Letter: Why I Won’t Be Voting in Favor of Measure K: LTUSD School Bond

I wholeheartedly agree that, as Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) School Board Trustee, Larry Reilly, mentioned at the September 14th community information meeting regarding Measure K, that we have a “moral imperative” to our children to prioritize school safety and extensive modernization of our schools. However, now is not the time to ask property owners to pay the whopping bill this would entail. Here are my reasons.

A school bond measure that calls for $107 million dollars worth of improvements will be unaffordable by the time it is paid off in 25 years. Interest payments and bond fees will add almost twice as much to the principle.

Such an extensive project list as described in the Facilities Master Plan (available for perusal at LTUSD’s website) is untenable right now during a time when many homeowners are struggling to pay for the basic necessities of living during the highest inflation in 40 years.

Renters will also pay, not just property owners. The costs of this bond will be shifted from property owners to their tenants, further exacerbating the high cost of living for renters. There are 16,986 housing units in South Lake Tahoe, 9,552 of those are occupied; 60 percent of those homes are rented. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in South Lake Tahoe hasalready increased by 13 percent to $2250 over the past month; additional increases will serve to make the housing market even more unaffordable. It also hurts those on fixed incomes who own homes and is actually taxation without representation for second homeowners who don’t vote here.

The District already has a 5-year maintenance plan as described by Board Trustee, Lauri Kemper. She informed us at the meeting that many maintenance projects had been prioritized using the plan, and completed on a regular schedule. A meeting attendee asked, “what if the Bond measure doesn’t pass?” Ms. Kemper’s answer: “we will go back to prioritizing on the 5-year Plan.” This sounds sensible given the current economic climate.

LTUSD’s property tax rate estimate of $35 per $100,000 of assessed value is speculative at best. Interest rates on school bonds are more attractive to investors if they are higher, and looking at the markets right now; the interest rates on bonds are climbing. If you are a homeowner, you might want to think about what this will mean for you. Remember, we are still paying for all of the other school bond measures. We have bond debt incurred in 1999, 2008, and 2014. Much of this will not be paid off for another decade or more.

There are other sources of funding for school maintenance, upgrades, and remodeling. When asked if grant funding sources were available, the Trustees agreed that there were, but that they “didn’t want to stand in line” for them. It might be worth standing in line because after all the attached fees for debt servicing and interest are paid to investors and banks. The dollar may not go as far in construction as it might with grant monies supplied with fewer strings attached. Standing in line might pay off a little better in the end and allow you to complete those projects with more bang for the buck as materials, labor and construction costs, hopefully, become more affordable in the future.

Where to get the money? I’d suggest the State of California to start. Total tax revenue collected has soared and California is flush with cash (unlike most of us taxpayers). Between Quarter 2 of 2020 and Quarter 2 of 2021, the State collected 160.7% more taxes from all sources combined. In addition, as of last May, U.S. school districts have only spent 7 percent of the 122 billion allotted to them in the American Rescue Plan. (Does our District still have COVID funding left over?) We should be tapping into grant funding for school refurbishment as most of us have paid enough in taxes already for not much in return (look at the roads).

Do we really need to do all of these projects on this extensive list for every school all at once? Yes, the Trustees and Dr. Cutler insisted, because the prices will be much higher down the road. Again, this is speculative. Prices may come down as they tend to do as part of business
cycles.

What’s the solution? If the District is, as they say, excellent at prioritizing and has a 5-year Maintenance Plan already in place, then they need to continue to prioritize while looking for alternative sources of funding. They need to tighten their belts just as all of us have had to do in the last two years. Now is not the time to ask property taxpayers to fund the many projects in the Facilities Master Plan because, not only do we have a “moral imperative” to the children of South Lake Tahoe, but we also have a “moral imperative” to their parents, the ones who are paying the bills as they struggle to make ends meet during a recession. Let’s let them keep their money for a change and find another route for safe and modern schools.

Sincerely,
Antonia Hall
Retired Educator