Although it is being billed as a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity, this is not the first time the question of a bond extension has been proposed to taxpayers in the Beaverton Rural Schools school district.
For those of you who were around in 2011 and paying attention, you will realize that this isn't the first time that Beaverton Rural Schools has brought a bond extension proposal to the voters. It was on the ballot on Feb. 22, 2011.
Some of us vocally opposed the proposal then as well, and some of our same arguments still hold weight today. Below is a copy of a Letter to the Editor that ran prior to election.
From the Gladwin County Record and Beaverton Clarion, Feb. 1, 2011:
Readers disagree with Beaverton bond proposal
To the Editor:
The authors of this letter are supporters of the Beaverton Schools. We attended the school, our children have attended and continue to attend. Mr. Lang’s grandchildren are students at the school. Ensuring that our children and grandchildren get a quality education that prepares them to be successful, productive citizens is of the utmost importance to us.
However, after carefully reviewing the proposal put forth by the school board we have come to the conclusion that the proposal is not in the best interests of the students or the taxpayers of the district for the following reasons:
1. The proposal wastes large sums of tax money on frivolous projects that do not improve the education of our children.
2. The claims put forward that the operating budget of the school has been severely reduced are in error and these false claims mask the real issues that are influencing the operation of the school system.
3. Performing maintenance work under the bond issue is actually a tax increase for operating purposes, which will increase the overall cost of operating the schools at a time when it is prudent to hold operating costs down.
The proposal includes a new gym in the elementary school to the tune of 2 Million Dollars. We have three gyms now. Spending $2,000,000 on a fourth gym will not improve our children’s education.
The proposal calls for spending a Half Million Dollars to:
• Renovate the Existing Band Room to Weight Room
• Renovate the Current Weight Room to Band Room
Spending that kind of money to swap applications in two rooms is nonsense. Besides if a kid wants to lift weights he can do it at home. The $500,000 room swap is in the high school that is only about 10 years old. This is a frivolous use of funds that will not improve our children’s education.
The proposal calls for spending $350,575 to:
• Relocate Existing Lockers to Corridors
• Renovate Existing Locker Space to Gathering Space
• Cafeteria to Gathering Space Additions
One would think that high school students would be in the classroom, on the athletic field, or at a function in the gym during the school day. Generations have grown up in the Beaverton school system without the taxpayers providing them with a $350,000 "Gathering Place". This too is a frivolous waste of money that will not improve the education of our children.
Then there is the $1,427,800 for improvements to the outdoor athletic facilities that includes $81,000 for a Press Box.
Is there anyone not on the school board or working for Wolgast that thinks spending $81 grand on a press box is a wise use of funds? That press box will not contribute anything to your child’s education and neither will the remaining $1.35 million of proposed "Athletic Facilities Improvements". Every one of the line items relating to the athletic fields is significantly overpriced.
We have just highlighted a few of the line items to make our point. The entire proposal is riddled with frivolous and overpriced expenditures. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars for "Secure Entrances". When we were in school we used hall monitors — didn’t cost anything.
The figures above are taken from the scope documents issued by the board and have not had Wolgast’s 13.7 percent management fee applied. When Wolgast’s fee is added the actual cost of that press box is $92,097.
A brochure in favor of the millage proposal is being circulated that makes the claim that the operating budget of the school has been reduced by 5 million dollars over the past 10 years because of reduced funding by the State.
According to documents on the school website the student enrollment for the 2000-2001 school year was 1,804 and the operating budget was $12,548,985. The enrollment for the 2009-2010 year was 1,358, a reduction of 24.7 percent from 2000 but the school budget for the 10-11 school year is $11,716,805, only a 6.6 percent reduction.
Another way to look at it is that in 2000 the district spent $6,956 per student but in 2010 the district spent $8,628 per student.
Clearly, the operating budget of the school has not suffered in terms of expenditures per student. School operation has, obviously, become less efficient. The reduction in the school population also suggests that it would not be wise to build additional classrooms in the primary school to "relieve crowding".
Incidentally, the operating budget for 10-11 is $352,000 higher than it was for 09-10. All figures presented are taken from the school’s website (www.brs.cgresd.net).
Some of the items in the proposal are maintenance items and the board is claiming that by transferring maintenance, which is normally a general fund item, to the bond issue it will increase the amount of cash available in the general fund.
What this proposal is really going to do is increase the total cost of running the school system long term. It is a disguised tax increase to fund operations and it is going to increase the cost of those operations substantially.
Because of the drop in enrollment, the general fund budget will naturally drop. If there are fewer students to educate, the overall cost to educate them should drop accordingly - but as we outlined in the last paragraph the board and the administration have not taken appropriate measures to control costs.
A total of 82.25 percent of the 09-10 budget went for personnel expenditures. The administration and the board need to make the necessary cuts in personnel to keep expenditures in line with revenues.
Most private companies in the district could fill the school administration in as to how to do this.
The board however has chosen to not make prudent cuts but to try to increase revenue by transferring maintenance items to the bond issue.
If maintenance was handled as it should be the cost would be paid from the general fund and would not be subject to the prevailing wage law. With the bond issue the construction worker’s wages will be set by the department of labor. It is estimated that the total cost of prevailing wage projects are 1/3 higher than non-prevailing wage projects.
In our opinion the board has failed in its duty to the taxpayers and the students of the district, which is to provide a quality education as efficiently as possible.
Instead of reducing operating costs to match the reduction in revenue they have elected to increase operating costs in order to increase tax revenue via the bond issue.
That set up isn’t going to improve our children’s education one iota. It’s just going to cost us more to maintain our investment in the school infrastructure.
According to the school website there should be money available for required maintenance. The total revenue available for 10-11 is listed as $12,503,862 with expenditures budgeted at $11,716,805. This leaves $787,000 in the contingency fund to address the maintenance issues.
Had adequate measures to address the falling enrollment been taken earlier there would have been considerably more money available.
The board needs to think about what is best for the district instead of just instinctively raising taxes. The present bond issue for the construction of the high school will no longer require the full 2.8 mills presently levied for that purpose after this school year.
From now until 2015, when it expires, only around 2.17 mills will be required to pay the interest and principal. The remaining 0.63 mills, over the four year period, will produce total revenue of around $888,000. This would leave us with an average of $222,000 per year, interest free, to apply to the maintenance items.
By combining these funds with money from the contingency fee when necessary and contracting directly with trade specific contractors for each repair, we believe that the required repairs could be made and the contingency fee could be maintained at a reasonable level over the next four years.
The proposal the board has put forth costs us $2,166,000 in interest alone for that same four year period and we will still owe the entire $12.1 million. That is because, despite a 35 percent raise in taxes, when we have to pay the interest on the new debt and retire the old debt on schedule, there is nothing left to pay on the principal of the new debt.
The brochure has a chart that shows figures for home values and lists the tax for each category. That chart erroneously shows the tax at 1 mill. The proposal is 3.8 mills for 15 years. Where the chart claims your tax will be $50-$100-$150-$200 your tax is really going to be $190- $380-$570-$760 annually. That works out to $$2,850-$5,700-$8,550-$11,400 in total.
We don’t believe that when enrollment is dropping and the tax base is eroding that it is wise to commit the taxpayers of the district to 15 years of increased taxes for what little educational benefit will be derived from the proposed bond issue.
We believe that a careful review of the facts will show that our plan is far superior to the one put forth by the board.
The board’s proposal totals $12,100,000, a 236 percent increase in the district’s debt level. An investment of that magnitude should be studied carefully. We urge the voters in the District to look over the board’s plans thoroughly. We think you will find, as we did, that much of the spending is frivolous and overpriced, that the administration and the board need to reduce spending to a prudent level, and that performing maintenance work through the bond issue is not cost effective.
We want to maintain our investment in school infrastructure and we are committed to providing a quality education for our children and grandchildren but we don’t think that the board’s proposal will accomplish these goals.
We urge you to vote NO on Feb. 22. After that, we urge you come to board meetings and help us and the board find a cost effective solution to operating and maintaining our school system.
Thank you,
Bill Lang
Tab Faber
Tim Walters
Kurt Kocur
What has the board done since that proposal failed to bring their expenditures back in line with their revenue? Or has the plan always been to put the bond extension proposal back on the ballot in hopes that it will eventually pass?
Back in 2011, "...a committee of school board members and other area residents representing sports associations is being assembled to provide the community with information about the bond issue. A flyer is scheduled to be distributed to voters in January detailing the projects and costs. The bond calls for an extension of the High School bond plus a one mill increase. The bond would raise an estimated $12.1 million and last for ten to 15 years."
It was billed as money needed for consideration of "safety, security, and academics," and included such renovations as securing entrances, building and shuffling rooms, and upgrades to the athletic facilities.
From the Gladwin County Record and Beaverton Clarion, Oct. 13, 2010:
"Laura Brandon-Maveal, parent of a Beaverton student, asked the board how they could justify asking the community for more money when staff have been cut and class sizes have increased.
"Zdrojewski responded, “Bond issues relieve pressure on the district’s general fund. If we’re able to finance roof repair through a bond issue, we don’t have to use those general funds that could go toward staffing and other needs.”
"In defense of improvements to the High School football facilities, board member Brent Mishler explained that the renovations are “necessary due to the youth football programs whose use of the field effectively adds a season and a half of wear every fall.”
Two years later, the message is basically the same, with the absence of funding being allotted for sports upgrades, and with an emphasis on the dire state of our roofs, which need addressed "immediately" (just as they did two years ago).
From the Gladwin County Record and Beaverton Clarion, Dec. 17, 2013:
Adam Zdrojewski: "We need to address these issues immediately. Our district is in dire need of roofs on multiple buildings today, safe and secure entrances for our kids today, reliable buses and technology upgrades today.”
This is nothing but a second attempt at locking our community into more long-term financing. Roof repairs can be completed with a sinking fund millage, which will be more short-term and allow more freedom in hiring people to do the job.
Additionally, the most critical of repairs will be made, while affording the board and administration the time to show taxpayers that they are able to get their expenditures in line with their revenue.
No offense, but come on - it's been two years since the first bond extension proposal was floated to voters on the February 2011 ballot, and what's been done?
We are currently spending $9095 per student, while receiving $7076 per student. WHY on earth would anyone want to extend a huge sum of taxpayer money to an entity that obviously doesn't have a handle on its expenses?
Has the school taken any real and meaningful action toward getting their expenditures in line with enrollment? Any repairs or maintenance done on our infrastructure whatsoever?
If they have, let us know! We're ready for that discussion. Unfortunately, we're still listening to crickets over here.
We urge you to "Like" the Beaverton One Facebook Page so that those organizers know we all want information. Feel free to "Like" our page as well. We are Beaverton Free, and we do intend to continue to provide information.
Like Beaverton One by clicking here: https://www.facebook.com/beavertonone
Like Beaverton Free by clicking here: https://www.facebook.com/Beavertonfree
