Athens forum outlines tax measures to build and run new community center ahead of March 19 vote

A public forum hosted by the Athens County League of Women Voters laid out plans for a proposed 50,000-square-foot community center and the two income-tax measures on the March 19 primary ballot that would fund its construction and ongoing operation.

Robert Shostak, identified in the program as a city council member for the 4th Ward, said the two ordinances on the ballot are divided so one (Issue 1) covers construction and would raise roughly $4,000,000 to be paid off over 20 years, while the other (Issue 2) is an ongoing operating income-tax increase. "There are actually 2 ordinances," Shostak said, and he described the construction increase as "0.05 actually, it's 5 hundredths of a percent" and the operating levy as "0.1, which is actually 1 tenth of 1%."

Shostak read examples from a city handout to show taxpayer impact: a household with $100,000 in gross income would pay about $150 per year (about $12.50 per month) for both levies combined; $50,000 would cost roughly $75 per year, and $25,000 about $37.50 per year. He emphasized the levy as an income-tax increase, not a property tax.

Kevin Schwartzhoff, the Athens recreation director, traced the project’s planning back to a 1992 inventory and a committee appointed by Mayor Sarah Hendricker in 1994. He said the committee’s site analysis and community input work (including a situation analysis by an Ohio University graduate student) led to a preferred site at East State Street Park, south of the city pool and adjacent to the tennis courts. Schwartzhoff noted planned widening of East State Street and proximity to a bike path as access advantages.

On the facility and budget, Schwartzhoff said preliminary plans call for about 50,000 square feet and that the committee chose an income tax as the fairest funding method. He gave an operating revenue estimate of about $162,000 in the first year from the operating levy and a projection of roughly $277,000 annually by 2011 as incomes rise, saying a utility-and-staffing study supports the initial figure. "If both issues are passed at that point, then we will proceed with hiring an architect," he said, describing plans for an architect-led leisure study and community surveys to determine programming and detailed facility design.

Panelists repeatedly emphasized that both ballot measures must pass to proceed: the construction levy is time-limited (20 years) while the operating levy is ongoing; if one fails the other would make little sense. Shostak said city auditor Judy Ball provided revenue projections showing the construction debt might be paid off in as few as 15 years if income-tax receipts track higher-than-projected trends.

During audience questions, panelists outlined governance and implementation. Shostak and Stephanie Goldsberry (introduced as a committee member and later noted during the program as a former council member) said the city council has ultimate authority and that the parks and recreation committee would likely oversee the project, with possible formation of a dedicated project committee and formal inclusion of community representatives in oversight and selection of an architect.

On programming and space priorities, Schwartzhoff and Goldsberry said the architect’s study and community input would identify the highest-demand uses and allow the city to start with a basic shell and add specialized rooms later or pursue grant funds for higher-cost features. Schwartzhoff cited grants and other sources they would pursue after levies pass, including NatureWorks funding through the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, small construction grants from the Council on Aging (referenced at up to about $50,000), local donations and naming opportunities.

Concerns raised by audience members included how committees would choose which activities to include and whether higher-cost specialized spaces (for example, fully equipped performing-arts spaces or additional soundproofing) might be cut. Panelists said design choices could allow phased improvements and that supplemental grants or donations could fund finer details.

The forum was informational; no formal decisions were made. Moderator David Winkelman closed by reminding listeners to discuss the issues and vote on March 19.

The forum transcript includes the panel’s numeric estimates, site preference, and procedural steps; those figures and steps are the basis for the details above.