Johnston School Board Member Says Data Doesn't Show Need for $41 Million Bond Issue

Editor's Note: Johnston school board member John Dutcher wrote this opinion piece in reference to the upcoming $41 million Johnston Schools bond referendum; early voting starts on June 7. He submitted the op-ed as a lone board member. The opinions expressed here are his alone and do not reflect consensus opinion of the school board.

In four years on the Johnston Community School District Board of Directors, a key learning of mine has been that it is often the information which is not presented by district administration that one need most carefully seek out and consider in making wise, fully-informed decisions.

Such is the case with the plans behind the $41 million bond referendum, which voters will consider on June 25. Though I do support construction of a new high school, I am not in support of the $112 million district facilities plan as presented, nor the amount of the bond referendum, and I’d like to explain why.

Key demographic data was withheld from the board by district administration until AFTER the board approved both the facilities plan (which I opposed), the bond referendum amount, and decided to put the measure on the ballot in June (which I also opposed). 

Only AFTER the board already had considered three – in my opinion poorly developed “warmed over” -- options presented by administration at facility work sessions in November and December 2012, decided to chop the new $8 million high school stadium and $2 million from the proposed new high school construction to reduce the bond referendum to $41 million, and put the measure on the ballot for June 25 did the board FINALLY get to review RSP’s Johnston Community School District Enrollment Report for 2012-13 at its Feb. 11, 2013 meeting. The report contained five-year enrollment projections and further projected district enrollment through 2022. Its affect was that of a pin to a hot air balloon.

I would encourage every district elector – before casting a vote in the referendum -- to visit the district’s website and review the reports RSP presented to the Board on Feb. 11, “Unfinished Business XII:” (https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=100100&MID=448

Voters also can watch video of the RSP presentation at the Feb. 11 meeting at http://www.johnston.k12.ia.us/about-us/board-of-education-2/videos-of-meetings/february-11-2013/ (Click on “Unfinished Business 1” podium or board view.)

In my review of the data, no support can be found for adding any additional elementary classroom capacity to our district’s facilities in the near future.  The projections by grade never show us surpassing a kindergarten enrollment of 500 through 2022. Overcrowding at Horizon and Beaver Creek can be eased by redrawing elementary boundaries (a process which will begin this fall anyway) and migrating more students to Wallace, which is under capacity; to the newly-renovated and expanded Lawson, which is under capacity; and Timber Ridge, which despite never having reached capacity is receiving an addition of six more classrooms this summer.

Why the “suddenly softening” enrollment growth in Johnston? A number of factors, according to RSP. Cost of housing is a leading factor, according to the RSP report, which noted that of the 111 homes for sale in Johnston in Dec. 2012, sale prices ranged from $77,000 to $1.6 million -- with only half the homes selling for less than $310,000. According to the report: “If the cost of homes per square foot continues to be greater than other communities, the Johnston Community School District will have a difficult time attracting younger families with younger, school-aged students.”

The report also notes that existing Johnston housing developments are experiencing much slower build outs, noting that “In the next couple of years there will be between 50 and 100 new single family residential permits.” RSP notes that the amount of developable residential land and the funds to develop residential developments in the Johnston School District is a limitation for future growth. Another trend in the greater Des Moines metro area is the formation of smaller households, according to RSP likely a result of the recession, to which the district is not immune.

Expanding trend analysis further one can see that the nation’s birthrate has declined to a level not seen since 1920. U.S. fertility rates have fallen below the 2.1 children per woman “replacement level” necessary to keep the population level stable. In February, Jonathan Last published the new book of reference on declining birth rate related demographic upheaval, What to Expect When No One’s Expecting – America’s Coming Demographic Disaster. If you’re not up for reading it, consider how many pregnant women you are encountering daily out and about in Johnston. It’s just not like the 1990s and early 2000s when there was a “Baby Bump” in every checkout lane at the grocery.

The $112 million plan being presented to voters ($41 million in general obligation bonds and $71 million from sales tax and PPEL funds) invests $4 million in redecorating the existing high school, $16 million in renovating the existing 8/9 building as the “new Wallace Elementary” and then doing a $5 million renovation at Wallace to have it serve as an administrative headquarters.

A better investment in our elementary facilities would be to simply renovate the existing Wallace per plans already developed to improve its related arts and gym facilities for $6 million to achieve a program offering comparable to our other elementary schools. The high school redecoration for 8th and 9th graders is a “want” rather than a “need.” Leaving the 8/9 building as it is gives the district additional flexible space for a myriad of possible programming uses in the future, and there is nothing “ideal” about moving our administrative offices from one “make work” facility to another.

We have a very proud tradition as a community of adequately funding our schools in Johnston. But we live in a community that has many needs. Couldn’t we envision some other use of the $17 million of “excess” in this bond referendum? A new park or recreation center, a band shell for community concerts? Something the whole community can use and enjoy? I know it sounds counterintuitive for a public official to plead for less money. But seriously folks, lard is lard.

As a district director, I’m all too familiar with the challenges my colleagues in other school districts who have “over built” face when they need to later close schools as enrollment declines or shifts to another region of the district.  And given the destruction of schools we have all witnessed due to violent weather, I’m hesitant to “max out” our district’s bonding capacity in the event such a tragedy should befall us and insurance would not cover our total facility losses.

A $24 million ask of the community for a general obligation bond referendum, on top of the $71 million in sales and PPEL taxes (neither yet collected nor bonded) to me seems more than adequate to meet our district’s facility needs.

— John Dutcher, APR, Board of Education, Johnston Community School District