Baxter County Friends of the Taxpayers

MEETING NOTES

BAXTER COUNTY FRIENDS OF THE TAXPAYERS

SATURDAY, JULY 28, 2007

BCFT Director Frank Kaye called the meeting to order at 1:00 pm at Redeemer Lutheran Church.  Special guests were MH School Superintendent Dr. Charles Scriber, School Board Chairman Bob Byrd, Board Members Eric Webb and Robert Nelson, the school district’s Director of Auxiliary Services Mike Walker, and teacher Melissa Steiner.  A large number of other guests were present; not all signed the guest register.  Also in attendance were representatives from The Baxter Bulletin and KTLO Radio.

Dr. Scriber showed the assembly a PowerPoint presentation that covered the proposed school improvement bond issue, and passed out brochures that will be distributed throughout the community.  Some of the points he made during his talk were:

• that “A community is known for the schools it keeps”;
• all MH schools are accredited;
• 99% of MH teachers are considered to be highly qualified;
• co- and extra-curricular activities provide motivation for some students to stay in school (justification for multi-use facility);
• many school facilities are used by the community, and they anticipate that the multi-use facility will be, as well;
• State Facilities Dept of AR Dept of Education has rigid guidelines for upgrading schools; MH is a long way from the distressed list, but the state has recommended certain changes/upgrades;
• a YES vote would equal $39.8 million for facility improvements.

Dr. Scriber explained the impact of this potential tax increase to homeowners, based upon a $100,000 home, using the chart in the brochure as an example, then said they were here to ask for our support.  He opened the floor to questions and concerns.  (Responses are from Dr. Scriber unless otherwise attributed and are shown in Italics.)

Q:  Is there a sunset clause on this millage?  A:  Thirty years.

Q:  Is any part of this millage long-term debt that will be paid off in the near future?  A:  No.

Q:  The number of students in our schools seems to increase every year … do you have projections for the next 5 years?  A:  Yes, based on the electric co-op, hospital and others, there is about a 1.5% increase in school population per year.

Q:  Is this an estimate?  Or actual growth?  A:  Actual numbers based on past history.

Q:  The U of A statistical abstract of all finances of state public school enrollment from 1993 through 2005 shows a variance of no more than 50 students per year for Baxter County.  A:  This is not right, Sir.

Q:  How many students in an average classroom?  A:  Average is about 25 in grades 4-12, no more than 18 in kindergarten.  Last year there were over 100 students more than the year before; the overall picture over a number of years will vary, but the average growth is 35-50 students per year.  The U of A study is for all of Baxter County, not just Mountain Home.

Q:  Does the “other” school district pay anything when a student chooses to attend MH schools?  A:  Some of the state money comes to MH (½ here, ½ to other district); parents must provide transportation.

Q:  I want to see more info about this issue on the school district website – specifically a project summary, photos, details about the proposal.  What are the future projections for the tax burden related to future operations & maintenance costs, teacher salaries, health insurance premiums, etc.?  This bond does not include any of these items.  A:  Increased enrollment equals increased money for schools (property assessments).  Right now we receive $5662 per student – half comes from the state, half from a state-mandated 25-mill property tax; the property tax usually provides the cushion for the district’s cost of “business.”

Q:  In 1996, 244 seniors graduated from MHHS.  How many graduated this year?  A:  Two-hundred-sixty-some.

Q:  I’ve talked to many people at the Farmers’ Market about the district’s wants vs. their needs.  The biggest problem I see is the lack of communication between people and the school board.  People are concerned because you made a big deal out of the damage at some of the schools (photos in the paper, etc.) – why hasn’t it been taken care of for the past 10-12 years?  If it had, it wouldn’t be in this condition.  A:  Communication is a two-way street.  The facility needs meetings were well-attended; there’s always the question of wants vs. needs.  We’re trying to show that these are “needs,” coming from the committee.  We will try to provide as much information as possible, but I can’t go one-on-one with everybody.

Q:  Will there be increased access to school facilities?  Are there agreements in place to guarantee access?  A:  No contracts, but some facilities will be open to the public at times.

Q:  Why must real estate be used to fund schools?  A:  By state law, property tax is what supports education.  We can’t use a sales tax or income tax – they can be funded with property tax or private donations only.

Q:  What is the multi-use facility?  Is it an indoor practice field?  The name has been changed several times.  Also, if you want to spend this money, spend it on education – this district is carried away with athletics.  The athlete of the week is a golfer?  A:  Golf is as important as other sports.  It provides an opportunity for kids to succeed and be involved.  Should we disallow ALL extra- and co-curricular activities?  It’s a good thing for kids to participate in these activities.

Q:  How many athletes are making a living from the $1.382 million the district spends on coaches?  A:  It’s not about that …. The athletic budget includes coaches’ salaries and makes up about 4.4% of the overall school budget.

Q:  Why aren’t 2 coaches teaching?  A:  Because of the load they face with their particular sport.

Q:  Do parents pay for any part of the program?  A:  Not at this time.

Q:  Many people disagree with the multi-use facility.  If the bond issue goes down, it will be because of that building.  Will you come back with a new proposal without the multi-use facility?  Maybe split the bond issue?  A:  A new proposal is a possibility, but it has not been discussed.  We can’t split the bond issue; according to state law, if it’s the same project it must be part of the same election.

Q:  The articles in the newspaper talked about exposed wiring, flooding, etc.  Is there a facilities person to take care of it?  Why should we build new when you haven’t taken care of the old?  A:  Good question … the building is more than 40 years old.  When it was built, it was built at ground level.  In defense of the maintenance department, they’ve done a good job over the years – it’s a big plant to take care of.

Q:  When will the specific proposals for the ballot be available?  A:  They will be on the website.

Comment from audience member with extensive experience in election process:  Exact wording must be published at least 30 days in advance.

Q:  Will the drainage for the new school be better than the old?  And what about the exposed wiring problem?  A:  The new buildings will be elevated and maintenance will be done.

Mike Walker:  I took the newspaper reporter and BCFT directors around to inspect the buildings.  We’re not talking about 220-volt wiring, we’re talking about computer cables in bundles that must be run in plain sight because there are no attics in Nelson-Wilks.  This is not a danger to students, but a mess to look at.  As far as the drainage is concerned, it’s not as simple as adding a French drain.  An engineer has looked at it; if the bond issue fails, we will have to spend the money to find a way to repair the drainage problem.

Q:  Have you tried asking for donations?  A:  We have an educational foundation that accepts donations, but no, we have not actively sought them out.

Q:  Have you expensed out the project?  What percent is non-facility related (architects, engineers, etc.)?  A:  The architect’s fee is 6% (for the engineers, etc.).  Then there are the closing costs and a contingency fee.

Q:  You said in your presentation that the senior Olympics and the Red Cross blood drives use the gym and displace students.  Why is this?  There are churches with gyms, the senior center and other facilities that could hold these events.  A:  We’re just trying to accommodate the community.

Q:  What’s the breakdown on the $39.8 million?  What part of it is for extra-curricular items?  A:  It’s all in the brochure.

Q:  How many maintenance people do you have?  A (Mike Walker):  Eight altogether – two are groundskeepers only, the other six maintain the school buildings.

Q:  Do you have any numbers on exactly what the total interest will be for the 30-year-loan?  A:  The interest rate is currently 4.5%; the total interest will be in the millions.

Q:  How about a ballpark number?  It isn’t just the base amount that gets paid back, but the interest which increases the tax burden.  A:  It’s hard to say, but interest is included in the proposal.

Q:  Can you give us any guarantee that the money will be spent as promised?  A:  Yes.  By law it will be spent exactly as presented – to build and improve buildings.

Q:  Do you need voter approval for extending the current bond?  A:  Yes.

Q:  How much money is funneled into sports?  We need a sports program, but should keep it local.  A:  The closest distance football game is 2 ½ hours away – the area is just spread out … we can’t help that.

Q:  How many coaches?  A:  Number of coaches?  25-30.  Academic, extra- and co-curricular activities, athletics – all are important.  They enhance and build on each other.  Roughly 8-10% of the bond issue will go to sports (providing for PE, etc.).

Q:  What about shop facilities?  A:  Yes – one of the additions in this project would provide for wood, welding, electrical, agri, and other technical skill-oriented training.  The current building is too small; the addition would allow more students  to participate.

Q:  Communications – where are all the complainers?  Not at this meeting.  I’m concerned about taxes – still have a child in school.  Thought the “indoor football field” was stupid at first, but after doing some research, I’ve learned that it’s for more than just football.  I want better facilities for our kids – we need to give them the opportunity to do the best they can.  Why deny the whole issue on the basis of one building?

Q:  Where are the people?  They got no response from the school board, and have already made up their minds and decided not to vote for the increase.

Q:  Where are the parents?

A:  There are two extremes – those who want more information, and those who won’t vote for it no matter what.  We’ve tried to be completely open and transparent – few people came to the public meetings.  We’re happy to communicate any bit of info.

Q:  So why hasn’t the school board changed its meeting date?  (NOTE:  It conflicts with City Council meetings, on the 3^rd Thursday of the month.)  A:  It’s been that way for years.  I don’t have an issue with changing it, but there are unintended consequences when you change a meeting date.  Our dates are set in September (by state law).

Q:  The school board has the authority to change it.  A:  Yes, the school board has the authority to change it IN SEPTEMBER, after the new board members have been elected.

Q:  There was a letter to the editor in the paper recently, asking direct questions of you about this bond issue.  You decided not to respond.  You need to respond in a public forum.  A:  The response to the questions is in the data in the brochure.

At this point, Frank thanked Dr. Scriber for taking the time to come and talk to us and made the following comments:  We’ve had a good turnout today – the room is set up for 109 – but it’s hard to get people to respond to anything.  We encourage all of you to get involved in council meetings, quorum court meetings, school board meetings – it’s your government.  For Mike Walker:  Whether this bond issue passes or not, you need to place more emphasis on facility maintenance.  Every one of our schools has small problems that could be taken care of with little effort.

Board Member Eric Webb reported that they had recently voted to add one maintenance person to Mike’s staff, but it wouldn’t be addressed until after the election in September.

Frank announced that we’d take a 10-minute break and then reconvene for the regular BCFT meeting.  Anyone interested was welcome to stay; no visitors chose to stay for the meeting.

First order of business was to discuss the BCFT booth at the county fair (Sept 12-15).  We’ll be in the same location as last year.  A half-day guided fishing trip will be given away again this year.  There will be a meeting on Saturday, Sept 8, at 3:00 pm to finalize plans for the fair and the school bond election.

School bond issue:  We give Dr. Scriber credit for facing our group – tough audience.  Lots of good questions asked, but there are still many issues he didn’t address.  Such as how much of this bond money is for sports?  He didn’t add in all the multi-purpose rooms at all the schools – it comes to 17.4% in total.

Frank asked for a vote on the group’s position and offered 3 choices:  1) support the bond issue publicly, 2) take no position, or 3) oppose the bond issue publicly.  The group voted unanimously to oppose the bond issue publicly.  Two members abstained from the vote because they live outside the MH school district, but once it was explained that they were only voting on the position the group should take, they agreed with the decision.

The four main reasons to oppose it were determined to be the lack of communication between the school board and the public, maintenance vs. new construction, the need to reduce the emphasis on sports, and the need to concentrate on education.

Further discussion approved the purchase of bumper stickers to be placed over wording on our A&P tax yard signs to produce a sign that reads “Vote against the school bond.”  It will cost about $280 for enough bumper stickers to do 125 signs.  Signs need to be ready about a week before early voting starts, because about 60% of voters these days vote early.  The group also approved having 7000 inserts placed in the Baxter Bulletin at a cost of about $540.  We will accept donations to offset the cost of these items.

Meeting adjourned at 3:45 pm.  Next meeting is scheduled for September 8, 2007, 3:00 pm at Redeemer Lutheran Church (please note the one-time time change).

Suzan P. Kaye
Secretary
Friday, September 28, 2007