Blissfield district considers options after defeat

    Voters in the Blissfield Community School district turned out en masse and rejected the proposed the $12 million, 15-year tax increase to renovate and modernize school buildings.
    Blissfield Township Clerk Nancy Cranor estimated that more than 30 percent of eligible voters turned out for the special election. The proposal was rejected by a vote of 1,024 to 641.
    “It was a very good turnout. We expected it, with all of the publicity it had received. People were very interested in this election,” said Cranor.
    Blissfield Community Schools Superintendent Scott Moellenberndt said he was pleased with the voter interest, even though the district’s proposal was rejected.
     “I couldn’t be more pleased with the turnout. Obviously, I hoped a majority of people would support the proposal. But the number of people who voted shows that people aren’t apathetic and that they are engaged with the issues that come before them.”
      Moellenberndt credited Citizens School Improvement’s information campaign as well as newspaper stories and radio advertisements for the heavy interest in the vote.
     With a clear rejection, school officials will soon begin discussing how the district will address their deteriorating buildings.
    “The proposal as presented was not acceptable to voters. The difficult thing now is trying to determine what, if anything, voters will support so we can move forward,” said Noel Eisenmann, president of the Blissfield Board of Education. “We have to try and determine what things were in that proposal that caused the public to not support it. Or maybe they just won’t support a tax increase at all, no matter what’s on the ballot.”
     While the district attempts to answer these questions, it is racing against the clock and trying to navigate cumbersome election laws.
    The district has until July 23 to show the state that it has public support for a bond project if the district wants to retain its ability to utilize no-interest or low-interest loans. Complicating matters are election laws that required the district to finalize ballot language for the May school board election before officials even knew the result of Tuesday’s election.
    The Board of Education, at its most recent meeting, approved the same ballot language that appeared on Tuesday’s ballot.
    “We had to announce our intentions by Tuesday if we wanted something on the ballot in May. How was the board supposed to make an informed decision when it didn’t have any election results?” Moellenberndt asked. “The board made the decision that it was better to at least get its foot in the door. We want to take advantage of the zero-percent interest loans if possible.”
    When the board finalized the same language, the district had some hope that it might have the ability to change the ballot language at a later date. But last week, after talking with state election officials, Lenawee County Clerk Roxanne Holloway learned otherwise.
    “The election law is specific as to when the language must be certified. It is also silent with respect to withdrawing ballot language. I’ve contacted the bureau of elections and its clear that there are two options. One, you can leave the language as is. Or two, you can can withdraw the question,” Holloway said. “We’ve tried to work with the school district to see if we can help, but as much as we want to help, we must uphold election laws.”
    The district’s buildings and grounds subcommittee was scheduled to meet this week to discuss reducing the scope of the proposal. But that might be a wasted meeting if the district can not change the ballot language.
     Another option mentioned by Moellenberndt involved using some of the sinking-fund millage money to offset the cost of the project.
     “We have 1.78 mills in sinking fund millage and it’s a 10-year commitment. We’ve talked about the possibility of taking, say, .75 mills from that and using it to fund a portion of the 11.993 million bond project. That would reduce the added tax burden on taxpayers,” Moellenberndt said.
    The bottom line, Moellenberndt said, is that the district’s facilities issues haven’t gone away.
     “At some point in time, this community is going to have to address these issues,” he said.