This is the seventh week of questions that have been asked about the school bond issue being addressed by Dr. Randy Mohundro, DeLeon ISD Superintendent.

The following questions were raised at the Community Information Meeting held on April 26.

“How certain are the state funds that will help pay for the bond debt?  I understand that the Early ISD has been waiting for some time on receipt of state funds for their planned school improvements, and perhaps other ISD’s in the area are as well.”

The state has two programs to assist school districts with school facilities. One is grant based, meaning that you have to apply to get the money and a district may or may not get it. The other is formula based, meaning if the state appropriates the money and a district meets the requirements, then the district gets the money.

The program that DeLeon ISD is working toward is formula based. Currently, both appropriation bills in the legislature have put money in for school facilities. If the district does not get state money, the school board has pledged not to move forward with the project.

“You stated the DeLeon ISD Board has set aside $1 million in support of school improvements. If the $1 million that taxpayers were overcharged had been used for better school maintenance, would we have to be talking about replacing our high school?”

Yes. Better school maintenance does not solve many of the problems that currently exist at the high school and the elementary. Classrooms that are crowded and do not meet state standards are not due to poor maintenance. Classrooms that do not have adequate electrical service and use breaker switches to turn on the lights are not maintenance issues. Safety issues and handicapped accessibility, which prevent students who have disabilities from using all of the district’s facilities, also have nothing to do with maintenance.

I would also point out that only a couple of years ago the district’s fund balance had slipped below required state levels. The major reason that the district has been able to acquire any additional funds is due to the excess funds the district acquired from wealthy school districts through partnership agreements. Without these agreements the district would not have the funds that it has today.

To say that the district has been overcharging the taxpayers in order to build up a surplus is not a totally correct statement. The state requires the school district to tax a certain amount or the district would lose state money. It is this system that has forced more and more of the burden of financing public schools on the local taxpayer that caused the Texas Supreme Court to rule the system unconstitutional and mandate the legislature make changes.

“I don’t believe that you can guarantee that my taxes will not go up in the next 25 years.”

You are right. No one can guarantee that, and if they do, something is wrong. What I can guarantee is that the state legislature has put strict limits to what school districts can do on their tax rates. While cities, counties, and other special districts (such as the hospital) can raise their taxes on a percentage basis, school districts face a much stricter limit and normally can raise their taxes only by pennies, not by percentage points.

The recent school finance legislation is mandating that school districts will have a tax rate that is compressed and that they will not be allowed to move beyond that point. The state has greater control over school district tax rates, and they are making sure that once they come down, school districts cannot raise them back up.

On the debt side of the tax rate, the only way that any large increases would occur is if the voters give approval for any new bonds to take care of future facility needs. However, you as a voter control that type of increase.

“Most of what I have been hearing and reading in the newspaper is positive toward passing the bonds. I haven’t heard or read anything on the other side. I believe people should get a more balanced picture so they can make an intelligent decision on the matter. There’s some information out there that we’re not getting”

An attempt has been made by the district to answer any and all questions posed on the bond issue. Community meetings have been scheduled and held to allow voters the chance to hear information first-hand and to ask questions. Members of the community have been invited to contact the administration for any information on the subject. Information has also been posted on the district website to provide all information that is available on the matter.

The final community meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8 at 7:00 in the high school cafetorium.
The district will also host a district-wide Open House on Thursday, May 3 from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. to give the community the opportunity to tour the district’s facilities.

“I hate to saddle my children and my grandchildren with debt that they are going to have to repay over the next 25 years.”

The days of school districts being able to build up enough fund balance to pay cash for a school building have passed. The rising cost of construction, and the increased demands on schools to meet the various code and standards for school construction, now requires school districts to use bonded indebtedness to acquire new facilities.

Another reality is that a school district actually loses money when it goes with a “pay as you go” method for school facilities. With the state now picking up a major portion of the debt for a school district, particularly those that are low property wealth, a community that leaves state money on the table, forces the community to pay more than it has to for facilities by strictly using local dollars and not leveraging state money to build school facilities.

Another reality is that when school districts become so fixated on putting money away for school construction, they are then taking away money that could be used to improve the school’s instructional program. The truth of today’s world, in relation to school construction in Texas, is that the state expects schools to go into debt to meet their facility needs and they reward districts with state funding when they do just that.

“I’d like to have a new Cadillac, but I can’t afford it, and this District can’t afford it either.”

The program that is being laid out by the Board and the district is not a Cadillac program. It is a fiscally conservative approach to try and deal with needs that have been years in the making. The district is not asking for taxpayers to pay for extravagance. It is asking the community for the authority to leverage all available funding so that the district can provide quality school facilities; facilities that the community will be able to utilize for the next fifty years.

The district also cannot afford to continue spending money that is intended to be used to teach our children, on facilities that have become obsolete and whose expense to operate continues to rise each year due to their age and inefficiency.

Why can’t the district afford new facilities when they will not cause the local tax rate to increase, meaning the district will use the same amount of revenue to take care of its entire obligations? Why can’t the district afford it when it is going to lower the actual tax-rate and provide modern, accessible, efficient, and code compliant facilities?