The PCCS Bond: Vote "Maybe" on May 7th

When the PCCS bond issue comes to a vote on May 7th, it will be among the largest in the district's history. Have the voters in the district been given enough information, enough data, to make an educated decision about this large an investment? I really want to have an opinion on this issue. I want to either support or oppose this bond; but what I really need is more information, and more time.

Of particular concern, however, is a lack of specifics that make this proposal difficult to objectively analyze. The technology portion of the bond calls for the purchase of 17,000 "devices," to replace textbooks and run educational applications. While the words "iPad," and "tablet," have been used interchangeably in discussion; the district has yet to actually define the word "device." At informational meetings, the superintendent defines a "device," as a tablet, net book, or laptop. Considering the wide range in prices and capabilities of these options, a cost to benefit analysis of these devices is impossible. Furthermore, it is impossible to predict the cost of repairing, replacing, or insuring a device that we can't define. I believe that the taxpayers should know what they are buying, before they agree to pay for it.

The data that has been collected is of mixed results. The bond calls for the construction of a new middle school, to be completed as early as fall of 2015. Middle School enrollment projections, provided by the district at informational meetings, predict a drop in enrollment of 685 students by 2017. A middle school in the district is considered full at 700 students. In other words, if the data provided by the district turns out to be accurate; the district will have lost a middle school's worth of students within two years of completing a new building........and what about Central? I have yet to hear an appraisal value of Central Middle School and it's property. I assume that until Central is sold to a private entity, it will be maintained by tax dollars.

Even the enrollment projections, however, are difficult to interpret. The projections are based on trends in birth rates. This data does not factor in the four charter schools currently operating in the district, or the two charters scheduled to open in the next 24 months. It is a fact that these schools are competing with the district for students, further lowering enrollment numbers in PCCS. On the other hand, the projections don't account for the recent uptick in home sales and new construction. If this trend continues, the enrollment projections could be proven wrong. That leaves folks speculating on the future of the local economy, and the health of our housing market; all the merits of this bond proposal hinge on these two factors.

There are merits to this proposal. Historically low interest rates make this a good time to borrow, if you believe that everything in this bond is a reasonable investment......This, in my opinion, is the issue at the heart of the debate. An 85,000 dollar special election, in an off year, and an off month; and the district has lumped its entire wish list into one giant bond. The voters will be offered no line item veto, which makes this an all or nothing proposition. If you support upgrading the district's aging bus fleet, you'll have to pony up for a new middle school. If you support computer lab upgrades for Tech-Ed and online MEAP testing, you'll have to buy "devices," for elementary kids. I believe this is why so many folks are having a hard time either supporting, or opposing, the bond in its entirety.

Lastly....Saying that this bond is not a tax increase is a matter of semantics, and a bit disingenuous. With the current bond set to expire in June, rates would be reduced to 3.75 mills in July, and 2.9 mills within three years. To keep the current rate of 4.1 mills over the life of a twenty year bond is absolutely a tax increase. This doesn't necessarily make the bond a bad deal, but the district's pitch would be more accurate in convincing voters that this tax increase is a worthwhile investment in PCCS.

So, with all this mind, I sent in a statement to The Observer on behalf of the Tea Party:

------The Rattle With Us Tea Party will not officially support, or oppose, the May 7th PCCS bond proposal. Our members, like the community, are divided on the merits of this proposal. Our organization works to provide relevant information to our members, and the community, empowering them to make their own decisions at the ballot box.------

.....I know, I punted on this one. I found differences in opinion even amongst my colleagues, many of them as undecided on this issue as I am. As an organization, it's tough to take a position that may not reflect the attitudes of a vast majority of our membership.

I commend Dr. Hughes and the district for bringing their presentation to our group. I only wish that more people would have shown up to the many informational meetings, turnouts were disappointing. I have many friends who oppose this bond. I hope, for the sake of the debate, that they are as organized in their opposition as those supporting this bond. In local media coverage of this issue, I have only found the opposition buried in the comment sections.

In a perfect world, every eligible voter in the district would turn out on May 7th. They would pass on the politics, do their own research, and show up, having made an educated decision. This is not a perfect world..

See the district's presentation here: http://www.pccs.k12.mi.us/2013bond

See the opposition here: http://www.savepccs.com/