The next step for funding a proposed Lehighton Area School District elementary center and renovations to its middle and high schools is up in the air following Monday night's board meeting.

The board voted 6-3 to turn down a motion that would have authorized district administration to begin discussion with Public Financial Management as financial adviser and Rhoads and Sinon as bond council on one or more series of bonds netting a maximum of $52.5 million for the three building projects.Board members Larry Stern, Wayne Wentz and Andrew Yenser voted for the motion, while Stephen Holland, Lori Nothstein, Hal Resh, Rocky Ahner, William Hill Jr. and Gloria Bowman voted against it.Hill said he would prefer to see the district investigate the possibility of a combination bond, commercial bank loan and use of fund balance to finance the projects.District solicitor William Schwab said the move would not have locked the board into any borrowing."This would just start the discussion," Schwab said. "There would be at least two more resolutions before any borrowing occurred. This wouldn't lock the district into anything."Bowman said she voted against the motion because she wanted to see it "separated out.""I would like to see our finance committee chairman, Hal Resh, sit down with our business manager and talk about this before it comes back to the full board," Bowman said.Later in the meeting, the board unanimously authorized Brian Feick, district business manager, to send a request for information to all local banks seeking commercial loan rates.Feick said he would likely start with a $10 million loan when seeking proposals.The district has been debating whether to renovate its four existing elementary schools or build a new elementary center to house all of its K-5 students.According to an EI Associates feasibility study adopted by the board in July, both options would cost $32.5 million. Building a new elementary center, district officials contend, would have a small negative tax impact as it relates to its current debt service.Middle school renovations have been projected at $10.7 and high school renovations at $9.7 million.Lehighton will next discuss the three projects at a workshop on Sept. 8 when Hill hopes to see the results of the RFI to local banks."I would rather take out an $8 or $9 million loan from a bank than pay on a $52.5 million bond when we haven't even put a shovel in the ground yet," Hill said.Board member Rocky Ahner also opposed moving discussions with PFM and bond council forward."We are going out for money and we don't know what we are doing yet," Ahner said."We don't know where the building is going to be or even how many stories it will be. Why are we rushing through on $52.5 million? We need to give justification to the public about where this money is going."Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver said while $52.5 million is the projected cost for the three projects, the district has a $2 million Alternative and Clean Energy grant in hand for the elementary center."The district also figures to receive state reimbursement and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design funding for each of the three projects," Cleaver said."We have also applied for ACE grants for the middle and high school projects."Ahner said he would like to see tax impact numbers if the state reimbursement money doesn't arrive."I'm just not confident when or if we're going to get that," Ahner said.Community members continued to show up to speak out against the elementary center option."The overwhelming majority of people have been against this idea because we are concerned about taxes and think they are going to go up," said Wilmer Everetts on Monday."I could understand if it was even 60-40, but the amount of people against this project is so overwhelming. We've expressed our concern and opinions, but it's like talking to a wall."Bowman said for all the opposition to the elementary center, she has heard just as much support."Then you shouldn't have a problem putting it to a referendum," Everetts responded.Last month, Cleaver said a referendum was a legal option, but it was not the board's position to do it.