DARLINGTON — When voters go out to the polls Nov. 3, they will be greeted at the polling place by not one, but two ballot questions related Lafayette Manor, placed their Tuesday night by the Lafayette County Board who voted to move forward with the $45 million project.
That move came after three meetings held at the beginning of this week: an informational public forum about future plans for the manor held Monday evening, a Manor Board meeting Tuesday morning, and a full Lafayette County Board meeting Tuesday evening.
In one question, voters will be asked to authorize the county to borrow up to $45.5 million to cover the building and furnishing of a new 50-bed nursing home in the county to replace the current Lafayette Manor.
In the other question, voters will be asked to shift the operating costs of the manor off of the general levy, and instead create a new levy of up to $500,000 for the next five years in a non-recurring levy.
“I’m concerned about two referendums on the same ballot,” County Board Supervisor Emmett Reilly stated during the Tuesday county board meeting, worried the two questions may cause people to pause about building a new facility.
County Board Chair Jack Sauer replied that he thought it was important to place both on the same ballot to avoid the issues school districts like Monroe and Platteville had where they first asked the voters to approve large capital projects, only to come back later to then ask for operating money.
“We are at a crossroads,” Supervisor Larry Ludlum said of the current state of the Lafayette Manor, the only skilled nursing home in the county. “The sooner we get this done, the better,” he continued, noting the county board would look to help clear confusion by holding informational meetings leading up to the November election.
The county board suspended the rules so they could entertain the building referendum, and approved the measure 14-2, with Luke McGuire and Mark Pinch the lone negative votes against the project.
Pinch was largely silent through Tuesday’s meeting, but McGuire voiced his concern. Stating that unlike others, he had heard negative thoughts from his constituents since the discussion about the manor project began.
“There are some serious questions in the world right now,” McGuire said, adding that he was concerned that what they were doing was building a facility that would be there for aging Baby Boomers, and then as the next generation of seniors focused on assisted living and in-home care, there would be a $50 million facility sitting with open beds.
Supervisor Scott Pedley did not think a new facility would be sitting empty, but would instead be full as the building would match the level of care Lafayette Manor residents currently receive, which would also keep the facility in the black as it now is.
At Monday’s meeting, Pedley shared the experience he had with his own parents and Lafayette Manor. Searching for a place for his dad to move to in his final days, Pedley admitted that the manor was their last choice by the appearance of the of the facility, with Pedley quipping that its 1961 architecture was much like a defunct mental health facility.
When it came to his mother, she chose Lafayette Manor. “They extended her life by another two years,” Pedley said in praise of the service to his mother. “They did wonderful things for her.”
Details about the building proposal, reaction from the public
While Monday’s meeting for the public rehashed much of the information that had been given at the public forum held two weeks before, new details and updates emerged, and the nearly 90 in attendance began to voice their thoughts on just what they would want the county to choose as far as location and whether to move forward.
Again emceed by Lafayette Economic Development Corporation Director Allison Taylor, joined by consultants Kristin Fish-Peterson and Dayna Starver, the meeting was also a chance for Kyle Kraemer of Kraemer Bros Construction to address the public.
Kraemer had been brought in by Sauer at the start of the year to help give additional information and projections to Lafayette County following the study done by Eppstein Uhen Architects to review the former Memorial Hospital of Lafayette County and current Lafayette Manor facilities.
“Its hypothetical scenarios based on market costs,” Kraemer said of the estimates.
Between Monday’s informational forum and Tuesday night’s county board meeting, Kraemer noted that the estimates, while rough given there are no blueprints or drawings for a facility, should be realistic and take into account fluctuations in construction costs of recent years, and include contingencies based on going to bid in a year, and construction taking place in the next few years.
“We took past projects, and updated them to today’s pricing, and included tariffs,” Kraemer told the audience after a question.
It was reiterated that whether the county builds at the former Memorial Hospital site, or builds at a new location, each project would be building a completely new facility — the idea of utilizing portions of the former hospital complex have been ruled out, and the county is expecting to raze the former hospital building sometime in the future for some development of the site, whether its a nursing home or residential development.
One tidbit learned during the forum — the initial estimates that the former hospital complex could be demolished for $550,000 are now outdated, and it will now cost an estimated $1.1 million to knock down.
One area where there may be another deficiency is in the utility line costs to a new site. When the County Board reviewed and knocked down alternate site options in prelude to the informational forums, they chose the Greg White site. It was chosen because White was willing to sell any sized-portion of the property so that the county did not need to buy more land than it thought it needed for development.
There is an issue potentially, according to Pedley, who looked to find out where the county would have to connect to the City of Darlington water and sewer lines to connect the operation.
An initial review made it appear that the council would have to extend water and sewer lines from mains at Darlington Elementary and Middle School, which Pedley was concerned would push up the initial estimates of $500,000 to something closer to $4 million.
Pedley said that the county may have to rethink its alternate site due to that increase, and may have to reconsider the Gile property, which is closer to Lafayette Hospital and Clinic.
That location is very close to the utility lines run for the hospital project. However, that likely would mean buying the parcel of 38 acres, more than twice the 15 acres the county was looking to purchase at the White site.
Audience gives input
During the questions and comments period, residents asked questions, as well as gave their thoughts on what they think should happen next.
Kay Austin from Belmont asked those assembled how a new facility built outside of the city could cost the same as building at the former hospital site. She also wondered about not utilizing the portions of the old hospital complex.
Sauer responded that when looking at the costs, the cost of demolishing the former hospital were only included in the proposal to build on that site, while the county will still incur the costs of knocking the old building down, it would not be considered part of the project if the county built elsewhere.
As far as the comparison with Park Place, an assisted living facility in Platteville, Sauer said ultimately that project did not use much of the former Platteville hospital where it was built, as tying into facilities that are not up to modern codes is difficult.
Audience member Lauren Ray concurred about the limitations about tying into older buildings.
Sauer also noted that the former hospital site would likely be a multiple level facility, given there is only two acres, while the outside site would be one level, and no elevators.
Manor Committee Member Mary Knellwolf noted that with going to the former hospital site, with its limited space, the only thing the county could build is a nursing home, and then not have any future development of anything else like assisted living, which had been brought up in the early stages.
One woman who wondered if spending $1.1 million per occupied bed in the county facility was a wise fiscal decision also shared part of the need for the manor as well — her spouse, a veteran, currently is in a nursing home in Rockford, Ill, and that is an hour drive from her home, that she travels to multiple times a week, compared to if they were in Lafayette Manor, which would be a 15-minute drive from her home.
Shifting operational funding to assist county’s budget
Beyond the building project question, the other item voters will be asked to divide is whether or not they would like to shift the operating costs out of the county’s operating levy, and into its own dedicated levy for the next five years.
As what was stated at the Tuesday Manor Committee meeting, and reiterated at the county board meeting that night, the funding may not be fully needed over the next five years, but is needed as the county deals with an ever tightening budget due to more than two decades living under state-imposed levy caps.
Currently for 2026, approximately $466,000 has been allocated from the county’s operating levy for manor operations, as there has been a shortfall historically between reimbursements from manor residents’ funding and costs to operate the facility.
At the manor committee meeting, good fiscal news was shared — efforts to improve reimbursement over the past two years had been successful: the manor had a margin of $154,000 as revenues ($3.4 million) exceeded costs ($3.2 million), meaning not one penny of that levy allocation has been used thus far this year.
If that success continued until the end of the year, it would mean the manor was the only county department in the black for the year (Lafayette Hospital and Clinics do not utilize any levy funding either).
Sauer told the committee that the idea behind the operating question would be to shift the potential operating levy ask for the next five years to its own dedicated levy, which would be slightly more than the current $466,000, lifted to $500,000.
This would be there to help with assisting on maintaining the current facility, which over the past few years has had a roof replacement and furnace replacement after failures of both - Sauer noted that several of the utility pipes running through the building, including some running through concrete floors, are rusting and breaking.
The idea would be to shift any potential needs to its own levy until a new facility was completed, at which point maintenance costs should be practically nothing for a new manor, and that, along with the continued success on reimbursements, would mean the need for a levy portion would be eliminated.
If that took place, it would be welcomed news for the county’s budget, which looks to continue to be squeezed due to levy caps imposed by the state. First started in 2005, in 2011, the Republican-controlled State Legislature eliminated the inflationary risers placed in the formula, only allowing local governments like Lafayette County to increase their budgets based on new construction.
As the most agriculturally-dependent county in the state, Lafayette County did not see growth match inflation — as an example at Tuesday’s meeting, it was stated that the county will be able to raise its budget next year by slightly more than one percent, far below the expected 3.6 percent rate of inflation.
Looking at jumps in different costs — just the increases in employee health insurance premiums, despite lowering the percentage the county will cover (74 versus 78 percent), will still lead to an increase cost of $300,000 in 2027.
Sauer said by shifting the manor’s costs off the operational levy, it will allow the county to cover some of those other increases to balance the budget.
After the county board meeting, Sauer hoped that the continued good fiscal times at the manor would mean they would not have to tap the whole $500,000, and after the 2031 sunset, they would not look to renew that special levy.
It was pointed out this was not the first time the county created a special levy for the manor — in 2009, facing a deficit of $158,000 for the manor, and a $759,000 shortfall in Human Services, the county approved a separate $500,000 levy for the nursing home.
When the operational levy question came before the board, three supervisors voted against the measure — Luke McGuire, Mark Pinch, and Joe Schutte.