By KATY YEISER, Daily Journal of Johnson County staff writer
Clark-Pleasant's $60 million school building plans are shelved for now after the state denied the project in an uncommon move because of high taxes and slowed enrollment and housing growth.
The Indiana Department of Local Government Finance commissioner denied the school's request Tuesday afternoon to go forward with the project, which would have paid for a new 280,000-square-foot middle school, renovations to turn the existing middle school into a ninth-grade center and renovations at the high school.
School officials have two options, spokeswoman Mary Jane Michalak said. Within 45 days they can appeal the decision in the state's tax court, where both the school and state would defend their arguments for and against the project. Or they can conduct a public referendum after July 1.
Superintendent J.T. Coopman did not return a voice mail to his cell phone late Tuesday afternoon.
School board members also did not return phone messages or were unaware of the decision and declined to comment.
What they will do now is not clear.
Taxpayers would have spent $4.9 million per year over the next 27 years to pay for the bond.
Commissioner Cheryl Musgrave cited the impact on taxpayers and slowing growth in enrollment and the housing market as reasons for the denial.
"The major concern about this project was the tax impact on the community," Michalak said. "As we were looking at the tax rate of that community versus other communities, especially in Johnson County, we found that Clark-Pleasant has the highest tax rate of any school district in Johnson County."
Musgrave also noted the school district's refusal to meet with the remonstrance group, led by Tad and Vicki Bohlsen, to attempt to "bridge the gap" and find a resolution on the project as a factor in her denial.
The reasons for denying the project include:
The school district has the 13th highest tax rate out of 326 schools in Indiana.
The district's assessed valuation of $1.16 million is comparable to Franklin's and Greenwood's, but those districts' total tax rate and debt service tax rate are significantly less than Clark-Pleasant's.
School officials' argument that the tax impact would be minimal because of an increase in assessed valuation and because old debt would be replaced by new debt was not persuasive.
Clark-Pleasant is the only school district in the county with a tax rate of more than $2 and is 29 cents higher than the Franklin school district's tax rate of $1.84, which is the second-highest in the county.
In 2005, school officials predicted that as many as 8,800 new housing units would be built over the next decade in the district. But that prediction has been scaled back to 4,600.
The school district did not modify any part of the project to address taxpayer concerns raised during the remonstrance process.
Enrollment increased by 370 students in the fall, which was down from 500 students per year in the previous two years. Growth was projected to remain constant over the next 10 years at 350-400 students.
School officials did not accept the plans formed by a community task force.
The denial was the third for Musgrave in reviewing 41 school projects since becoming commissioner in July, Michalak said.
Another eight have been modified, and several of the modifications came from discussions between school officials and opposing groups, Michalak said.
Musgrave met with administrators and a group opposing the project during her decision on what she called a controversial project.
She asked for the administrators and opponents to meet and reach a resolution on the project, but the school board and superintendent both said no.
"We were very disappointed as I had said before that the school district refused to have that meeting. In the letter that they sent back, they talked about the number of public forums that they had, and the number of opportunities they offered for support. It seemed for a project of this scope, one additional meeting was a reasonable request," Michalak said.
"In many cases (of modifying a project), it's because the school corporation sat down with the remonstrators, and they were able to talk about concerns and come to an agreement in areas where they could reduce the scope and cost of the project. In this case, that meeting never took place and the school corporation never offered any alternatives," Michalak said.
Musgrave had the option to approve, deny or reduce the project.
In response to the state's request for the school district and remonstrators to meet, the school board said that the appropriate amount of discussion and openness in the community on the project had taken place.
Bohlsen, who had not yet read the ruling from the state, said that the group wasn't trying to get the project denied. Rather, members wanted the school board and superintendent to work out a resolution that would satisfy all concerns.
But he believes that that the state, while reviewing the project, saw the same lack of openness from the school district that his group experienced. As an example, he cited Coopman and the board's refusal to meet with the group as Musgrave had requested.
"We still feel we have a great evaluation tool that can help the district do what it needs to do. And we are happy to sit down and meet with the board and the superintendent still and try to see if we can work out a resolution to all of this," Bohlsen said.
"Hopefully they will be willing to do that at this stage."
Musgrave's decision came after the state's School Property Tax Control Board endorsed the project in November on a 5-4 vote.
The denial of the project comes after a remonstrance last spring, where administrators collected more signatures in favor of the project over an opposing group.
The opposition group wanted school officials to build a 300-student elementary school first and then an intermediate school and addition to the high school before 2010 for $35 million.