By Richard DeFaccio
In a letter published March 4, I asked three questions regarding the Methow Valley School District’s proposed levies. On March 18 I had the opportunity to meet with members of the district administration and the co-chair of the Facilities Task Force. Those three questions as well as several additional issues were discussed. The answers to the questions are as follows:
The $850,000 left over from the 2009 roof bond was used, in part, to allow the district to fund a voter-approved facilities and technology levy in 2010 without levying any new taxes. Of that levy, 53 percent were capital (facility) expenditures and 47 percent were technology expenditures.
Of the $6,659,625 in general obligation bonds issued from 2009 to 2013, 58 percent was authorized for facilities (including the high school roof), 33 percent for refinancing outstanding debt, 5 percent to refinance bus purchase bonds, and a non-voted limited general obligation to purchase iPads and Chromebooks was 4 percent. As mentioned in my March 4 letter, $4,172,964 is still outstanding.
With regard to maintenance and operations levies, those funds are simply intermingled with the general fund. Approximately 24 percent of general fund expenditures are for non-salary expenses, materials, supplies and other materials. The largest category of such expenditures is district support, which includes utilities, insurance, business operations, building and grounds maintenance, motor pool, and human and public relations.
It is clear that in the past, a high percentage of facilities and technology bonds and levies has been used for technology rather than facilities, which resulted in the continued deterioration of the buildings and grounds. The state has recently promulgated new rules that stipulate facility and technology bonds and levies must be proposed separately. This gives voters the opportunity to decide which is of the greatest priority at any time. It is important to note that the current proposed levy is strictly for facilities.
Other issues
The following are additional issues not raised in the March 4 letter:
The district has 10 regular bus routes and has 10 buses averaging 8.7 years old, all receiving depreciation allowance from the state, and five spare buses. The state provides depreciation for buses for 13 years, a very conservative life cycle for a diesel bus. As of August 2014 there was an outstanding debt of $281,334 in the district’s transportation vehicle fund. By law the fund may only be used for the purchase and maintenance of the district’s bus fleet.
The district has proposed buying six buses for $800,000 or about $133,333 per bus. The actual bid price with options and sales tax is $126,737.99. The proposed buses are 77-passenger propane buses, the most expensive on the state contract. Propane buses average $9,000 more than diesel and the proposed buses have expensive options including air ride suspension and security cameras, both of which are arguably unnecessary in our environment.
Three of the district’s current fleet will be off of depreciation at the end of this year. Because propane buses are still a largely unproven technology, why not buy one propane bus and two less-expensive but proven diesel buses at about $115,000 each and pay off the current debt in the vehicle fund? This would cost less than $650,000. With 10 or 11 buses in the depreciation schedule, the district could replace those buses that go off depreciation as that occurs and maintain a first-line fleet of 10 or 11 busses in depreciation serving all the regular routes indefinitely.
The estimates for repairs, improvements, and investments listed in the Facilities Task Force flyer for each building/area are not complete and seem quite high: $1.5 million for the elementary school, $1.5 million for the high school, $250,000 for the Independent Learning Center and the bus barn, and $1.25 million for campus grounds. At the March 18 meeting, the district administrators promised to post each project with the actual bids on the district’s website. In addition, they promised to post the progress and the final actual cost of each project. It is important that we as taxpayers and community members exercise due diligence and see that our tax dollars are spent effectively.
It is unfortunate that these questions and issues which were all raised in July 2014 could not have been addressed sooner and particularly before the levy proposals were finalized and placed on the ballot.
We are being asked to raise our local school levy rate by 50 percent over the next two years and 32 percent for four years thereafter. Nonetheless, I believe it is necessary to pass these levies to avoid further serious deterioration of our district facilities.
Richard DeFaccio lives in Twisp.
