Letter to the Editor 1 Bond PDF

8/7/2019 Letter to the Editor 1 Bond PDF

1/3

1

To the Editor:The authors of this letter are supporters of the Beaverton Schools. We attended the school, our children haveattended and continue to attend. Mr. Langs grandchildren are students at the school. Ensuring that ourchildren and grandchildren get a quality education that prepares them to be successful, productive citizens is ofthe 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 thedistrict for the following reasons:

1. The proposal wastes large sums of tax money on frivolous projects that do not improve the education ofour children.

2. The claims put forward that the operating budget of the school has been severely reduced are in errorand 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 holdoperating costs down.

The proposal includes a new gym in the elementary school to the tune of2 Million Dollars. We have threegyms now. Spending $2,000,000 on a fourth gym will not improve our childrens 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 liftweights 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 childrens 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 thegym during the school day. Generations have grown up in the Beaverton school system without the taxpayersproviding them with a $350,000 Gathering Place. This too is a frivolous waste of money that will notimprove 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 PressBox. Is there anyone not on the school board or working for Wolgast that thinks spending $81 grand on a pressbox is a wise use of funds? That press box will not contribute anything to your childs education and neither

will the remaining $1.35 million of proposed Athletic Facilities Improvements. Every one of the line itemsrelating 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 frivolousand overpriced expenditures. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars for Secure Entrances. When wewere in school we used hall monitors- didnt cost anything. The figures above are taken from the scopedocuments issued by the board and have not had Wolgasts 13.7% management fee applied. When Wolgastsfee 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 ofthe 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 1,804and the operating budget was $12,548,985. The enrollment for the 2009-2010 year was 1,358, a reduction of


2/3

2

24.7% from 2000 but the school budget for the 10-11 school year is $11,716,805, only a 6.6% 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 perstudent. School operation has, obviously, become less efficient. The reduction in the school population alsosuggests 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 aretaken from the schools website (www.brs.cgresd.net).

Some of the items in the proposal are maintenance items and the board is claiming that by transferringmaintenance, which is normally a general fund item, to the bond issue it will increase the amount of cashavailable in the general fund. What this proposal is really going to do is increase the total cost of running theschool system long term. It is a disguised tax increase to fund operations and it is going to increase the cost ofthose operations substantially. Because of the drop in enrollment the general fund budget will naturally drop. Ifthere are fewer students to educate the overall cost to educate them should drop accordingly but as we outlinedin the last paragraph the board and the administration have not taken appropriate measures to control costs.82.25% 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 thedistrict could fill the school administration in as to how to do this. The board however has chosen to not makeprudent cuts but to try to increase revenue by transferring maintenance items to the bond issue. If maintenancewas handled as it should be the cost would be paid from the general fund and would not be subject to theprevailing wage law. With the bond issue the construction workers wages will be set by the department oflabor. It is estimated that the total cost of prevailing wage projects are 1/3 higher than non-prevailing wageprojects. In our opinion the board has failed in its duty to the taxpayers and the students of the district, which isto provide a quality education as efficiently as possible. Instead of reducing operating costs to match thereduction in revenue they have elected to increase operating costs in order to increase tax revenue via the bondissue. That set up isnt going to improve our childrens education one iota. Its just going to cost us more tomaintain 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 withexpenditures budgeted at $11,716,805. This leaves $787,000 in the contingency fund to address themaintenance issues. Had adequate measures to address the falling enrollment been taken earlier there wouldhave been considerably more money available.

The board needs to think about what is best for the district instead of just instinctively raising taxes. Thepresent bond issue for the construction of the high school will no longer require the full 2.8 mills presentlylevied for that purpose after this school year. From now until 2015, when it expires, only around 2.17 mills willbe required to pay the interest and principal. The remaining 0.63 mills, over the four year period, will producetotal revenue of around $888,000. This would leave us with an average of $222,000 per year, interest free, toapply to the maintenance items. By combining these funds with money from the contingency fee whennecessary and contracting directly with trade specific contractors for each repair, we believe that the requiredrepairs could be made and the contingency fee could be maintained at a reasonable level over the next fouryears. The proposal the board has put forth costs us $2,166,000 in interest alone for that same four year periodand we will still owe the entire $12.1 million. That is because, despite a 35% raise in taxes, when we have topay the interest on the new debt and retire the old debt on schedule, there is nothing left to pay on the principalof 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 claimsyour tax will be $50-$100-$150-$200 your tax is really going to be $190- $380-$570-$760 annually. Thatworks out to $$2,850-$5,700-$8,550-$11,400 in total.

We dont believe that when enrollment is dropping and the tax base is eroding that it is wise to commit thetaxpayers of the district to 15 years of increased taxes for what little educational benefit will be derived from theproposed bond issue. We believe that a careful review of the facts will show that our plan is far superior to the


3/3

3

one put forth by the board. The boards proposal totals $12,100,000, a 236% increase in the districts debt level.An investment of that magnitude should be studied carefully. We urge the voters in the District to look over theboards plans thoroughly. We think you will find, as we did, that much of the spending is frivolous andoverpriced, that the administration and the board need to reduce spending to a prudent level, and thatperforming 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 andgrandchildren but we dont think that the boards proposal will accomplish these goals. We urge you to voteNO on February 22nd. After that we urge you come to board meetings and help us and the board find a costeffective solution to operating and maintaining our school system.

Thank you,Bill LangTab FaberTim WaltersKurt Kocur

Documents

Letter to the Editor 1 Bond PDF