Swartz Creek School Bond Page

With all of the talk around town, both pro and con we present this page on swartzcreekweek.com as a forum for the community to write in their opinions, concerns, questions and support for their positions. The views expressed on the page are those of the individual's concerned and do not reflect nor are they endorsed by swartzcreekweek.com or the staff. E-mail your comments to john.green@swartzcreekweek.com

Questions

*

Here are some questions I have about the bond that will be put before the voters yet again. Why have our schools been allowed to become so run down? Why haven't repairs and upgrades been done before now? Why can't the High School be upgraded for the high school students, but it can be upgraded for the middle schoolers? If there is no money to maintain the schools that already exist, how will the district be able to afford yet another school? Why does more land have to be purchased, when there is land around the existing high school that isn't being utilized? These are all questions that have been asked of the school board at various meetings. These are all questions that the school board has declined to answer, or has answered with "because it just can't". I am concerned about our students education. I am also concerned that the school board is leading the voters down the wrong path.
*

Answers

Swartzcreekweek.com would like to thank Jeff Pratt, superintendent of Swartz Creek Community schools for providing the following information on the questions that have been asked by residents of the community regarding the school bond issues. While news papers may have limited space to print, and reporters pick and choose what angle to write a story from swartzcreekweek has printed the entire series of questions and answers as provided to inform the community without bias.

Questions or statements made by the community appear in standard typeface and answers appear in bold.

1.            Poorly Executed Land Purchase:  a few years ago, Swartz Creek School District purchased land at the corner of Hill and Morrish Roads in anticipation of building a new high school.  Only AFTER they acquired the property did they discover it was going to be too expensive to develop and maintain.  They are now pinning their hopes on passing of a bond in order to purchase MORE land from Nemer Realty (this according to school board members at an April 2007 meeting.

The land at the corner of Hill and Morrish was purchased in 1973 (34 years ago) using a land contract for the price of $155,000.00.  The purpose of the purchase was to enhance the District’s FFA/Agriculture program that existed at the school at that time.  The Agriculture program ended in June 1977 but the land has been leased for crop usage to area farmers since the FFA/Agriculture program was eliminated.  It is my understanding that the land site was considered as a future building site just prior to the 2003 failed millage bid.  After the millage failed, the District embarked on a one year  facility study that included soil borings, dollar estimates from the drain commissioner to bring water and sewer to the site, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) studies and findings, along with other studies of the other buildings and sites in the District.

It is quite true that after the studies were completed in 2006, we were amazed at the total cost estimates from the Drain Commissioner’s Office to bring water and sewer to the site.  However, during the study the District was approached by the City to encourage us to consider building within the City limits rather than in a Township.  The reasons were many and included waiving of hook-up fees (Approximately – $300,000 and/or more in savings) and access to City Services (police & fire protection).

Finally, the land purchase being proposed includes two parcels of land, one owned by Mr. Nemer and the other owned by Mr. Scofield from Port Huron.  Mr. Scofield’s land parcel borders Seymour Road.  The purchase price for both properties is significantly less than the price to run water and sewer to the Morrish & Hill property.  The land price is also locked in for a three year time period meaning neither owner can raise the price.  The two parcels when combined also border on existing water & sewer lines meaning we would not have to pay for that type of development. A total of four land owners within the city limits were contacted by us for possible purchase.  One sold to Meijers and none of the four land owners were interested in a land swap due to the high expense associated with the Morrish & Hill property.

2.            No Blueprints/Floor Plans for New High School:  therefore, exact amount of money needed to accomplish finish product not known.  In essence, asking residents to give them carte blanche for a blank check with a minimum amount of $89 million.

Actually, it is very rare for blueprints or plans to be developed for a structure or project of this size prior to any guarantee of funding, or in this case a passed bond issue.  Planning usually takes about a year to complete along with the securing of permits and bidding for contractors.  I know of no school district that has done this prior to a bond passing but if someone does know of one, I would appreciate the name so I can make contact with them.

The State of Michigan makes very sure that no “carte blanche” is given to any school district seeking a bond.  Extensive documentation is required as well as a meeting with Treasury Department officials.  Those officials also review the documentation prior to offering an OK for the project.  Using actual student counts, student projections, classroom size & number requirements, state law requirements and building regulations, the Treasury Department then grants a square footage allowance and a dollar per square foot allowance in order for a local board to consider prior to asking for an election.  This document is available for your review at the board office if you wish a copy.

Once the square footage and dollar amount are approved by the state, the district is then charged to determine whether to call an election.  If the election results in passage, the district must then develop designs and plans using architects and construction experts to fulfill the state requirements within the budget allowed.

The school board at this time has asked the administration to develop the Treasury Department application and meet with Treasury officials in November.  The district will receive the State’s decision sometime in December.  The Board will then need to decide whether to formally call for an election.  Although it has been reported that the Board favors a February vote, recent legislation signed by the Governor indicates that the February election has been moved to January.  Because of state guidelines and requirements, it would be impossible to run the election in January.  Should the Board formally decide to call for a vote, it would seem, based on this new legislation that the earliest a vote could be called for would be in May.

3.            Current High School in State of Disrepair:  no guarantees that they can maintain    a new building for the next 30+ years.

Although I’m not quite sure where this statement has come from, I do not believe the current high school is in a state of disrepair.  True, many mechanical problems will exist simply because the 1950’s equipment, now approaching fifty years of use, needs more maintenance and/or replacement.  Based on age, usage, and several additions, I would say that the school is extremely well maintained.  Thank goodness for that because it is essential that we keep this space available for grades 7-8-9 in the future.  The main problems are space and technology availability.  The 1950’s did not require designing for special education, technology requirements, advanced science requirements, or fine arts specifications.  For instance, the current band room was designed for 60 students and we now have 130+ students.  Heating, ventilation and electrical requirements have advanced tremendously in the past 50 years and we would be remiss not to upgrade these items so we can enjoy significant energy savings in the future.  The building simply needs a retrofit into the 21^st century which we are currently attempting.  We just completed renovation of the science rooms which needed the most attention.  Up next will be renovation of the old kitchen to allow for more mass production of meals for not only the high school students but elementary students as well.  These projects are being completed following the 15 year facility plan and using our building and site sinking fund - money that is budgeted and saved and applied according to the facility plan.  Fine Arts work will have to wait for at least three more years and we will continue to use the cafeteria to take care of the space challenges we have due to increased students.

4.            Dollar Amounts of Bonds Keep Changing:  first it was $50 million, and then $89 million, latest request could be up to $95 million.

Correct statement.  The scope of the 2003 bond issue for 59 million dollars was entirely different than what was proposed in 2007.  The 2003 issue was solely focused on the high school ignoring other district needs.  The 2007 issue was in response to a year of study that identified over 120 million dollars of need.  The dollar amount decided upon took into consideration all buildings and facilities in the district.  This newest bond issue will be to finance a reduced response to the overall plan.  It was obvious to the board that the dollar amount was too much on the last one.  A key piece that is essential to the overall 10-15 year plan is the conversion of the middle school to a 5-6 building and the current high school to a 7-9 building.  By doing so, space is gained in grades K-9 without having to build an additional elementary school.  It also guarantees utilization of all our buildings.  When you compare the costs for the high school plan in 2003 and just the high school portion of the 2007 and maybe 2008 bond, you will see that the dollar amounts for the one building (high school) are fairly similar.

5.            School Board Unwilling to Disclose Number of Students from Manufactured Housing Communities and Apartments:  whose families do not share the tax burden of landowners; also, government subsidized housing is prevalent in the district (Mari-Dan Apartments and Berkshire Apartments).

We do know that this seems to be an issue so I do not plan to treat this question lightly.  We’ve never been concerned with identifying the “types” of homes our students come from or basically what neighborhood because we teach them all without concern for their home address.  Therefore, we have no “easy” way to access the information requested without manually going through lists and cross referencing street addresses, names and individual school levels.  However, we have completed the task.  Therefore, we have 27 high school/middle school students and 33 elementary students attending our district from Mari-Dan and Berkshire apartments.  Statistics provided to me in regard to trailer park/other rental facilities are 599 students.  This equates to 15% of our student population.

Please remember that the owners from these developments pay the additional money required through a bond tax as well as the 18 mills Non-Homestead Tax in addition to the 6 mills state education tax that all home owners are accessed.  These taxes and increases are always reflected in additional rental fees for the residents that reside in these dwellings.

6.            Development and Upgrading Supposedly Based on Projected Student Population Increase Through Birthrate Only:  as told to us in April 2007 meeting.  However, in a June 2007 edition of the Swartz Creek Sunday supplement, Sharon Fouts alluded to the fact the district is looking to attract more out-of-district students once the bond(s) are passed.

One of the troubles with having a free wheeling open discussion in an open meeting is that reporters get to pick and choose the comments that they print.  There were many ideas and options presented that night as well as the other nights that the board chose to discuss this issue.  Some ideas were retained and many rejected.  That was an idea immediately rejected.  What was left out of that article was/were the statements reminding everyone that we have closed our school of choice options for the secondary level and do not participate in the program because we have no room for out of district students.  We are actually being criticized by many outside our district because we will not accept out of district high school students through the schools-of-choice program.

7.            Current High School Unable to be Upgraded and Expanded for Current High School Students:  but yet they fully intend to upgrade and expand said building for the Junior High School students.

The current high school can be upgraded and expanded for the current high school students.  This was explained during the several meetings held outlining the four options that were before the board prior to the last bonding decision.  (Please see the chart of options studied and provided to the community last year below) All four options, including expansion, were considered.  Adding additional space was about 10 million less than building new.  However, the additional operating costs for such a move plus the eventual building of another elementary school showed it would be the most expensive option over a ten year period.  Should the current building be used for junior high school students in the future, there are plans in the bond to upgrade it at a limited level (Safety-technology).  All other upgrades would need to use the building and site sinking fund.  There was never a plan to expand the building.  The plan calls for housing three grades (7-9) as opposed to the four grades (9-12) that are already there. (Please note the following options in the chart below discussed and presented at the many community meetings held last year)

8.            Claim Students are the Number 1 Priority:  however, they are now going to level “consequences” if the bonds keep failing; consequences that will affect the students, basically strong-arming residents into passing bonds for buildings that do not exist.

This claim is confusing to me so I will need to know what is being perceived as consequences.  If possible, perhaps you can give me some examples.  I can maybe guess at a few though so I will.  Class sizes will naturally rise due to no additional space to place classrooms.  When a grade level at an elementary school reaches maximum (30 students) and there is no room or teacher to place the child, the child will need to be bussed to the nearest school that has room.  If student populations increase in specific areas and fill a school, it may be necessary to redistrict a portion of the school attendance area and move some students to schools that have some room left.  All of these scenarios deal with finite realities and it will be our job to do the best we can with the resources we have at hand.  So far, we have not needed to make any of these hard decisions.  I’ve also heard that some people have “heard” that we would be going to split sessions at the high school.  That is nearly impossible to do.  Yes, this option occurred in the early 70’s as a solution in many school districts.  I spent my senior year in a split session high school.  But new rules and regulations would most assuredly prohibit this option.  For instance, we are now required to have a specific number of hours in session for the school year to count.  That includes an additional 198 hours or 20% more time than what existed in the 70’s.  To keep the same number of days in the school year we would need each morning & afternoon session to last six hours.  (I was only required to spend three hours a day in 1972) I’m not sure how feasible it would be to start at 5:30 a.m. & go to 11:30 and restart at 12:30 and go to 7:00 p.m.  So, I think you can rest assured that I am not willing to offer this up as an option.  More than likely, as student numbers increase and space becomes even more of an issue than it is now, we will be taking advantage of any and all additional space we can find in other buildings.

So far, we take great pride in the fact that Swartz Creek is one of very few school districts in the State that has cut no programs or laid off any workers during these past two years.  We have balanced the budget for several years and have about an 18% fund equity in savings to help guard against emergencies. 

9.            Time and Money Wasted on Bond Studies:  money that could well have been put back into the district.

This statement is a definite “Catch-22” statement.  The board has been criticized for not studying and planning for growth and also for studying and planning for growth (See number 11 below).  We’re assuming this statement is in regard to the one study that was commissioned by the board after the failed 2003 bond issue. The cost for that study was $9300 and identified many flawed plans and ideas that were addressed and rectified within the one year, 10-15 year facility planning initiative that resulted from the study.  This would be the only costs associated with Bond studies.  We are assuming that there is no criticism for expenses associated with soil borings, Department of Environmental Quality studies, or water run-off (drain & sewer) studies that are utilized in the day-to-day running of the District.

10.        Vacant Land Adjacent to the Current High School, West Side of Property:  already owned by district.  When asked why this land cannot be used, the answer was that it would not work; when pressed for a more in-depth explanation, the answer was:  “Because it just won’t”.

This is definitely a possibility with the destruction of the woods, some athletic fields and extensive flood/water run-off work.  This option would require additional athletic fields to be built due to the elimination of two ball fields and a football field on the vacant land and would have major restrictions for growth.  Traffic would be a major challenge as we grew.  But, the land can be used.

11.        Population Growth Studies Not Performed Before Overcrowding:  if the studies would have been performed before the district started admitting so many outsiders and the city allowed more government subsidized housing, then perhaps the school district could have tailored the system’s needs accordingly, rather than waiting until it has become, as in their words, “critical”.  The district could have also been more judicious in the amount of out-of-district students they admitted.

• Swartz Creek has been experiencing seven straight years of growth and population growth studies were started after the second year in 2002-2003.
• As an update, a total history of the past schools of choice numbers is included below.  The total reflects the end of the year last year.  As you know, we’ve eliminated this option this current year for the high school.

Swartz Creek Community Schools Released           107 Students to other Districts

Swartz Creek Community Schools Accepted           206 Students

Total Increase                                                            +99  (about 1.6% of total student population)

• I cannot speak to how the City has administered its master plan for housing over the past ten years.

12.        Economy:  as with other communities throughout the state, Swartz Creek has suffered some setbacks.  Businesses have closed, downsized, or moved out of the community affecting the tax paying base through loss of employment for some residents; also, with the General Motors attrition program that took place last year, Swartz Creek now has more retirees now than they did this time last year, who are now on fixed incomes.  Money is tighter amongst many district residents now than it was even a year ago.

Agreed.  This is surely a challenge.  A challenge shared by all communities in the area.

13.        Fear:  In light of two other area school districts who passed bonds in recent years that are now facing economic problems (Lake Fenton recently reported a $1.7 million deficit; Grand Blanc is now consolidating classes and making class sizes bigger to stave off a budget crisis).

This is always a concern and one brought up several times during last year’s community meetings.  School districts that do not plan for an initial increase in operating costs after a building construction project usually get caught short.  Therefore, that is the reason we have budgeted for and are keeping a start up fund designed to match the total dollar amount increase that always occurs with a new building start up.  The amount is determined by a specific dollar amount multiplied by the number of additional square footage added.

 I cannot speak to the actual reasons for Lake Fenton and/or Grand Blanc’s reported deficits, nor can I confirm or deny that the sole reason is due to their new buildings.  I will most assuredly call the Superintendents and ask their opinions.  It may be that they have chosen to cut back.  For instance, what is puzzling with your statistics is that the last reported audit (GISD report) for Lake Fenton regarding their fund balance or fund equity (their savings account) was that they have 22.75% of their total budget in reserve.  Grand Blanc reported 30.75% of their total budget in fund equity also.  These are large percentage amounts for reserve funds.  15% is the usually recommended amount.

14.        Current High School is Reportedly “Too Old”:  yet Flint Central (just as an example, for it is over 80 years old) is still in use, having been upgraded and maintained as situations warranted.

I personally do not believe that the high school is necessarily too old just extremely outdated.  The current building is an integral part of the 10-15 year facility plan because its use as a 7-9 building is essential for many years to come.  Part of this problem has been solved with the currently completed science room renovations with budgeted building & site funds.  As stated earlier in this document, we plan on fixing the kitchen and cafeteria next year.  Fine Arts upgrades will have to wait.

 On top of these reasons, there appears to be other issues brewing:  the Board is discussing holding the next bond vote quite possibly in February 2008, which will impede voter access:  in the manner that the “snowbirds” will be out-of-state at that time and there are those people, many senior citizens of poor health, who, if in town, rarely venture out in the winter if they can possibly avoid it;

As discussed in statement/question #2, a February vote appears to be off the table.

the Board is also discussing “incremental” bonds, asking every few years for a little at a time ($21 million or so here and there), which could add up to well over $100 million and there may still not be a new high school!

This statement is accurate in that Mr. Knickerbocker was explaining that as the years progress and the district grows, it may be necessary to include additions at the elementary level in the future.  Those additions have been removed from consideration in this newest bond plan.

 Larger voter turnout last time in May 2007 than in 2003.*

That is correct.  The increase was, with the exception of three votes in proposal #1, all in the yes category.  The no vote increased by three individuals as compared to 2003 on the 1^st proposal.

The school board needs to address the issues as stated above, and better yet, develop Plans B and C.  Those of us who have voted against the bonds will continue to do so, as the Board has not developed any other reasonable alternatives to their current plan.  They can reword it, slice it into pieces, whatever they think they need to do to make us vote for it; but they need to realize that as long as they keep pushing this plan, no matter how pretty of a package they put it in, we still know what’s in said package and we will not vote for it.

I am providing a copy of this document, your concerns and my responses to the statements to all board members.  As always, I am happy to answer any questions you may have or attend any group meeting to answer questions.  Please give me a call.

Yes

*

I think it's time to upgrade our high school. I recently spent time in the high school science rooms watching students deliver a project in chemistry class and was appalled at the lack of modern leaning environment. The lab work stations were original from 1956! If you had graduated in 1957 and carved your initials into one of the drawers your children could have seen them in 1977, your grandchildren in 1997 and your great-grandchildren would be in the middle school about to see them. I'm all for nostalgia but this is ridiculous.

Diane, Swartz Creek

*

Sooner or later Swartz Creek will have to deal with the fact that our schools are out dated and under capacity. While we have been putting off passing a school bond the prices of construction materials have increased. Steel, asphalt, concrete and bricks are more expensive today than 3 years ago. Had this community passed the bond issue then we would have received more for our money than we will now. Passing the issue now locks in a known cost. Defeating it again just passes on increases to the next group of residents. The last time Swartz Creek built a new high school was 1956, over 50 years ago. At the time Mary Crapo high school was a mere 27 years old and yet residents in this community then felt the bond issue was worth passing. I might point out that the generation that passed that bond issue has come to be know as the greatest generation. They came through the depression, served their country in world war II came home and built this country into the powerhouse it was in the later 20th century. They knew when something needed to be done and were willing to tighten their belt to get it done. As we look at the school bond issue for Swartz Creek again consider a few points. Davison, Fenton and Grand Blanc have all invested in their school systems. As a result new families have moved into town. With new families and more needs in the community new businesses have opened to meet those needs. The growth in those communities is obvious, all one needs do is drive around. Isn't it time we stop passing the buck in Swartz Creek and invest in our future like our neighbors have? With our schools at capacity we can not attract new families. So who are we looking to attract. Families without children?  Retirees? With places like Florida, Arizona and Vegas available I just don't see Swartz Creek becoming the new retiree capitol of the United States. Lets pass the bond issue, lock in a known set of costs and get on with building our community before our property values drop far enough we become the new Beecher.

John, Swartz Creek

*

*

No

*

The answers from Jeff Pratt are truly appreciated; however, one of my complaints is the unequal tax share burden by apartments and mobile home communities; while it is true that the apartment and mobile home lot lessors do indeed have the school tax folded into their monthly rent, the problem is as follows: The landowner pays the monthly school tax for the apartment/mobile home park. The tax is then split amongst each unit/lot. In the case of one manufactured housing community, the monthly school tax is $900. There are 300 lots within the MHC. Therefore, each LOT is billed $3/month - or $36 per year - for school taxes, regardless of how many children live upon any of the lots. In this case, there is a childless couple who live on a lot, paying $3 per month in school tax. Four lots south of them is a family with 5 school aged children - paying $3 per month in school tax. Within this mobile home park, there are estimated to be over 450 children. Meanwhile, in a nearby subdivision within the same school district, there are 80 homes paying roughly $12 per month in school taxes, with estimated student count of 165. So do the math...it is an unfair burden, as it works out to this: a mobile home occupant with 5 kids is paying 60 cents per month per child to send all their kids to the local public school, while a landowner within the same district with 5 kids is paying $2.40 per month per child to use the same school. The increase in school taxes to the mobile home dweller/apartment renter would be negligible. I know, because I have lived in both apartments and mobile homes before becoming a landowner; but I never burdened the district's tax base with children, either.
 
I do commend Dr. Pratt for his responses, but to me it seemed more like the administration is once again trying to convince us why we need to pass this one thing and they are not considering any other alternatives. I know he commented a few times regarding he doesn't know where some of the comments came from, but I can assure him after speaking with people within the district, a lot of the seemingly inane remarks (i.e., "Current HS in State of Disrepair") are coming from the Bondies, the ones trying to guilt us into debt for nothing more than a new building that looks pretty. Although not the entire fault of this administration, there is no explanation how things have gotten this bad (as far as no upgrades to the high school since it was built), and no other solutions being considered. Now is not the time to come back for more money. $79 million will not be the end, there will be more needed. The extra $20 million they say they will seek can be pretty much guaranteed, as they have admitted that themselves. The $79 is just to get started; and I fear the additional $20 will not be the end. Also, why throw the district into debt? Sorry, but it has been well covered in the Flint Journal about Grand Blanc and Lake Fenton having problems since their bonds passed. They think they will have to institute consequences if it doesn't pass? Wait and see if it does pass, we are in debt, and the bonds can't be paid back in a timely fashion. They will HAVE to level consequences. Then we will be (like another Realist pointed out) B-ee-c-h-e-r. Always in debt, never out. Ever.
 
Reca Lum

*

I feel like this bond issue is like a door to door salesman who I keep
saying NO to. He shows up selling the same product wearing a different
disguise. CHANGE THE PRODUCT!

Swartz Creek is not the boom towns of Goodrich and Grand Blanc.

People say that nice new schools will raise there property value. It will,
and then your equalized valuation goes up raising your property taxes more
than the 3.92 Mills the bond is asking for.
They say they are going to find a 1000 more Yes's well I'm going to find a
1000 more NO's.
Anyone interested in forming a NO committee please email me at
Natethegrayt@hotmail.com.
I'll put my money where my mouth is because this is getting ridiculous
voting for the same thing 9 months later. By the way did you notice there
are no women on the school board I think if there was there would be more
frugality.

Natalie, Swartz Creek

P.S. This time around don't try brainwashing our kid's.

*

As a Beecher Alumni (1968-1980), let me assure you that the Beecher you know
today only became that way after they passed a huge bond in the 60's, only
to have their projected population growth study backfire on them. I was
there for the downfall. After securing the bonds, they built another
building on the high school campus, a second junior high, expanded the
original junior high, upgraded and expanded a few elementary schools; but
before they could finish, people began moving from the district in droves,
thanks in large part to government subsidized housing that was erected
within the district (a horrible situation known as "white flight"). Beecher
assumed on the projections that their expansions and constructions could
handle the increase of students through not only birthrate but the
apartments (AmyJo Manor). They never dreamed residents would flee the
district in such massive numbers. What came around was: resident eager to
leave sold their houses to real estate companies, who in turn rented the
homes to section 8 recipients; other residents used their Beecher homes as
income property, also renting to Section 8s; some people walked away from
their homes, and others sold for less than their fair market value;
therefore, the tax base in the district suffered miserably, the due bonds
were falling behind, and the remainder of upgrades and renovations had to be
scrapped in order to focus on educating the kids that were there. At one
point in elementary school, my classroom had a pupil-teacher ratio of 37:1.
I graduated with honors, went on to MSU where I made the Dean's List more
than once. The problem is projections don't always hold true, and with other
districts suffering financial problems after their bonds have passed (Lake
Fenton, Grand Blanc, and now Chippewa Valley in Macomb County), it is not
prudent to even consider a bond that keeps increasing each time with no more
substance in this soft economy; also, perhaps the school administrators and
city council, along with any other township leaders that are involved with
the Swartz Creek Schools should get together and discuss student population
before the local governments burden the district with more government
subsidized housing or manufactured housing, housing types which do not share
the same tax burden as individual landowners. There are a lot of reasons
people keep voting this down, and the administration refuses to listen.
Reasons have been posted by a group of citizens trying to call the school
board's attention to the concerns:
http://home.att.net/~howmanymore/index.html

*

Copyright © 2006 Swartz Creek Week. All Rights Reserved. An online publication of Diane L. Green Photography LLC.

webmaster@swartzcreekweek.com