under state statute for additional temporary or permanent sales-tax levies. He provided an estimate that every 0.1 generates about $1,500,000 in annual revenue and that a full cent would generate roughly $15,000,000 per year. He also gave an estimated range of $55 million to $65 million for an aquatics project and said an indoor aquatic center typically requires an annual operating subsidy of $750,000 to $1,500,000 above user fees and membership revenue.
Board members expressed general openness to joint planning but raised concerns about timing, cost and partnership scope. Board member Greg said he was "100% open for those conversations" and called location a significant and recurring question; Carla, a board member, said the public's willingness to pay and the district's priorities should be carefully weighed and that the county must remain at the table.
Several board members recommended surveying the community before drafting ballot language. Hilgers said the city would seek partner concurrence and planned to return with a draft survey in August and present results in November or December if the partners agree to proceed.
No final decision was made at the meeting; Hilgers asked the board for feedback and concurrence to continue drafting survey language and exploring partnerships.
