Letter to the Editor

Consolidation is NEVC's solution

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Dear Editor,

Having paid taxes for many years in both the Northeast Vernon County and Nevada school districts I have several questions and observations concerning Proposition S that is to be voted on by NEVC residents in a few weeks. Having defeated a similar proposal just a few years ago, it appears that it is time to rehash the numbers.

I totally agree that the facilities in Walker and Schell City are in poor condition. There is indeed reason to believe that improved environments can enhance education, even though Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, and several of the other great universities have very old buildings and seem to turn out at least above average scholars.

The problems for me and several other tax payers of the district arise on several fronts.

The first thing we must learn is what the total cost of the building really is. They certainly can't lead us to believe that the building we are seeing on the brochures, including a full sized gymnasium with a stage area, a good sized class room area (although it appears to be only about twice the size of the gym), and a kitchen, with no apparent lunch room, can be built for $2.4 million. They came up with this number because that is all they can bond by law. Using conservative historical comparisons the building as proposed could likely cost more than $4 million. Truman Elementary in Nevada cost more than $4 million, it does not have a full sized gym and that was more 15 years ago. The sight preparation alone, including DNR approved sewage system and electricity, could cost several hundred thousand dollars in the location NEVC has selected. So the real questions become what is the real cost and where does the rest of the money come from.

The answer to the second part of the question appears to be hidden at the bottom of a link on their school web sight that outlines a 49 cent capital projects funds levy" that goes to pay a lease of well over $1 million. So now the true issue becomes a 94 cent increase to build part of a school plus a 49 cent increase to lease another part of the school, a transfer from the children's classroom Trust Fund, which is now used to pay operating expenses, to pay for another part, and who knows what else to pay for the rest.

The third question arises when we ask ourselves, when I haven't had a pay increase in two years, I don't know if I even will have a job next year, the state and federal budgets are a wreck and state education funding is on the chopping block, is now the time that we need to be raising taxes to build a school that we probably can't pay for.

I am told that stimulus money, which by the way you and I are also paying for, is being counted on. My research shows no such funds available and that the only stimulus involvement that might be counted on is a program designed to make the bond issue more appealing to investors through the use of tax credits. This program would in no way provide extra funds over and above the $2.4 million bond issue. So the argument that, "we must pass this before the stimulus money goes away" is moot. It was never really there to start with. Even this money is competed for by dozens of schools, and as far as grants go, they simply can't be counted on until they have the money in hand, as they too are in great demand, highly sought after, and usually politically linked. A much more likely scenario is one where we get a school building half built and half paid for, run out of money, and have state budget cuts force the closing and consolidation of the district with surrounding ones. Guess what happens then... we still get to pay the taxes to pay for the half finished building in the middle of nowhere.

So let's recap what we have learned so far. The $4.22 levy that we now pay will be increased by .94 cents for the bond issue, it appears another .49 cents to pay the lease and who knows how much more before the building is finished. We are even going to transfer funds normally used for operating the district and paying the teaching staff, who by the way are at a pay scale roughly 30 percent below the state average, and use them to help pay for a building that is going to cost much closer to $4 million than the advertised $2.4 million we are led to believe. The good news is that the 94 cent increase maxes out the districts $2.5 million bond indebtedness limit, and the state limits the regular levy to $6 so they can only tap us for another $1.29 before they reach that. The bad news is that every school district that borders NEVC is paying less, much less, and that if you have a $50,000 assessed valuation, which a whole lot of people in the district do, this school will wind up costing you about $25,000 above what school taxes already are, over the 20 year life of the bond.

I applaud the staff and students at NEVC. They have done very well in an obviously poor situation. They deserve better. The path to that end is not the road of taxation and spending into oblivion as seems to be the political trend of the day. The path to that end is through consolidation, and logical use of the funds and facilities that we already have. I encourage everyone that pays taxes and has thought this through, to vote no on Proposition S and to carry that effort forward to a meaningful, fruitful, and affordable solution to this problem.

C. Kent Abele

Patrons for a Quality Education