Baldwin City ? The Kansas Supreme Court’s looming July 1 deadline for legislative action to resolve the state’s school finance equity issue hung over nearly every topic discussed at Monday’s Baldwin City school board meeting.

The questions surrounding school funding and the Kansas Supreme Court’s possible actions should the Legislature not address its demand for equitable funding for the state’s school districts was even a consideration during the school board’s discussion on possible mill levy support for a new community center.

Superintendent Paul Dorathy said no one could predict what the Legislature would do when it convenes Thursday for a special session on school funding or what the court’s response would be to any legislative action, or lack of it.

Possibilities run from the optimistic — the Legislature reinstating the old school formula it scrapped in 2015 — to the pessimistic — complete court-ordered lockout of state public schools — Dorathy said.

With that uncertainty and with the absence of two of its members, the board tabled until a future meeting any decision on a request to increase the Baldwin City Recreation Commission’s property tax levy by 2 mills to provide $2.5 million of the $5 million needed to construct a community center.

That delay was fine with BCRC director Steve Friend, who said he wasn’t expecting a decision from the board on Monday. He said, however, direction from the board would be needed before he asked the Baldwin City Council to put a sales tax increase before voters, which would provide the other $2.5 million needed to build the community center. There was a possibility such a vote could be scheduled for November, but Friend said it could also be scheduled as a special election.

Board President Nick Harris and Dorathy informed Friend that contrary to earlier statements, the board had no authority to put a question on the proposed mill levy increase to support the community center on the ballot. That would simply take a board action to increase the BCRC’s current mill levy, they said. Because the BCRC has no taxing authority, the 4-mill levy that helps support its annual operating budget is approved through an arrangement with the district board.

The only way the asked-for increase would end up before district voters was if there was a successful protest petition in response to the hike, Dorathy said.

Friend, too, corrected past misstatements made during earlier community center discussions. A half-cent city sales tax increase would be needed to raise the city’s $2.5 million share of the community center’s cost, not the 0.3 cent increase previously cited, he said. He also said earlier statements that the district’s mill levy would decrease by 7 mills when the high school bond payment dropped off in 2018-2019 was incorrect. The bond’s retirement would reduce the district’s overall mill levy by 2.5 mills, he said.

Progress has been made on a possible community center design with the hiring of Clark-Huesemann Architects of Lawrence and a cost estimate review by Mar Lan Construction, Friend said. As a result, the proposed community center has been scaled back to 25,000 square feet with only a single gym. The design did retain four swimming lanes and an elevated running track, he said.

Board member Ivan Huntoon wondered if that was the correct approach. He encouraged the BCRC to plan a building that would fit community needs and not be constrained by a mill levy cap of 2 mills.

Friend brought with him evidence of community support for a community center in the form of a petition with 250 signatures supporting its construction.

Friend said he would learn more about a city sales tax referendum after he addresses the Baldwin City Council on July 5. He would then return to the board, seeking its support for the mill levy piece.

When the board will next meet is also uncertain because of the looming court deadline. If the court shuts down the state’s school districts, the board would not meet until the issue is resolved.

The board took a number of steps to pay teachers and classified employees for work they have or will have already done by the passage of a resolution allowing the use of 2015-2016 carryover funds for their compensation this month. The employees would normally have been paid in July.