Sorry for the delay in moderating the comments through this week.

The 4 year lease program was from general fund dollars – not part of the 2000 Bond Project. We are able to get 0% financing, which may not always be the case, so as you mention interest costs are likely a part of large equipment purchases regardless of the funding source.

In terms of repair and maintenance, we do have a Sinking Fund that generates funds to support general maintenance that is not performed by Saline Area School staff. For example, the new back lot exit area on the west side of the high school was completed with sinking fund dollars.

The security projects include reworking entry points in some of our elementary schools to push visitor traffic through the office during school hours. In addition, some building/parking lot security cameras and bus cameras.

My mention of what other local districts are doing with bond was simply intended to illustrate that in fact other local communities have used this method to generate revenue for their schools. My only intended implication was that was reasonable for the Board of Education to place this issue before the voters to decide.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge how much I appreciate our Saline Schools and the many teachers and parents that make our school clearly excellent on so many levels. I wish there was more money to go around to some very deserving people and programs, but there isn’t right now.

This concept of mortgaging our children’s future in 2031 in order to pay for some general fund expenditures is not a good plan. At best, this bond issue is a desperate work around plan for a budget shortfall. At worst, it is a method to delay politically tough decision making. In either case, I have not heard an adequate argument. The marketing that it will save significant money in interest charges is disingenuous. Arguing that other school systems are doing the same mistake is not convincing. The bond issue borrows money from way in the future to handle the problems of today. It takes away future flexibility and exacerbates funding problems.

We need to change the legislature’s inaction of unfunded mandates concerning health care and pensions. These painful budget cuts have already happened in the private sector and it unfortunately must happen in the public sector as well. What we can possibly do in Saline is reduce administration expenses, privatize bus services, renegotiate contracts, and sell real estate that is currently on the school system’s books. I am not sure all these ideas are workable but they sure as heck have not been adequately discussed within the community.

After reading your comments and others on the proposed bond extension I reread the bond extension document regarding this issue.

I too want a good school district. However, it’s still does not make good economic sense to use any long term funding to purchase technology and buses. This 2000 bond issue you want to extend originally had monies set aside to purchase computers and technology. There was concern back then about using long term financing on short term technology. At one of the 2000 bond issue public meetings , which I attended, the then School Superintendent, Ellen Ewing, stated that the technology part of the bond had to be paid off in 5 years, per State of Michigan guidelines, and not financed for the full 30 years. I checked with Brian April and he concurred with the statement except that Saline schools planned to pay them off at the end of 5 years with another 5 year note that wasn’t under that state’s restriction. It sounds like Saline Schools, from your comment above, has since leased additional computers on a 4 year lease since the 2000 bond issue.
Why are we not purchasing/leasing technology with general fund monies? Your comment above states you have done this in the recent past. We the tax payers are going to pay interest no matter how we finance something.

Concrete and Asphalt replacement are normal maintenance and should be paid out of the operating budget. Doesn’t Saline Schools budget for normal maintenance and repairs?

The school drop off points for the buses and parents had to be looked at from a safety point of view before being approved and built. Why is it necessary to change them now. Buses and cars have not changed since they were built so why do they need to be changed?

What exactly is the security portion of the project?

Your comment that other school districts in the area are proposing similar bond issues so Saline is no different seems to being trying to justify this proposal.

You seem to imply that there is a direct relationship between the quality of the school district, its school bond rate, millage. and the community. Is there a study suggesting this?

Regards,

Jim Baker

My perspective is based somewhat on my background. My grandfather began farming in Lodi Township in the 1940′s, and when the country schools closed his children – including my father began to Saline Area Schools in the 1950′s. He (and my grandmother) voted for bonds on 2 new high schools, which included short term equipment. My parents have continued to vote for other school related millage and bond proposals over the last 40+ years. So, for the me the issue is not about obligating future residents it is about decided what kind of school district in which we want to live. To me, it’s a long term issue, even though we are talking about some (15% of the proposal) short term equipment.

Many items in the Project 2000 Bond issue were equipment related. Some of which have been or will need to be replaced shortly. This is how the funding/bonding system is currently working.

The other note about future residents – is that the tax structure is know to them – potential future residents will know the school bond rate prior to moving and will have to make a determination if the quality of the school district and community is a fair return on that investment. Looking around the county, the Saline School rate is lower than most – so I will let the potential residents decide on value.

I’d appreciate your comment on a different aspect of this long-term/short-term question. I am very uncomfortable with borrowing and spending monies now which will not begin to be repaid until 2026. The taxpayers then will be largely a different set of people. It seems to me to be ethically wrong for today’s voters to be deciding for and encumbering the Saline taxpayers of 2025-2031 — for funds spent for and benefits received by present voters.

I have no problem with the School Board making its case to the voters for funding for believed critical needs, but I feel it should be repaid through taxes in the more near-term, i.e., paid for by the people who are voting for it — not obligating Saline citizens of 15-20 years from now for today’s spending. I do not feel we have a right to do that.

I would appreciate hearing your perspective on this.

Sincerely,

Tim Dwyer

In terms of accounting separately and not using funds of short term (technology equipment) vs. long term – we do not have plans for a separate account system. However, if voter approved, it is not the intention to spend $4 million on technology immediately, but to stagger purchases strategically to into the future.

I certainly understand and share the concern regarding the pace of technological improvements/changes and the financing of these items. Three years ago, we leased $400,000 in computers. We received 0% financing, and a $1 per computer buy option after 4 years. So, we effectively are able to pay $100,000 per year for four years and then own the units for the $1 per unit cost. We have made similar purchases of busses using this model, however, we have had to pay interest in those cases. The funds came from the general fund.

In Washtenaw County – Ann Arbor, Chelsea, Dexter, Lincoln, Manchester, Milan and Ypsilanti school districts currently have bond issues being using similar to the proposal on the August 3rd ballot. The practice of using a portion of bond revenue on depreciating assets is the current model schools in Michigan use.

When “Community Project 2000″ bonds were approved, they were set to run until 2035, through refinancing on two occasions they were reduced to 2025. It is our intention, if voter approved, that we seek those opportunities again to reduce the term.

That said I understand the incentive our federal and state government may have given us on the interest…. like these electronic or furniture stores offering 0% financing…very tempting for immediate gratification…unfortunately human nature sees that ‘extra’ money in the account and it somehow disappears before the payments are due and then you are in worse shape than before.

A dangerous spiral in my opinion.

Please comment on the ability to put the funding into a protected account that cannot be used for short term expenses and only for long term (as defined by general accounting beyond a 10 year depreciation).

Why is Saline Schools backing a bond extension proposal, long term financing, to pay for purchases, updates, and repairs that should be paid with short to mid-term financing monies?

Many items in the bond extension brochure will be outdated, disposed of, or in need of additional repairs years before we the tax payers even start to pay for them. Technology has a product usefulness of 5-7 years. The brochure even states that the buses only have a 12 life expectancy.

We, the taxpayers will not even start to pay for any of the proposed items for 15 years, 2025.

Saline Schools needs to show leadership by confronting the new economic issues that are facing our government entities, businesses, and families. The Saline community deserves and is entitled to frank and honest discussions and how to pay for purchases and repairs that are of a short to medium term nature.

Regards,

Jim Baker

That being said, we are looking at ways to continue to trim expenses and still provide safe service to our families.