Post date: Aug 4, 2012 2:28:09 AM
State law requires that at least 70 percent of the money to be spent in a bond issue be assigned to specific projects. Why not precisely spell out how every dollar will be spent? Is someone trying to pull a fast one?
NO ONE is trying to sneak something by you; they are being honest about the uncertainties of projects that will go to bid up to seven years from now. For the ballot, architects, or bond planners to pretend to know precisely how much everything will cost seven years in the future would be absurd.
The ballot DOES direct over 70% of the money to specific projects AND lists ALL of the project areas for which the bonds can be spent. A future school board CANNOT start spending bond issue money on unrelated projects: the money is required to go for the types of projects described on the ballot.
The 70% rule is there to allow for the uncertainties inherent to a multi-year bond issue. The money is collected and spent over an extended period of time until the debt is paid off by the millage, estimated to be about seven years in the proposed bond issue. Over that time costs will inevitably fluctuate with the economy and inflation, and the projects also go out to bid and one can only estimate what the winning bid amounts might be. This makes it impossible for any proposed bond issue to spell out precisely how every dollar will eventually be spent. But we can and have spelled out for you on this website, and the school board spelled out on the approved ballot, what types of projects are allowed expenditures, and guaranteed minimum dollar amounts to various projects.
Bartlesville schools have a proven track record on this commitment. The results of the large 2001 and 2007 bond issues have been revolutionary and precisely align with what voters approved. When a declining economy after 2008 caused a drop in construction prices, the district rolled all of the "extra" money into the same project areas voters approved in the bond. For example, the bond issue funded climate control and other facility improvements to the high school, so that was an area where funds freed up by lower construction bids could be spent. That's how the money became available to finally replace the 73-year-old floor tiles in its main building this summer.
None of the bond funds can legally be expended on types of projects which are not described on this website, and the figures given on this website spell out how 100% of the bond money is planned to be spent. But it is impossible to know costs seven years in advance and one can only estimate the results of the required bidding process when the taxes have been collected and are ready to be spent.
The ballot you'll be voting on mandates that:
at least $4,200,000 be spent on technology
at least $2,720,000 be spent on construction projects (the projected cost is $2,777,556)
at least $1,050,000 be spent on transportation (in a separate question on the ballot)
at least $787,500 be spent on curriculum supplies (textbooks, science equipment, etc.)
at least $430,000 be spent on Custer Stadium improvements
which adds up to $9,187,500 or 72.5% of the total package. The district actually projects it will spend an additional $1,842,687 on maintenance projects, $375,055 on vocal and instrumental music equipment, $350,000 on athletic equipment and uniforms, $315,642 on the design costs and professional fees for the bond and its projects, $305,690 on cafeteria equipment, $140,000 on custodial equipment, $100,870 on the Fine Arts Center upgrades, and the final $57,556 on the construction projects at various elementary schools.
Even if it were legal for bond money to be spent outside of these project areas, which it is not, the dozens of community members on the long-range facilities committee would not tolerate it. The projects are truly Essential and every penny of the bond issue will go toward them.