Dear Editor,
For the last 22 years, I have had the privilege of serving our community as a member of the school board, and it has been an incredible joy to do so. It also gives me a unique perspective on the purpose of the bond issue that our board has put forth for your consideration.
The number one question people are asking me is why do we need to do this? To me, the top reason is the cost savings that come from the efficiencies of building consolidation. Those savings are projected to be over $300,000 per year for our general fund. So why is that important? Because in Iowa, the general fund is the source of all funds used to pay for the actual education of our students.
It has been suggested by others in the Opinion pages that instead of raising taxes for buildings, we should have the courage to raise taxes to hire additional teachers and expand our programming. Well, that would take more than courage as it is not legal to do so. In Iowa, the amount of yearly revenue in a district’s general fund is determined by a formula that has two variables, the number of students in the district and the annual growth percentage established by the Iowa Legislature, which this year was a ridiculous 1.25 percent. Therefore, since we can’t increase the revenue, we are proposing to do what anyone would do in their own home budget – we are trying to cut expenses.
By consolidating under two roofs, we will be able to dramatically cut expenses while preserving all of our teaching staff and the outstanding level of programming that we provide. Between the savings from building consolidation and the savings from the new geo-thermal, we would be in a position to maintain our programming no matter how poorly the Legislature decides to fund us in the future.
For all of those who are against the gymnasium, let me say that there is no way we can build a school building with eight grade levels in it with only the ridiculous sized gym that is currently in the high school. It doesn’t even function properly for its intended purpose of physical education. With all of the students in the building, a full size gym is necessary not just for athletics, but for PE as well.
It is true that we are proposing some additional seating to allow us to host events and games for the state associations, but that is only about 10 percent of the cost of the gym. Since the architect is projecting the gym at $4 million, that is an added cost of $400,000. We felt that was a workable figure for the events we could draw in, just as the board did when they built what was a grand gym in its day and hosted numerous events for many years. You don’t have to agree that those events will help our community, but make sure that you understand that the gym cost would not simply disappear if we don’t build the extra seating.
I have also heard from multiple sources that there are folks saying we chose to seek this bond issue amount because it was the maximum we could get. That is not true. The amount we are proposing is $2.70 per thousand of taxable valuation, while the maximum rate allowed by law in Iowa is $4.05 per thousand. We are proposing a bond of 66 percent of the maximum.
Further I have had folks tell me that they plan to vote against the bond this time so that we’ll cut out all the “fluff” and scale it back to what we really need. The truth is that despite Opinion letters to the contrary, the proposed facilities will be functional, but far from plush. We already whittled off the “fluff” before we brought it forward, and I can assure you that if it is voted down, we do not plan to make any changes to it when we bring it forward again. It is quite simply already pared down to meet our needs at the most cost effective design possible.
Now, for a couple of facts to consider as you make your decision. Interest rates are at record low levels and will allow the district to use much more of the tax revenue to pay for the actual construction rather than to interest on the bonds. This is a huge opportunity to save this community a great deal of taxes, because construction costs and interest costs will never be this low again in any foreseeable future. In fact, the interest savings are what makes the levy rate of $2.70 possible.
Further the PPEL levy will gradually reduce as it pays off its portion of the project, and it will expire in a few years, lowering the tax levy by over $1 per thousand.
A final fact is that as the taxable valuation of the district increases the levy rate will decrease from the $2.70 level as the bond payments are based on our current valuations.
All of these points show the fact that this is an excellent opportunity for our community to build the updated and consolidated facilities we need to educate our kids for the 40 to 50 years at a cost that will never be lower than right now.
It has also been suggested that we should take the funds coming from the casino and save them up until we had enough to construct the facilities. That assumed that the amount that would come from the casino is $4 million a year, thus needing five years to accumulate the $20 million. The figures that I am aware of was that Grow Greene County was expecting about $1.5 million per year to distribute to county non-profits through a yet to be determined process. Even if they snubbed all of the other non-profit entities and gave all the funds to the school for this save-to-build process, it would take nearly 14 years to save up the $20 million, and by then construction costs will have escalated well beyond the costs of today, and all of the other entities would have suffered needlessly.
The truth is that this community’s voters decided 50 years ago that the current middle school was no longer “good enough” to continue as the district’s high school and passed a bond issue to build a new one. At that time the building was itself nearing 50 years old, and it will now be over 100 years old when it is finally decommissioned as a school. To those who say it is still “good enough,” I guess I’d ask when did we stop wanting things to be better for our kids instead of “good enough”? I truly love the old building and look forward to seeing what it can become to serve our community in a new and different way, but it is time to upgrade our facilities.
There has been a recent push from folks saying that the proposal will cripple or even kill the local economy. First let me say it is true that simply putting the word “fact” ahead of what you’re saying doesn’t guarantee it is a fact. It is also true that not everything found on the internet is true and factual. Mr. Berg, I have to admit that I was interested in your letter until you quoted data from a website that is widely recognized as being far from factual in its presentation of data.
You then profess a cost payback (ROI) calculation that takes the cost of the building against the savings in the general fund. You are comparing apples and oranges. The savings are not intended to “payback” the cost of the building, but are rather intended to maintain and possibly expand the programs available to our students. That is not something I look at as a “payback,” but rather as what we should be doing for our students.
Finally, there is a recent letter outlining the factors of how the world economy is on the verge of collapse. At least, they didn’t say it was a “fact” that the collapse is eminent, but they certainly try to make that case. Once again, we can search the internet and find arguments just as strong that support an expanding economy.
The bottom line is that the world is changing at a rate that we have never seen before, and our kids need to have the best education possible to make their way in such a complex and fast paced environment. They note that many of those who will be paying for this bond will not be alive to see the “ROI” that Mr. Berg calculated. My thought is that I’m glad that the folks 50 years ago didn’t have the same attitude because many of the folks who paid for that high school bond were not alive to see all the kids that have benefitted from their willingness to pay it forward.
I encourage everyone, whether you are for or against this bond issue, to vote. Let’s have a turnout that shows that school issues are important enough for all of our voices to be heard.
Sam Harding, Jefferson
