BCFT Blog

Hi, All … I’m back (did you miss me?) – I had to take some time off to deal with a few other things that needed attention and get over a bug that my darling granddaughter breathed on me.  (It’s a good thing she’s cute!)

I’ve been asked if the new elementary school was going to be my only topic of discussion on this blog, and of course, the answer is no.  It’s just the issue that is at the forefront right now, since the construction committee is holding weekly meetings and moving forward with their plans at a fairly rapid pace.

Today I’m bringing up a subject that I broached on the Baxter Bulletin StoryChat, back before the school bond election was held in April.  I nearly had my head handed to me on a rough-cut slab of wood when I did, and most likely will again, but it’s important that this information be made public. 

Back on April 1^st, in response to a letter to the editor from a citizen who asked the voters to “just vote for the bond issue … [w]e can kick tail about other issues later,” this was my reply:

With all due respect, Sir, that’s a very nice sentiment, but it just won’t work.  If this bond issue should pass next Tuesday, regardless of what compromises might be worked out in the future, the cost won’t be any different than it is today.

Say the bond issue passes ….  say the school board completely revamps the construction plan and pares it down to $25 million.  It will STILL cost us $41.1 million + interest for 30 years + any excess tax revenue that accumulates over that time period, because the millage rate will have been set at the election on April 8th.  The only way to change it (and reduce the millage rate or construction bond) after that point would be to hold another election.

StoryChat posters responded with everything from simple outrage to declarations that I was lying to indignant claims that we were falsely accusing school board members of illegal activity.

In a post later that day, in defense of my position, I added:

Millage rates are set at elections — pure and simple.  The bond issue is tied to the millage rate.  You can’t change a millage rate without taking it to election, or refinancing the bond it’s tied to.  Mr. Nelson — and only Mr. Nelson — feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this.  But I don’t believe I am.

Mr. Nelson (retired teacher and current school board member) did reply and verified my understanding of the process.

To further confirm my contentions, at the first school board meeting after the election, Dr. Scriber laid out the proposed timeline for the construction of the new elementary school (not the whole plan).  Here’s what I wrote down:

• April 8:  approval of the millage rate
• April 16:  certification of the election
• April 17:  board meeting, establish committee for construction of new elementary school
• May 1:  special meeting to approve committee members
• May 2 thru June 17:  committee meetings with architect (Steve Elliott of Lewis, Elliott & Studer of Little Rock)
• July 22 & 29:  sale of bonds publicized
• August 5:  sale of bonds; rate gets locked in at this point
• August board meeting:  adopt bond resolution
• September 4:  receive funds 
• October 16 thru November 16:  advertise for bids for construction
• Second week of November:  accept bid(s)
• December:  groundbreaking (tentative)

Based on this – the district’s own timeline of events – they will receive the money for the entire construction project ($41.1 million) sometime in September … roughly 6 WEEKS before they even advertise for bids for the first phase of construction (which will include the new school plus various projects at other schools in the district).

This is the point I was trying to make, back there in April – that no matter what the final bid price is, they will already have borrowed $41.1 million, and that amount is what we taxpayers will have to pay back (with interest, over 30 years).

The whole school-construction/bonding process is backwards – they get the money first, and then decide how much they need to spend.  If in the unlikely event it’s less than what they were expecting, oh well.  This money will sit in a bank somewhere earning interest at an as-yet undetermined rate, before the voters even know how much the project will cost.  The interest money will be spent in the traditional way, on things for the inside of the school:  desks, cabinets, books, computer equipment and other such “furnishings.”  The excess – whether it comes from construction funds that don’t get used or excess tax revenue generated by an increase in property values – can legally be used for any purpose the board deems necessary.

I know that none of this is the school district’s doing – it’s all laid out in state law – but the fact that the law is written in such a way that it costs us taxpayers much, much more than necessary just galls me.  Reform would have to take place at the state level, by revising existing legislation, and the odds of that being successful (especially with the new minimum school standard requirements) are somewhere between slim and none. 

But it might be a windmill to tilt at another day.