On Tuesday April 19th, 2005 the voters will go to the polls to decide three issues, electing three members to the Board of Education (BOE), the Franklin School District Budget for 2005/2006 (Question 1) and an $11.6 million referendum.

On March 15th Chip Hoever and Phil Kramer met with School Board President Eva Nagy, Vice President Brian Bonanno and School Superintendent William Westfield to discuss the referendum and the budget. From that discussion, BOE materials and other sources listed below we put together this analysis. Our numbers may differ from those you see in BOE publications for good reason

As occurs each year, voters are asked to elect three members to the BOE. Only three people are running. All three are incumbents. Since the out come is decided we will not spend time discussing this issue.

This year's school budget is $116.8 M while last year's was $105.1 M an 11.2% increase. After grants and State and Federal funding, taxpayers will have to foot $97M as compared to $84M last school year, a 15.5% increase. Last year 7359 students cost $84M or $11,415/student. This year 7547 students will cost $97M or $12,853/student. A 12.6% increase. (Note: From the information provided, TUF could not tell if the increase number of students included the additional preschool and kindergarten students. Thus our per student calculation may need adjustment.)

Since the school budget makes up more than 65% (see calculation) of the total tax bill this budget will result in your property taxes increasing about 10%. If you rent, your landlord will need to raise your rent to cover this added expense. For the average household (assessed at $310,717) this will increases your taxes $525 a year. (Note the BOE's recent mailing showed that the increase is only $285. Because the increase doesn't take effect until mid-year the $285 represents only the additional amount for half the calendar year. The yearly increase is $525. Shame on you BOE for this misrepresentation - you deserve a trip to the principal's office.) What's more, the BOE has the gall to indicate the school tax rate per $100 of assessed home value has decreased. Since house values increased by about 17% last year, such a statement is so misleading that it goes beyond shameful. It is deceiving.

Why has the budget increased? Among the reasons are:

1. Class sizes have been reduced.
2. New pre-school programs.
3. Increased kindergarten slots.
4. The number of students will increase by a projected 188.
5. A new state mandate requires breakfast programs in middle school and high school.
6. $2.6M was promised but not paid by the federal government. The decrease in payment did NOT come with an associated reduction in mandates.
7. BUT, according to the BOE, 65% of the budget increase is due to reconfiguration and transition costs - in other words, opening the new high school and reconfiguring the old school as a middle school.

This question will decide if the district can borrow $11,625,000. There are two basic categories for how the money will be spent. The first is for a stadium for the new high school (about $6M). The second are improvements/modifications to existing structures (air conditioning, partitioning large rooms into several smaller ones, etc.)

Yes, that's right, currently the new school is to be built without a stadium. Why? Original plans included a stadium but you'll recall that the new school was voted down twice. So in order to reduce costs several changes were made to the school to lower costs (error, please read the corrections). TUF was concerned that the stadium was only the beginning of a list of items that would need to be added and that year after year, the taxpayer would be asked to bring the high school up to "original specs". To that end TUF asked, "What else was cut from the high school? What else might we be expected to pay for in the future?"

We were told that besides the stadium the other changes to reduce costs included making the hallways narrower by one foot, making each classroom narrower by one foot, building only one elevator, building 12 fewer classes and making the gym modular while only building some of the modules. The current building was constructed in a smart way to allow for easy addition of classrooms, gym modules, an auditorium balcony, etc.

Twelve fewer classrooms concerned us. Will we be hearing next year that the school is too small and needs extra rooms? We were told that that the high school is designed for 2000 students but can hold 2500. This year grades 9-12 have about 1660 students in school year '07-'08 there should be just over 2000 students and in '09-'10 there will be about 2100 students. The unpredictable part of these numbers is how many students will be drawn to the district or back from private schools because of the new school. Thus we are told there should be no need to add classrooms for the foreseeable future.

Will we need more money for busing since the new school is located farther from the more heavily populated portion of Franklin? The budget includes a 4% increase in busing costs that accommodates the high school. The increase was held down by making bus routes more efficient and by cutting some busing services.

We asked if there are plans to build the second elevator. We were told that there are no current plans for this. TUF' comment - We think that you may see this sooner rather than later because the elevator is not centrally located and thus you are asking handicapped students to transverse almost twice the length of the school to go between certain classrooms. The cost however is minimal compared to the rest of the budget.

We asked in every way we could "What other additions might we see in the near future?" The answer was repeated, "None."

So the stadium seems like a good bet but TUF feels that there are three things that we must point out. The first is that no matter how you spin it the board reduced the costs of the high school to a level that was acceptable to the voters by cutting out the stadium knowing that after the school was approved and parents found out that there was no stadium there would be an outcry to build it. Thus the cost of the high school that the voters passed was made artificially low. The BOE did not hide that there was no stadium but they did not go out of their way to advertise it either.

The other point is that the board could have made two referendums, one for the stadium and another for the improvements. The bundling of the two together was a strategy to get all the items passed. We are disappointed that the board didn't trust the voters to decide separately.

Assuming a 4.25% 20 year bond on $11,625,000, the tax cost to a family owning an average home (assessed at $310,717) will be $37 per year (for 20 years). Higher and lower assessed households will pay proportionally more or less.

TUF believes that the stadium is needed and is worth the expense. Every Franklin student will eventual use the stadium. Township residents will use the track, tennis courts and other facilities on off school hours. This is an example of a project that benefits many people and therefore is a worthwhile expenditure of taxpayers' money.

Even though we do not appreciate the stadium being tied up with other non-essential expenses and that the voters were deceived by not making it clear that the high school they approved in 2001 did not include a stadium TUF recommends vote YES on the referendum.

1) BOE election - Only three people are running. All three are incumbents. Since the out come is decided we will not spend time discussing this issue.

2) Question 1. 2005/2006 School Budget - This will raise your taxes about %10. Because of these extremely high increases and because of the way this was presented to the taxpayer TUF recommends voting NO on Question 1. What are the consequences of a no vote? The budget will go to the Township Council. TUF recommends that the council should then hire an independent experienced school auditor to advise how to proceed on the budget. This will cost less than $10,000. That $10K could save millions. A No vote will NOT shut down the school.

3)$11.6M Referendum - Even though we do not appreciate the stadium being tied up with other non-essential expenses and that the voters were deceived by not making it clear that the high school they approved in 2001 did not include a stadium TUF recommends vote YES on the referendum.

© 2003-2010 - Taxpayers United in Franklin