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”.