Blissfield Voters To Decide Bond Proposal

    Voters in the Blissfield Community School District will decide the fate of school improvement bond in a vote Tuesday at the Blissfield Fire Hall.
    In February, voters overwhelming (1,017 to 641) rejected a 15-year, $12 million bond that would have cost taxpayers an estimated 2.49 mills on their property tax bill.
    The plans calls for the elimination of the renovated high school facade, the bus loop, the new high school cafetorium, landscaping, monument signs, two new classrooms, some electrical upgrades and other technical upgrades. In all, the savings are pegged at $3,150.817.
    Because the deadline for ballot language was due before the district even knew the results of the February vote, the district submitted the same bond language to the county clerk. The district later learned that that state law forbid the changing of ballot language. The district was stuck with language asking for voter approval to bond for up to $11.99 million.
    In March, however, the district approved a plan that cuts $3.1 million from the proposal and then pledged to pass the anticipated savings to the taxpayer by reducing the sinking fund millage from 1.75 mills to 0.75 mills. The resolution reducing the sinking fund millage is subject to voter approval of the bond. The sinking fund millage is in effect for 10 more years. In all, the new plan would save taxpayers a shade over 1 mill compared the February proposal. A mill is an annual one dollar tax on every $1,000 of taxable value. A home worth 150,000 would generally have a taxable value of $75,000. Under the old proposal, the owner of that home would have seen an annual tax increase of $186.75. Under the new proposal, the annual tax increase would be $111.75.
    The plan still includes new roofing, mechanical systems, window replacements, science lab renovations and technology enhancements.
    Superintendent Scott Moellenberndt said that that he wanted to see the taxpayers invest in education in a way that stretched tax dollars.
    “This is our last chance to get low-to-no interest to do these improvements. Not only that, with the way the economy is, I’d hate to pass on the chance to do things while labor and material costs are cheap,” said Moellenberndt. “Doing this work without the low-to-no interest money and with higher labor and material costs could almost double the cost to taxpayers.”
    Moellenberndt said Blissfield’s facilities needs weren’t going to disappear if voters’ reject the proposal on Tuesday. He speculated on what might be next if voters rejected the plan.
    “Batten down the hatches. We’d have to use sinking fund money to make repairs. But that only generates $500,000 a year. That’s not enough money for big ticket items. It doesn’t go very far. We’ve used the money as a Band-Aid. We’ve spent $100,000 alone in the last three years just patching up the boiler,” he said. “We’re very appreciative of the voters for passing the sinking fund millage. It’s allowed us to keep things pleasing cosmetically and make repairs.”
    Moellenberndt said that replacing the high school roof and boiler system were probably the most pressing facilities needs. he estimated that replacing the roof would eat up a year’s worth of sinking fund millage. He said replacing the boiler and related equipment would likely cost $1.2 million, which would force the district to return to the voters.
    Each of the three candidates running for school board Tuesday are in favor of the proposal. The incumbents, of course, voted for the bond resolutions.
    “Anyone that owns a house that is 30-50 years old realizes that at some point, improvements need to be made. All three of our buildings fall into that age range.  We have an opportunity to capitalize on as low as zero interest loans to make improvements to our windows and doors, heating and cooling, roofs, and make electrical upgrades to support the demands of new technology,” said school board president Noel Eisenmann.
    Trustee Larry Bausman agreed.
    “It’s time to do what is necessary to give our children the best opportunity to succeed and a good learning environment is essential  in that process. The infrastructure has exceeded its useful life and it’s time to bring it up to the Blissfield standard of excellence.”
    Also running is Scott Abbott. He, too, is in favor of the proposal, but said the public should have been more involved in the proposal earlier in the process.
    “I did support the bond proposal.  I will have three children in school this fall, so for me it is an investment in them. I also can see why many did not support it. It is a lot of money for so many that are already on a fixed budget. I wish the information about the needs of the school would have been talked about more in public before the actual proposal was done. The public was not included enough until the decisions had already been made,” said Abbott.
    The question now is, did the district go far enough when it reduced the $12 million proposal into an $8.8 million proposal.
    Riga resident Kevon Martis said he’s not sure the district understands the mood of the taxpayers.
    ““Mr. Moellenberndt expressed puzzlement about the message behind that last ‘no’ vote on the bond issue. Was it that people were opposed to any and all tax increases, or were they opposed to the size and scope of the renovations being proposed? I was surprised that the polling and survey work that was done in the past year had not answered that question. The one thing I have heard repeatedly is this: How did we get from needing a boiler and new roof for the high school to 12 million dollars worth of renovations at all three buildings? Everyone I know that was opposed to the tax increase also expressed support for common-sense repairs like a new boiler, windows and roof systems. Much of the other proposed renovations seemed excessive in this economic environment, low interest loans or not,” Martis said.
    Resident Cliff Buehrer is also against the proposal.
    “If the roof needs repair, fix it. If the boiler needs to be replaced, do it. But why are they loading this up with a bunch of fluff?” he said.
    Buehrer also questioned the idea of investing in public school facilities.
    “10 years from now, how are students going to learn? Are they going to be at home, learning on the computer? Education as we teach it today will probably be obsolete,” he said.
    One factor that could hurt the district’s efforts to change voters’ minds by cutting $3.1 million from the proposal is the ballot language, which will read just like it did in February.
    The ballot language has raised the eyebrows of some skeptics. The skepticism has frustrated board members and district officials.
    At the March meeting, Bausman said the language issue was unfortunate and that the district would have to do its best to get the word out.
    “There’s no deception here. There’s no covering up. Nobody is trying to sneak anything in the back door,” Bausman said. “By law, we can not change the language.”
    Monday, the issue was still a thorn in the district’s side.
    “There’s this idea out there that we’re running some kind of shell game,” Moellenberndt said. “Nothing could be further from the truth. We’ve acted on this in public and it would be illegal for us to do anything other than what we’ve said we will do.”
    Moellenberndt said that he’s received positive feedback about the new bond proposal in conversations he’s had.
    “But I’m not sure what they’re talking about in the coffee shops,” he said.