1.0 MAPLE DALE BOND ISSUE Nov.02, 2010

.
September 6, 2010

School Building Projects: Rewarding Special Interests at the Expense of Students, Teachers, and Taxpayers

By Mary McCleary
Policy Analyst
mmccleary@buckeyeinstitute.org

Hiring union labor in school construction projects increases the costs period.  You will be hard pressed to find an example in modern-day Ohio where hiring a labor union has led to cost savings that otherwise would have gone unrealized.  By their very nature, labor unions drive up costs through paying workers higher wages than the market dictates.  

Due to Senate Bill 102 passed in 1997, school districts are exempt from Ohio’s little Davis-Bacon law, which requires the government to compensate laborers at the prevailing wage rate.  Essentially, this law forces workers to join unions to work on government-funded building projects.  More often than not, school districts choose independent companies because they can bid projects at lower, more competitive rates than their union counterparts.   

The fact that using union labor drives up school construction costs can be illustrated by three recent examples.  Earlier this summer the Executive Director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) Richard Murray chose to use a project labor agreement for the construction of the new deaf and blind schools in Columbus.  At each of the four stages of the design process, the OSFC signed off on the cost estimates.  When Murray decided to use a project labor agreement, bids for the project came back $11.4 million over the $28 million budget – a 41 percent increase in estimated costs.  

Only the kitchen equipment portion of the deaf and blind schools was exempt from a project labor agreement.  Ironically, the kitchen equipment bids were the only bids that came back within the allotted budget, and there were twice as many bids for kitchen equipment than there were for any other part of the project.  

Second, the Washington-Niles Local School District near Portsmouth planned to use a project labor agreement at the advice of the OSFC.  However, when the bids came back 22 percent over budget, the district backed out.  Washington-Niles is the eighth poorest of the 612 Ohio school districts and simply could not afford such significant cost overruns.  

Third, the New Boston School District, also near Portsmouth and among the poorest Ohio school districts, has accused the OSCF of increasing costs and delaying the project because the district refused to accept a project labor agreement.  When the district ran into a few problems during the planning phase, Richard Murray told school board members that he would make their problems disappear if they used union labor.

Because the OSCF has added extra costs to the schools estimate to account for a project labor agreement, the project is over budget by $400,000.  To reduce costs, the OSCF has demanded the removal of the proposed facility’s front area and the reduction of cafeteria size.  The OSCF has put construction on hold until the district concedes and is charging the district fees for delaying the project.

Unfortunately, when a project goes over budget due to a labor agreement, the OSFC recommends reducing building size and cutting other amenities instead of finding savings through nixing the project labor agreement.  Sadly it has become more important to enhance the wallets of special interest groups rather than to act in the best interest of the students, their teachers, and the taxpayers.  

With Ohio’s economy in shambles, this is no time to be pushing for the use of unions in school construction projects.  Between January 1990 and July 2010, job creation in states that forced workers to join unions to obtain jobs only grew by 17 percent.  On the other hand, job creation in states that protected a worker’s freedom to choose whether or not to join a union to obtain employment grew by 37 percent, or more than double the rate of forced unionization states.     

Ohio’s road to economic recovery will not be paved with higher taxes and will not be found through paying homage to unions.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul does nothing to promote job growth or prosperity in Ohio.  Try explaining to the taxpayers that they are better off by paying more for less.  The logic simply does not add up.   

=================================================== 

State law restricts bond issue money to building schools and facility renovations, and cannot be used for daily operations.

Sycamore schools may seek bond issue
by Jeanne Houck, jhouck@communitypress.com January 13, 2010

Sycamore Community School residents may be asked to approve a bond issue for improvements to Maple Dale Elementary School and the board of education offices.

The district is analyzing the structural integrity of all its school buildings. The Ohio School Facilities Commission report should be available this winter.

The district will allocate more money from its cash reserve for technology and facility maintenance and improvements. However as major system and structural repairs at Maple Dale and the BOE office are evaluated, the board may need to analyze cost-effective solutions that go beyond the funding available in the cash reserve and consider options that may require community support of a bond issue.

Voters last approved a bond issue in 1998. That was a $45 million financing tool used for renovations and additions at Sycamore High, Sycamore Jr. High, E. H. Greene, Maple Dale and to build Montgomery Elementary and Blue Ash schools.

Bond issues fund capital improvements; levies fund operating expenses.

School officials thank voters for agreeing last May to renew a 5.5 mill operating levy and convert it into a continuing levy. In exchange, the school officials say, they remain committed to offering an outstanding school system and to managing costs.

Montgomery’s resident Glenn Welch, a frequent critic of the school board’s financial decisions, isn’t convinced.

He believes the former school board held down costs to encourage renewal of the levy and that the district could do more to save money – especially personnel costs – before going back to the voters for financial help.

Note: Check out  School District Plays Efficiency Numbers Game on this weblog.

 

================================================

7 Responses to “1.0 MAPLE DALE BOND ISSUE Nov.02, 2010”

  1. Administrator says:

    The Northeast Suburban Life asked these Jan. 20, 2010 questions regarding the potential bond issue; “What concerns or questions do you have about the bond issue? A this point, are you likely to support it? Why or why not?”

    GW answered – ” I want to know all the facts before I will vote for a bond issue. What are the specific spending proposals?
    What alternatives were considered? Why don’t they use part of the $39 million cash reserve for this work? The state recommends holding 6-7 percent of revenue in reserve. Sycamore has 52 percent in reserve.
    Why did the schools add 40 fulltime equivalent employees during the last couple years while enrollment was holding steady? Didn’t they know of the need for renovations back then?
    I also want to know the breakdown on the $4.5 million budget increase implemented this year. Where is that taxpayer money going? At this point I would vote against it because I have too many unanswered questions and concerns.”

  2. propertyowner333 says:

    The Northeast Suburban Life CH@TROOM section of the January 20, 2010 issue asks these questions.

    The Sycamore Community Schools residents
    may be asked to approve a bond issue for
    improvements to the Maple Dale Elementary
    School and the board of education offices.

    What concerns or questions do you have
    about the bond issue? At this point, are you
    likely to support it? Why or why not?

    Every week The Northeast Suburban Life asks
    readers a question they can reply to via e-mail.
    Send your answer to
    nesburban@communitypress.com with
    Chatroom in the subject line.

  3. propertyowner333 says:

    Princeton schools seek vote on $120M bond issue
    …Princeton school leaders said this week that new federal stimulus bond programs will help the district finance a new high school and middle school.
    …School leaders Monday voted to put a $120 million bond issue on the May ballot.
    …In 2008, voters rejected a $140-million school plan.
    …Princeton plans to use federal Build America Bonds and Qualified School Construction Bonds, created by the Obama Administration.
    …In 2013 the average owner of a 100,000 home would begin paying about $150 a year more taxes on the bonds.
    …They would get a lot for their tax dollars, Pack said.
    …With Build America bonds, the federal government pays 35 percent of the interest costs to bond buyers. Princeton gets to borrow at below-market rates.
    …Princeton also plans to issue Qualified School Construction Bonds, which have little or no interest. Because of its size it obtains the funds with no completion from other districts.
    …But suburban, rural districts and smaller urban districts will compete against each other for the funds.
    …Pack said Princeton will be high on Ohio’s list because of its ethnic and racial diversity and its percentage of low-income students.

    Source: Enquirer by Denise Smith Amos 1/15/2010

  4. propertyowner333 says:

    Curious, I’ll try to answer your question this way.

    At this time we really don’t know how much the board will actually want, and what the interest rate will be, etc., because they are still analyzing the situation.

    But, we do know that a 5.5-mill ($8 million) continuous levy passed in May, 2009. That levy currently costs a $100,000 market value home owner $134 annually. A $200,000 homeowner pays $268 annually and so on.

    A bond issue and a continuous levy have different characteristics. In the case of a bond issue, all district taxpayers will eventually pay the amount of the loan (let’s pretend it will cost $8 million to do the renovations) and $320,000 annual interest (assuming 4% interest rate) over the life of the bond. For a $100,000 home owner, that would amount to a onetime payment of about $134, and annual interest payments of about $5 over the life of the bond.

  5. propertyowner333 says:

    Curious asks, what would the cost be for a $100,000 market value home? My home is worth $267,000. What would I pay?

  6. propertyowner333 says:

    A curious resident said, I feel stupid because I am not sure I understand this bond issue thing…could you explain it to me and the financial impact on taxpayers? Is this another request for money from us?

  7. propertyowner333 says:

    Yes Curious, it is another request for money from the residents.

    If the board decides to put a bond issue on the ballot, they are asking voters to give them permission to borrow money (lets say $10 million) in the financial market to cover the projected $10 million construction cost of Maple Dale and board office modifications.

    If a bond issue passes by a majority vote of YES, the voters commit ALL property owners (taxpayers) to being taxed annually to cover the entire cost of the loan. That cost includes the loan amount (principal) $10 million and the interest (4.5% annually) for the unpaid loan amount i.e. $450,000 yearly. Twenty five years times $450,000 annually equals $11.25 million plus the principal of $10 million makes the total cost $21.25 million. [Just like when you borrow money for a car or your house.]

    So, the bond issue would have to be large enough to cover both the principal and interest. If the board expects to pay it off (pay back to the lender) in year 2025, the total cost to taxpayers would be $21.25 million. Property owners would see their property tax bill increase.

Leave a Reply