The proposed 90 Million Dollar Bond for ROISD is history! Some of the people have spoken. The bond proposal failed 65%-35%. It is a shame that only 791 voters bothered to go to the polls for a proposal that would have dramatically raised house payments and forced more than a few homeowners to reconsider living in the Red Oak area.

I honestly thought that more voters would have taken the time to vote. Elections are not a “slam-dunk” or a “done deal”. This should show our students and children the old adage of “every person’s vote counts” actually holds water. Hopefully parents, teachers and friends will drive this message home. If you don’t vote…you can’t complain about the outcome either way.

The Superintendent and School Board should take a hard look at the results and apply these questions to further bond discussion and proposals:

Were the demographics cited in all presentations actual or vapor-demographics from the North Texas Council of Governments as I was told face-to-face? If questionable demographics were used, the voters saw through the smoke and mirrors. You’ll ask where one gets the proper demographic numbers. That’s what we pay you to find out and present honestly. A little number crunching by staff and students could go a long way to rectifying this issue. Use real numbers and voters will give you a real victory.

When the next election is called in November (as per previous news articles), will the Board look to the community and put together an advisory board? I voted against the bond because it was over the top and did not represent a fiscally responsible proposal; asking for funding only where it was necessary. I also voted against the bond because I felt the district was saying the voters were stupid if they did not agree to this massive increase in property taxes. You didn’t get community buy-in before the “spin” started. This is Politics and Business 101. The cart was before the horse and the proposal failed on these points.

Using the Education Foundation as a mailing resource and endorsement for the bond was lame and disingenuous. How much money was spent by the district and Education Foundation for the quality (very nicely done) printing? I am asking for a full accounting of this project publicly. The address label was marked “To the Parents of”. This indicated the district used my tax money yet again by the use of the student management system to generate the addresses, print the labels and have them affixed to the mailer. Is this action a proper use of district funds, time and materials?

Using the failure of this bond proposal to come back with a palatable bond program won’t work either. The Superintendent and Board cannot lose on this one. If the voters do not vote for the “reasonable bond issue”, great hue and cry will be made about “what will it take to get our students the proper facilities?” Know now that using this transparent argument won’t float. The Superintendent and Board should have done things right the first time. Now the issue may become more contentious as students could be used as bargaining chips in any future bond proposals. Don’t do it! We’ll call the bluff!

It is time for all interested parties to come together and learn from this failed proposal. Red Oak can grow from the process and begin to work together instead of polarizing into pro and against camps. The Superintendent and School Board must take a major leadership position on this issue. The statement was made in the Red Oak High School newspaper that Red Oak is moving from a predominantly rural to a suburban community. This is quite true. The infux of well educated and fiscally responsible families has changed the face of politics in Red Oak. Politics as usual will not get the job done.

I’m looking forward to working with the ROISD administration and Board to get a reasonable long-term construction project in place and moving. Your voters are obviously very cash conscious. Doing anything less will not be the right thing for students and not politically sound for future re-election possibilities.

The “big spin” has started in earnest in the ROISD 90 Million Dollar Bond Election. I attended the “Public Meeting” as posted on the ROISD web site.

Here’s the clip from the home page: “There will be a Community Meeting on April 11 at 7:00 p.m. in the Red Oak High School cafeteria regarding the ROISD Bond Proposal. All community members are invited to attend.” www.redoakisd.org

It was certainly not publicized in any other media source in Ellis County nor was it on the Marquee at any school in the district. We had a “standing room only” crowd of 14 persons including 3 district employees and a lone school board member.

Here’s the real deal:

1. 90 Million Bonded Indebtedness number has not changed. The district actually is spinning this number as an “emergency bond program” to cover projected growth in the next three years.
   
   
2. We have only reduced our current indebtedness from the 1999 and 2002 bond programs by 4 Million dollars. 26 Million still remains currently on the books. If we pass this bond, we should expect a total indebtedness of 116 Million for the next 30 years.
   
   
3. All the projected growth data utilized is extrapolated “historical data” according to the presenter. “Firmer” data will be available from the County next month according to the presenter.
   
   
4. The vision is to have two (2) 5A high schools in Red Oak, move the Junior High to the existing high school,, make the existing Intermediate School a second Junior High, build a new Shields Elementary, make the old Red Oak Elementary an Alternative Education and AEP facility plus hold Special Education, Finance and Food Services administrative personnel, hold the property where the existing Shields is located and set aside funding for property purchases.
   
   
5. Build a 15Million dollar Athletic facility to “allow ROISD to accommodate 5A sporting events”. This is on the heels of a six figure renovation of the existing ROHS football field, stands and expending over 1.5 MILLION dollars for a press box that STILL does not work under fire codes.
   
   
6. The new high school is estimated (2006 dollars) at 56 Million. This is not out of range but rather conservative given the issues of demand for construction materials, steel and workers in the wake of the Katrina Hurricane.
   The new High School would be located on the west side of I35 and is projected to utilize 75 acres/392K square feet/2800 students. The square footage figures were a low end of $125.00/sq. ft-$144.00/sq.ft with “inflation” built in to the projection.
   
   
7. 4 Million dollars would be set aside for additional land purchase and to cover development costs. What these costs were would not be disclosed at this time.
   The proposed bond sale schedule was detailed this way:
   2006-07=30M
   2007-08=30M
   2008-09=15M
   2009-10=15M
   
   
8. The tax increase impact figure bandied about still remains at a .36cents/$100 valuation. The district is currently taxing at .14 cents/$100 valuation. They are legally capped at .50/$100 valuation. This means: (directly from the presentation). The district may not levy a tax higher than bonded indebtedness.
   -100K Valued House=+$306 per year increase
   -125K Valued House=+$396 per year increase
   -150K Valued House=+$486 per year increase
   -175K Valued House=+$576 per year increase
   -Above 175K? We were told “extrapolate it out” by Finance Supt.
   
   
9. The bond is based upon enrollment projections and “historical growth”. The projected figures for elementary attendance within the years covered by this bond are FLAT according to data presented by Dr. Rick Bankston, Supt.-Finance-ROISD. The JH is growing fastest but is within building parameters for at least 2 years. There is enough land on the JH campus to expand rather than build another building. If enrollment does not move according to projections, the Finance Superintendent had no answers other than “oops”. We’re still stuck for 116 Million for 30 years.
   
   
10. When the question of funding “operations” over time was voiced. The only answer was an increasing amount of houses/property upon which to levy a tax. I don’t think the attendees bought into that notion. I spoke with 4 others (approx. 50% of the taxpayer attendees) and this was unacceptable to all. There is no guarantee the tax base will grow at the rate proposed by a 90 Million Bond.
    
    
    Observations and Opinion:
    
    It seems to me that the District is running a stealth bond election campaign. 14 persons at the meeting included the presenters so the community as a whole could not be aware this is going to be decided in May. No information was published in any media source. Why not?
    
    Four fellow attendees told me “this is the way things are done here”. Unfortunately ROISD has chosen the closed mouth PR campaign. It is almost like they want to lose the bond proposal and propose an amended plan that WILL pass. The Superintendent was very comfortable with the 90Million figure. He looked like the Cheshire cat throughout the proceedings. He knows that this will pass big or fail big. Either way, he wins. The opponents cannot complain too much when the district “meets them halfway” with a bond proposal that only costs us 30, 40, 50 Million.
    
    How Maintenance and Operations will be funded if the district grows by almost 50% in facilities is beyond the administration. They’re not concerned with this right now. The issue on the table is floating a 90 Million dollar bond program. As an education professional, I’m faced with funding operations on a daily basis. The property tax is capped at $1.50 in Red Oak. Governor Perry has publicly floated a 1/3 reduction plan. This is bogus because business taxes will be raised in response. It’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. We’ll pay more for business services in response. How will the district cope with an increasing M&O? The “company line” is that our residential tax base will cover this. I don’t think I want to crapshoot demographics at a time where interest rates are being raised by the Fed and banks are becoming a tighter with their dollars to fund residential loans.
    
    The 15M slated for a new athletic complex hit some nerves. The 2002 bond held provisions for a Performing Arts Center. This was never built because the “site was improper” and “we didn’t have the money to do it”. Which is it? The money was allocated by bond provisions. Show me the money. I’m assuming this cash infusion probably paid expenses of the CATE building since it went over budget big time. I worked in that building and know how nice it is. Hats off to ROISD for a job well done!
    
    The major concern voiced by the unwashed masses is if the bond is passed, will it actually be used for projects listed in the initial bond proposal? The answer we received was a big fat “maybe-maybe not”. I know that districts are free to spend whatever they raise in construction bonds on construction. They are limited to only construction. They are not limited to constructing what they said they would. This apparently is the case with this proposal as well.
    
    The new athletic complex will serve HS athletics only. The JH will inherit the existing complex with the recently installed, six figure turf. Why this was put in was explained away as a financial savings trade off over maintaining a natural grass field. I’ve been a coach and soccer player for years and appreciate a great field for safety and well being of my players and fellow team members. Why incur the expense if you know you’re going to the public for a new complex about one year later?
    
    The One Million dollar Press Box (please ask for the exact figure…I’m thinking it’s gone over 900K to almost 1M) has not been completed at this time. The project is still in litigation and on hold. This press box certainly is more than any JH athletic program needs and frankly is a boondoggle using yet more of our taxes. That is another thread. The argument that “we could not host a Duncanville HS game at our present facility is begging the question. We’re no where near 5A status and are not projected to be there in the next 5 years. The district is asking for more Cadillacs on a Yugo budget.
    
    In response to Mr. Riley’s letter to the Ellis County Press, he infers that voters in Red Oak should consider a 90 Million dollar bond program “normality” based upon the 700+Million dollar proposal in Frisco. That’s a stretch of logic that frankly is suspect upon its merits. We don’t have ANY population crunch nor rush to available business pad sites in Red Oak. I challenge Mr. Riley to walk the new strip malls and see if the small businesses already in house would actually reduce the tax burden upon homeowners if Perry’s 1/3 property tax reduction takes effect. I don’t think so.
    
    Mr. Riley also alludes to a Mr. Miller’s letter and refers to him as a “Dallas resident”. He fails again to see the broader picture. If a potential resident/taxpayer chooses not to move to Red Oak based upon a 30 year increase in bonded indebtedness, it’s a moot response to the issue at hand. We lose one resident and probably will lose more because of this bond proposal. Can we afford to lose residents if the tax base will be “diluted by an increase in residential taxpayers”? Mr. Riley did not consider this notion or dismissed it as not germaine to the issue
    
    It is historical myopic thinking in Red Oak that has caused this massive bond to be proposed. I won’t chastise the current administration for being short-sighted. They’ve only been in the driver’s seat for two plus years. This is a longer term problem that was exacerbated by a Finance Superintendent that would not spend available bonded funds to kick start the district in 1999 and 2002. We would not be facing a major increase in taxes if this person had taken the reins and provided the leadership necessary instead of clamping down upon budgets and claiming “we don’t have any money”. I was there, been told that personally and know it for a fact.
    
    A question that was quietly hushed last year was an account in a local bank that was unknown by the present Finance Superintendent until the bank called him and asked what he wanted to do with the large interest payment. He stated he didn’t know this money was there. How many more accounts are languishing throughout banks in Ellis County and beyond? Why were they established, did someone “forget” about them? Frankly this reeks and needs a closer inspection by the Texas Education Agency.
    
    I spoke with a teacher in ROISD on Saturday, April 15, 2006 about the proposal. She was frantic because in “her meeting, teacher pay raises were tied to the success or failure of the bond proposal”. This is invalid and scare mongering to elicit support. This must cease now. This district should publicly clarify this statement and make it clear to teachers that their pay raises are NOT tied to construction bonds sold by a school district. Pay raises are partially funded by state allotments and by local funding. The local funding option can either come from taxable inflow or from fund balance.
    
    The last pay raise for teachers was funded by a fund balance transfer. How do I know this? I was in attendance when the raises were debated, the source of funds determined and the raises passed by the board. Does this administration really think all their constituents are ignorant of school finance? That is a question for the voters on May 13.
    
    Joey Dauben categorized me as “very anti-bond”. That is true only because this district has taken liberties with previous bond monies and not delivered what was promised to the voters. The issues and foibles of the previous Finance Superintendent are known but only discussed in whispered tones by long time residents. The two issues are intertwined in Red Oak I.S.D’s present bond proposal.
    
    I’ll stick to the issues, and ask yet again for people to examine their pocketbooks and see if they can REALLY afford yet another big tax increase. Where can I get a magnetic sign for my car? I’m sure if I put a sign out in my yard voicing my concerns, it would get pulled up and destroyed ala the last mayoral election .
    
    A “nice try award” goes to Mr. Riley for towing the "company line". I wonder if he really is a homeowner in Red Oak. If not, his reasoning and applause for the bond is very disingenuous at the least and a front for the administration at the most. Hopefully, clearer minds will prevail and see through the “spin”.
    
    Vote with your pocketbook and say NO to an outrageous bond proposal for Red Oak ISD.

When Is A 90 Million Bond Not a 90 Million Debt?

As I read the school district’s proposal for a 90M bond election in May, I was struck by several interesting notions.

The district is asking for an additional $90M on top of the $14+M approved in 2002 plus the bond approved in 1999. ($14M?-It was approved before I moved here) We are still servicing these debts with our tax monies. Have these bonds been paid? If so, why hasn’t the public been notified that their school district taxes would be reduced in kind? We’ve not received any notice regarding a tax reduction, have you?

My simple calculator tells me that we would not be in debt for $90M but $114 Million dollars. Let’s examine the impact of this bond proposal upon homeowners rather than “homesteaders”. The spin should be directed to those footing this proposed bill. Looking at my modest home, it is definitely not valued at $100,000 and continues to rise. This is not a bad thing and frankly people probably will say “quit whining” at this point because “your investment in Red Oak is growing”. The district’s Associate Superintendent-Finance should show simple souls like me why and how I can afford a very substantial increase in my tax structure based upon a 0.36/$100.00 levy, be obligated to over 10 years of bond sales plus untold years of bond indebtedness. This proposal is increasing the tax burden of those required to pay to an uncomfortable level.

Postulating a 10% growth in tax revenues because of projected growth is like purchasing groceries with a credit card. One uses a credit card to defer the “bad news” or to purchase goods and services that are way above their current means with a promise to pay the debt eventually.

Incurring a $90M debt on a wing and a prayer is risky business. Asking taxpayers to pay for “might” and “could be” rather than taking care of business in the here and now paints a pretty picture around election time but doesn’t serve the taxpayers nor students of the district. Our district is already $28M in debt. How much tax burden can you comfortably live with? How much is enough?

I would also challenge the district to show a current median home price model in Red Oak ISD and then model this bond’s impact upon this median pricing model instead of a traditional “$100K model”. Mr. Bankston, let’s compare apples to apples.

Let’s look at the growth of the district and again compare apples to apples. Has the district recently seen geometric or dramatic growth in students in the last 3 years? What demographic data supports the notion that accruing $90 Million in additional debt will service an influx of students into the district? Where are the students?

Given the current state of public education funding or lack of it, is taking on an additional $90M in debt prudent? What is the state of our district’s fund balance? One would have to assume it is similar to most districts in Texas at the present time that receive state funding. The state funding model is grim at best until the Legislature is forced to act in Special Session.

What programs are in place to economize and improve efficiency in our district? Why have we not seen any proposals that address the larger issue of ever decreasing state funding? Why is the district only asking taxpayers to spend for years in advance and not showing taxpayers any positive economizing steps? This answer for decreasing funding is unacceptable. As a taxpayer, I cannot support a $90 Million dollar bond program without proof that the district is operating in a bare bones budgetary model. If the district wants me to pay, they need to become lean and mean quickly to get my vote. Mr Stockstill, Mr. Bankston, Ms. Grandstaff, please show me the money.

I will be chastised for not being interested in providing the best in educational opportunities for our students, “hurting the kids” and probably demonized for just being plain ole’ cinchy. This is atypical. One always attacks the person when the issue is controversial and where education is involved. I am ready for this.

My counter proposal to the district is asking for this proposal to be taken back and reworked to show significant fiscal restraint, a plan for retiring current bond indebtedness before incurring massive new debt, a conservative approach to construction and a reasonable public discussion about the proposed bond program. I am not asking for one room schoolhouses or substandard construction. I am asking the district to take another look at what they are loading on the backs of their financial base. We’re at the top of the tax cap and it’s not enough.

We don’t need a major tax increase. Your taxpayers are currently up to their nose in taxes. Please take another look and bring us a reasonable proposal that won’t bust the bank. Anything less is a disservice to your “paying customers”.