The Mahomet-Seymour School Board discussed the Village of Mahomet’s proposal to exchange ownership of 13 Acres Park and Middletown Park for the development of tennis courts during Monday’s study session.
After hearing what the Village had to say, board member Colleen Schultz came with her own, saying she was excited to see an opportunity to work with the Village, which has been promised $750,000 of grant money from the state. But, billed as something that would be good for the entire community, Schultz saw more impact in putting the courts at Mahomet-Seymour High School rather than Middletown Park.
Schultz said that while courts for the tennis team, which currently includes 35 girls, are beneficial, they could also be used in physical education courses at the high school, impacting about 1,000 students each year. She added that in that location, they would still be accessible by the community.
“Everyone would benefit, and there will be no downside,” Schultz said.
Board member Max McComb said that high school teachers have already stated that tennis is taught in the fieldhouse. Schultz said, though, that teachers are resourceful, and use what they have. She thinks that maybe if outdoor tennis courts were available, they might use them.
The placement of the tennis courts on the high school property was discussed a bit, putting it on the northern sector of the property or near land designated as a practice field in one Bulldog Blueprint scenario. And Schultz said that because the district is in the final stages of the Bulldog Blueprint community engagement process, she doesn’t believe the district should give land away when the process is not complete.
Board member Meghan Hennesy said, “If we do have a need to have land, we will have to purchase that land, and that will require taxpayers coming to the rescue of the school district with an increase in taxes.”
A few scenarios for tax increases came in the last Bulldog Blueprint meeting, leading Hennesy to state that with a $100,000,000 referendum, she would pay an additional $1,600 in property taxes each year for the 20-year life of the bond.
More substantial numbers should come in the next Bulldog Blueprint presentation according to BLDD Architect Damien Schlitt. Hennesy questioned the urgency to give away the land with the potential referendum coming to voters in 2022.
She also said that giving away district assets without compensation when land in Mahomet is valuable.
Although the district has never put either piece of land up for sale, McComb said that no developers have come to the district with interest in the property. 13 Acres was assessed by Mahomet resident Wade Denby and Stephen Witsitt for $365,000 in 2015. It also has about $200,000 in drainage issues that the Village has cited need to be addressed.
A community member told the board at the end of the meeting that he would purchase 13 Acres for $200,000 because the land has value.
Under Schultz’s suggestion, an exchange of ownership would not need to take place, but Henrichs called the deal a “slam dunk”. He said the Village isn’t going to want to spend money on tennis courts without getting something in return.
In the past, the Village also has not wanted to put money into land it does not own. When it used Taylor Fields, but did not own it, the Village helped to maintain the property, just like it currently does with 13 Acres, but did not want to put in infrastructure until it gained possession.
The Village is taking the same approach with 13 Acres, saying they don’t have plans for the space yet, but upon possession, they may develop some.
Board member Ken Keefe said that he’s looking at how the tennis courts could benefit many members of the community, too. After seeing Mahomet-Seymour Junior High students use Middletown Park during the school day, he feels that Middletown Park will be a good space for them.
Board member Sunny McMurry agreed that with the junior high in that spot, it would be a great opportunity for those students.
It is uncertain whether or not Mahomet-Seymour Junior High will remain on the property at State Street. Two of the four options presented at the Bulldog Blueprint moved that building near South Mahomet road. If that is to be, the tennis courts located at Middletown Prairie Elementary would not be located near any school without students having to cross the street. Additionally, restrooms are not currently available; the Village could consider putting them on the property.
With construction costs at an all-time high, Hennesy asked if the bids for courts come in over $750,000 what would happen to the land. Additionally, the new language in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Village and the school district stated that the Village would have first scheduling rights to the courts and 13 Acres facilities.
A previous IGA made between the two entities focused on shared facilities for community use. That included the use of the Mahomet-Seymour fieldhouse. Hennesy asked if the promise that the community would also have access to the courts would end up falling short like the promise made to the community when the referendum to build a fieldhouse would also result in a recreational facility for community use at times.
While community members do enjoy early morning indoor track access during the fall and winter months, some community members complain that nightly access isn’t what was promised with the tax increase.
McComb said that the fieldhouse was never promised in that capacity; that it is used by the school and some recreational teams when available. He added that $400,000 of state tax money was granted to the school district for fieldhouse access when school is not in session. According to McComb, there will be more open time during school holiday and summer hours.
Schlitt added that regular maintenance of tennis courts can run between $30,000 to $50,000 every five to ten years. That cost would be put onto the Village’s shoulders with the transfer of land.
He added that he looked at putting the tennis courts on the high school property, but drainage came into consideration. He also said that 13 Acres would not be a suitable space for a building.
The board is expected to take up the matter again on Oct. 18, potentially for a vote. The board would need 5 members, or two-thirds of the board, to dispose of property.
