By Bob Banta
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, February 9, 2005
ROUND ROCK -- Debate over the Round Rock school district's $349.3 million bond proposal to build new schools focused on the taxpayer's pocketbook Tuesday.
Critics say that if voters approve the proposal March 5, the district will have to raise the school tax rate to an illegal level. They've asked the school board to cancel the election. School administrators say that won't happen. One state school finance expert said he agrees with the district's financial assumptions.
In December, trustees agreed to place before the voters a proposition to build two elementary schools, a middle school and a high school, along with new classrooms and renovations for existing campuses.
John Gordon, an engineer and member of a group called Helping Educators make Learning the Priority, said that adding to the district's current bond debt would force the portion of the tax rate that pays off bonds to eventually increase beyond the legal limit of 50 cents per $100 of property valuation.
Trustee Elizabeth Elleson, the sole board member opposing the bond proposal, said she wants school officials to respond to Gordon's projections.
"I have seen (Gordon's) numbers, and it sounds like they might be correct," Elleson said.
School tax rates have two parts. The maintenance and operations portion of the rate pays for teacher salaries, utilities and other items. The debt portion typically goes toward paying off bonds issued for capital costs, such as buildings.
Round Rock's total tax rate is $1.86 per $100 in assessed property value. Of that, $1.49 goes for maintenance and operations, and 37 cents pays for bond debt. The total value of taxable property in the district is about $13 billion.
Mike Jolly, the school district's financial officer, has estimated that if the bond issue passes, the debt portion of the tax would increase to 41 cents by 2007, 44 cents by 2008, and 47 cents by 2009. Jolly said the increase would reach 45 cents by 2010.
If the bond issue is approved, the tax bill on a $100,000 home would increase from $1,578 annually to $1,651 by 2008, school officials said.
Jolly said the board plans to issue the $349.3 million in increments over the next five years, which would give trustees a chance to scale down the debt if they decide that some projects can be eliminated or postponed. State officials also have the final say on bonds, he said.
"Before we sell each phase of these bonds, we have to get approval from the Texas attorney general's office," Jolly said. "They do their own figuring, and if they figure that we will go above the 50-cent limit on the bond debt portion of the tax rate, they won't let us sell them."
Paul Colbert, a Houston-based consultant on school finance and a former legislator and director of research for the Senate Education Committee, said Jolly's basic assumptions appear sound. He also said Jolly's estimate of 2 percent to 3 percent growth in the tax base over the next several years is "very conservative."
Colbert said state law does allow a district to raise its bond debt portion of the tax rate above the 50-cent limit to make payments, but only in drastic situations such as a sudden drop in the value of the tax base.
"That might happen in a one-horse town whose only factory closes, but it is not likely to happen in Round Rock," Colbert said.
Elleson said Tuesday that she is still skeptical.
"My response to that is that you can't predict the future," Elleson said. "We have had growth estimates that have turned out to be wrong. With uncertainty about the economy nationally and locally, I don't know if we can be that optimistic."
bbanta@statesman.com; 246-0005
Please ping any other freepers you know who might be able to help us fight this group. Round Rock spent $26 mil on a new football stadium last year (exceeding budget by 60%) yet they have no money for new schools.
The Frost Tower in downtown Austin was built for $137 mil and Round Rock wants to build a high school for $91 mil.
We had really good coverage on KLBJ today. No pro-bond calls in either morning or afternoon shows.
We were given a pamphlet when I graduated from high school defending the nuclear power plant where I live. It was actually pretty ironic as the area is pretty much pro-nuclear (it is a very conservative area actually).
Schools have been doing this forever. I remember coming home from elementary school telling my Mom "to vote to pass the budget or they will take away our field trips".
My mom would get so mad but I was too young to understand. Students would come around to each class to give "presentations" to the younger ones, amazingly enough dealing with the budget. I guess they thought that if they had kids do it, it had a different connotation than if they had a teacher do it.
They always passed. Always. This was on Long Island, the proverbial frog in the boiling water. I can't believe that people there think it is normal to pay 7 or 8 or 9 thousand dollars a year in property taxes.
If private money is used I have no problem with a pro bond issue video being shown AS LONG AS the other side is given equal time. The FCC will not allow you to broadcast political advertising in a one sided fashion. A civics lesson would be good in Williamson County (very Republican) but only if both sides are presented. And the school district's actions have been VERY suspect on this one.
KVUE had a good story last night as well.
It may be controversial, but it's completely legal. The school has both the right and the obligation to explain the needs and plans of a bond election. However, they may not advocate passage of the bond, or go beyond providing factual information. Part of a bond counsel's job is to keep the line between advocacy and information in place. For examply, they can put up posters that say "VOTE", but they can't put up posters that say "VOTE YES!"
Round Rock is experiencing some serious growing pains. There's little doubt in my mind that new schools are needed. There are serious issues with cost overruns from previous bond projects. This is probably because the town has grown very quickly, and still approaches business from a small town point of view. BTW, I used to work with Cathy Brandewie. She's a good PR person.
Who do I contact to get opposition materials; yard signs etc.