For Henry Woloson of Independence Township, the school district’s campaign to pass its $75 million bond proposal has been inadequate and misleading.
“In the recent brochure issued by the school district, there were four references that there would be ‘NO TAX RATE INCREASE.’ Their caps not mine,” Woloson said. “The brochure does not contain the following statement that is on the district website: ‘The current bond set to expire in 2029 would be continued and expire in 2045.’”
Most homeowners know people with a 30 year mortgage will pay substantially more interest than with a 15 year mortgage, even if the rate is the same, he said.
“Adding 16 years onto our current bond, even without a tax rate increase is important information that voters should have told at least once in the brochure,” Wolson added.
Though the new bond is set to “expire” in 30 years, Woloson said many of the items purchased have useful life of less than 30 years and therefore will “expire” before the bond does.
“For example, should we be financing approximately $20 million in ‘technology’ equipment and related expenses over 30 years,” Wolson asked. “Most people replace their laptops and smartphones in less than five years.”
Resident and former school board trustee Joan Patterson agreed, which is why the money should not be given “in one shot.”
“Priorities will change, needs will change, but the money will be already spent. I don’t have a crystal ball to see that far into the future and I don’t think the school leadership does either,” Patterson said in a Letter to the Editor. “We will be basically leveraging the financial future of not only our children but also our grandchildren.”
Woloson said serial bonds of 10, 20, 30 year maturities might have made more sense than one 30-year bond, because the interest rate is lower, and they could have matched useful life with serial life.
An example would be a 10-year bond for technology, a 30-year bond for capital improvements, and 20-year bond for items that fall in between.
“I am sure the school board and district are acting in good faith as they make this request for $75 million. But the lack of disclosure regarding extending the term by 16 years was inappropriate,” he said. “Having three bonds maturing in 10, 20 and 30 years would not only have lowered our net interest cost but would better free up the district’s ability to borrow when the items with a shorter than 30 year life need to be replaced.”
Resident Gunars Ejups said “paying for assets long gone for an additional 20 years is completely wrong.”
“No viable business does that and running the school system should be the same as running a business,” Ejup said.
According to resident Dawn Schaller, the current district bond debt will be paid off in seven years and the balance paid off in 13 years.
“The approximate current total of outstanding bonds, ‘bond premium’, and ‘State School Bond Loan Fund’ as of June 30, 2016, was $130,926,898, so the new total could ostensibly be almost $207 million,” she said. “In order to keep the millage the same, they will rewrite and combine the current outstanding bonds with this new bond request should it be approved.”
The district’s designated $16.2 million under critical needs for “safety and security” aren’t critical, she said.
“Security is already in place in each of the schools with locking doors, intercom systems, and security cameras in all of the schools. Most of these were installed within the last eight years under the most recent bond that and were identified by administration when the monies were spent by the district from the last bond to last the district for a long time,” she said. “I agree that something needs to be done to create a better front entrance at the junior high, but in my opinion, not at the other buildings.”
The board and district does not seem to be “acting in good faith,” Schaller said.
Superintendent Dr. Rod Rock has made promises to major stakeholders such as band and sports boosters and coaches who have “sway with the community” to help get the bond passed through the use of “glittering generalities,” which are “an emotionally appealing phrase so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that it carries conviction without supporting information or reason,” she said.
“Such highly valued concepts attract general approval and acclaim,” she added. “Once the bond is approved, Dr. Rock has the legal right to spend the money any way he sees fit, assuming he has the approval of the school board. The majority of the board consistently votes to approve everything Dr. Rock proposes.”
Board members Craig Hamilton and Susan Boatman questioned items from the proposal, but board President Steve Hyer, controls board meetings, deciding what questions will be answered, she said.
“This board is a farce. It is a rubber stamp for Dr. Rock, exactly what he wants to push his agenda on the district,” Schaller said.
Alan Lowe, father of a 2015 Clarkston High School graduate, shares similar sentiments.
“My greatest frustration with this and the 2012 bond is the message sent based on the proposal. That message to me is, give us (the district) a windfall payout for us to do maintenance and to do all of our new pet projects or we will just let the schools crumble,” Lowe said. “In my mind, keeping the schools maintained is the districts number one priority and should be in ongoing budgets, if they truly can’t cover some large infrastructure needs then those should be presented to the community as a bond separate from all the nice to have items.”
Lowe said if the district must borrow to cover infrastructure needs, then the district is already “forever indebt with what they have.”