ABOUT THIS PIECE

Because the details are a bit long, we start with a summary of the situation and our take on it, follow with voting details, and end with referendum details and our conclusions. We take no explicit position but mostly ask questions. Perhaps Socrates would approve.

If you like the piece, please share via social media and email. There are links at the bottom to help with that.

SUMMARY

The Rochester school district (RPS) is asking taxpayers for $171.4 million for new schools and school maintenance plus another $9.5 million for swimming pool upgrades. The pool upgrades only happen if both requested amounts are approved. All would be paid for by a property tax increase over 20 years.

RPS:

• says our schools are practically full
• expects 1,200 more students (than now) in five years
• for the big money, will tear down two schools, build new schools, and upgrade some things
• for the lesser amount, will close middle school swimming pools, add a pool to Century, and upgrade Mayo’s pool

Our take is that RPS:

• low-balls their request’s impact on taxpayers
• already bought a big plot of land SW, contingent on Question 1’s passing, outside the city’s growth plans, with no plan or money to provide utilities and no money in Question 1 to pay for it so that we will be stuck with it all (on top of the $171.4 million) if Question 1 passes
• “reconstruction” of Bishop and Longfellow schools means demolishing those two schools and building two new ones in their places
• asks us to pay 20 years of interest on maintenance issues and to save money on middle school pools
• doesn’t allow us to choose the swimming pool upgrades, at all, unless we agree to give them the bigger “pool” of money, first
• asks for an amount that matches their survey’s findings of what taxpayers are willing to pay (instead of what might really be needed)
• threatens us with reduction of good programs if they don’t get the money
• doesn’t explain all the reasons former classrooms are no longer used as such nor consider how that could be reversed
• hasn’t shown a single scintilla of innovation in solving space problems
• uses a process that will almost surely be repeated again in just a few more years to ask for more money if the Rochester area continues to grow

Is this the kind of leadership and funding request we should expect, respect, and support?

VOTING

Election day is November 5 for us to say yes or no.

Until November 4, early voting can be done at the district’s Edison building at 615 7th St SW:

• Mon-Fri 8:00-4:45
• Sat, Nov 2, 10:00-3:00

Election day voting is at regular general election polling places unless you receive a postcard saying otherwise. We think the Secretary of State’s web site gives you the correct polling place in any case.

THE REFERENDUM

There are two questions on the ballot.

1. Shall the board of Independent School District No. 535 (Rochester), Minnesota be authorized to issue [20 year] general obligation school building bonds in an amount not to exceed $171.4 million for acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities, including reconstruction of Bishop and Longfellow elementary schools, construction of a new elementary school and a new middle school, security upgrades at all school buildings, auditorium upgrades at all three high schools, and land acquisition?
2. If School District Question 1 is approved, shall the board of Independent School District No. 535 (Rochester), Minnesota be authorized to issue general obligation school building bonds in an amount not to exceed $9.5 million for acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities, including the construction of a swimming pool at Century High School and upgrades to the existing swimming pool at Mayo High School?

WHY? (according to the district)

The district’s presentation is on their web site. Our summary of their presentation is that we need to:

1. add capacity in our elementary and middle schools
   We’ve added 1,000 students in 5 years and expect another 1,200 in the next five years. Our K-8 schools are at least 98% full and could go over 100% in two years. If passed, new schools will be ready for Fall, 2022.
2. add better security at all our schools
   We need better main entrances for monitoring and controlling visitor access, better door locks, and new emergency alarms to comply with building codes.
3. buy land for future elementary and high schools
   The district has purchased 150 acres in SW Rochester contingent on passage of the referendum.
4. upgrade auditoriums in our high schools
   Sound and light systems need replacing.
5. close middle school swimming pools
   Some swimming pools have outlived their service lives.
6. add a swimming pool to Century high school
7. upgrade Mayo high school’s swimming pool

WHY INDEED? We have questions of our own.

Why is the district low-balling the effect on taxpayers?

RPS offers a tax impact calculator as part of its presentation. Our property tax bump for Century and Riverside schools is going away just before this loan would kick in. The calculator shows us the increase compared to what we’re used to paying for those two other schools.  We’re told that the way it works is common practice. Why shouldn’t our leaders be above average and above board?

The calculator shows that for a house valued at $200,000 Question 1 will cost $42 per year in property taxes and Question 2 will cost $6. They recently crowed that the estimate got cut in half based on new county numbers. Hallelujah! But Question 1’s $171.4 million is 18 times more then Question 2’s $9 million. Why does paying it back cost only 7 times more? It doesn’t.

The number most of us taxpayers would consider an honest accounting for that $200,000 homeowner would be about $108 for Question 1: 18 times the number shown for Question 2 (for which, apparently, the same trick is not used). If Question 1 fails, that homeowner will see a property tax reduction of about $66 due to the completion of the loan for the other two schools. The RPS calculator uses the word “impact” in its title. It could be said that the impact of Question 1 on the $200,000 homeowner is $174: instead of seeing a reduction of $66 if Question 1 fails, there will be $108 of new tax if Question 1 passes.

If you use the calculator, multiply Question 2’s amount by 18 to get close to Question 1’s cost to you. Subtract the calculator’s Question 1 number from that to see what reduction you might expect if Question 1 fails.

Is the district’s stated need for $171.4 million magically consistent with its survey results?

The district surveyed taxpayers (just as it did before the 2015 referendum) and determined that support for a 2019 referendum started to fade when the suggested number got past $172 million. Don’t leaders make successful cases for what is really needed rather than fudging numbers to match hearsay? Does RPS just try to spend as much as it thinks it can?

If closing middle school pools saves money, why do we have to pay 20 years of interest to get rid of them? Why do we only have an opportunity for those savings if we agree to Question 1? If we like the pool ideas, why can’t we vote for them independently? Shouldn’t Question 2 stand on its own?

Superintendent Muñoz mentioned the pool question was separated to keep Question 1 under the magic surveyed number. The pool question has its own merits but we can’t get them unless Question 1 passes. The design of the questions looks like a political ploy to encourage fans of the pool idea to add “yes” votes to Question 1.

Shouldn’t safety measures and building code violations be covered from the operating budget as soon as possible?

Leaving required updates to the protracted timing and vagaries of an election looks like poor planning or more politics. And for code violations and safety! Were these items added to Question 1 in order to give it more urgency? It reminds us of the Rochester city council’s claim that we needed a gas hookup fee to help pay for police officers, not long before they found millions of dollars to buy the Chateau theater.

Is the suggested re-purposing of art and music rooms really just bogeyman jangling?

In the face of a failed referendum, there is mention of re-purposing art and music rooms. There are former classrooms re-purposed for other things and hours of classroom use given up to other things. Why not mention them? It’s always the popular stuff we’re threatened with losing.

Why should we pay 20 years of interest on foreseeable maintenance?

Service life and support are needs that can be foreseen the first day anything goes into service, from a whole school to the paint on the walls and the sound and lights in an auditorium. Shouldn’t maintenance be baked into a credible operating budget?

How did the school board and/or administration so badly botch the southwest land purchase such that they don’t know who is paying for sewer, water, and other property upgrades and those expenses were not part of the Question?

Superintendent Muñoz visited the city council and was surprised to find out the city had no plan to provide services to that land. Question 1 does not include money to do that. Why was a plot chosen that is inconsistent with the city’s growth plan? Is the purchase contingent on anything besides passage of Question 1 or, if it passes, are we already stuck with it and its added expenses?

Why did the district’s consultant change his story from something like, “adding to existing buildings is the most cost effective way to add space” to something like, “we need to build new schools”?

Oh yes he did.

Are Bishop and Longfellow schools really so decrepit that they shouldn’t be added to instead of replaced?

We think the new, bigger schools are said to require changes to bus routing and such. Perhaps.

How many middle school classrooms can fit in a swimming pool space? If classrooms wouldn’t work there, how many uses of currently re-purposed classrooms could be moved to space opened up by closing the pools?

How might other-than-classroom space needs be met by out buildings?

Is it really only $30 or $100 or $250 per year?

Well, in addition to what we’re already paying, yes. Don’t forget the base amount on our taxes. Don’t forget the possibilities that seem to have been left on the cutting room floor (if they were ever even on the table).

Why must our schools provide social services when the county already is charged with that?

If the county and schools and parents and students find it beneficial to have social services on school grounds, why doesn’t the county provide their own space for their own services? Must that space be inside school buildings?

Why no mention of the possibility of expanding all-year school?

Virtually, it adds capacity as about a fourth of the kids are out of school at any one time. The current schedule is based on an agrarian life style many of us haven’t known for a generation or two or three.

With high schoolers attending the likes of RCTC for college credits, can we move some 8th grade activity into high schools (thereby decompressing middle schools)?

Where’s the innovation?

The referendum just adds another verse to the same old song:

We need more money.
Schedule an odd year.
Survey for our number.
Consult, sing, and dance.
We get more money.
Maybe.

Is it for generations of our students?

No. It’s for five years of growth that will be satisfied in three.

CONCLUSION

Does the RPS approach – including the lack of ability to independently vote for swimming pool money – and lack of innovation deserve support?

Does the willful misrepresentation of the impact on taxpayers deserve support?

Does paying 20 years of interest for maintenance deserve support?

Is it right to require taking on the big money in order to save money on middle school swimming pools?

The district’s numbers indicate we’ll have 1,200 more students in five years than we have now. If Question 1 passes, new buildings will be ready in three. We’ll be paying for them for twenty years. If Rochester’s growth continues after the next five years, the district will be back for more by 2025. Does a “no” vote on Question 1 send a message for innovation and writing a new song instead of adding verses to the same ol’ same ol’?

It would be a shame to forgo the pool improvements by voting “no” on Question 1 but it’s not our fault the questions were designed the way they were. RPS can plan another referendum for 2020 with more innovation, more honesty, more foresight, maybe better leadership, and a better plan. If it’s a good plan there will be more “yes” votes than ever before.

Please vote on this one.

Updates

10/27/19 10:00
title, typos, social media help, highlights

10/25/19 02:50 pm
grammar fixes; clarifications