Jim Busey responds to Guy Evans letter on LCSD's proposed $75.5 levy

 

First. my approach to this massive $75,5 bond issue is really fairly simple. The newly proposed $59M high school is* not needed*; the enrollment does not justify a new school, and third campus. As it has been repeatedly pointed out, the enrollment in the LCSD has been flat for 20 years and even declining the past three years. Furthermore, as I am sure you would understand, another unnecessary campus will significantly increase maintenance, operations, and core staffing costs.

 

According to Jeff Fehr, school board member, when I asked the question where the new revenue will come to pay for those increased costs, I was told the board will consider that in the normal annual budgeting process. Since there has *not been* any increase in enrollment (new revenue), those costs will have to be paid from an increase in taxes to the community. This is a fairly simple fact.

 

Second, I do understand the rental revenue, and the use of that revenue to offset district capital improvement costs over time. In 2000, the school board and I negotiated the initial terms of those rents with thorough local market rate surveys and advertisements of spaces available. When I asked Jeff Fehr if the LCSD recently completed a market rate rental survey, he stated they *had not.* When I further asked about whether the LCSD advertised the vacant space for rent, he stated that they *had not*. So, the LCSD vacates a quality, existing space for district administrative operations, and spends $1M to remodel "other space" so they can rent their current office to Chelan Fresh? The only "reason" given for this $1M expenditure is that the LCSD can consolidate the administration into one

office; the special programs admin is just a few steps across the street, and this* is not* an operational hardship.

 

As you know, this $1M remodel for a new district administration office *was not in the ballot title*, nor the school board official bond resolution in 2013. The community should be concerned and troubled about this re-prioritization of these funds away from the needs of student learning. You state that this expenditure is a wise fiscal decision. Far from it; it is *highly nonsensical and a waste of valuable resources paid by the taxpayer in the special election of 2013.*

 

Third, the issue of "choice in students" has another simple solution. As you are aware, I was asked about about the number of choice in students due to the "crowded" issue being promoted as a need for this massive $75.5M bond issue. Having worked in numerous school districts and consulted with many more, I would suggest that the current choice in students be grandfathered until they graduate. This would be a simple policy change; allow the current students to remain in the LCSD, but do not allow new

students to enroll. This will help with the "crowded" issues that some say is a concern today. This is not disruptive to the current students and families, and ensures, over time, that the* LCSD community is not unfairly paying local taxes for students that reside in other communities.*

 

Finally, and I believe we do agree on this, there are some capital improvements that are needed in the LCSD. Those prioritized and identified improvements can be made with small capital improvement tax levies. The current educational system in the Lake Chelan Schools *does not need *a new $59M high school. It *does not need* a third campus, nor the substantial increases in costs to the local community in perpetuity for maintenance and operations. Furthermore, the LCSD *does not need* $7M to make "improvements" in the current high school football field.

 

Thus, the only "solution" to this current proposal is for the community to defeat this bond issue and then ask the school board and superintendent to *reconsider a common sense, fiscally prudent approach to the education of our students. *

 

Jim Busey

Chelan

 

User menu

NCW Media Newspapers