Panel rejects school bond

Jeff Schweers

Friday, June 14, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.

A committee that oversees Clark County's tax rate has sent school district officials back to the drawing board after scrapping a two-part $816 million school construction bond issue.

The Debt Management Commission was two votes shy Thursday of the number needed to put the question to voters Nov. 5. The panel said it would only authorize Part A, a $643 million package.

"I am not sure I am ready to vote to approve the whole thing today," said panel member Yvonne Atkinson Gates, chairwoman of the County Commission. "If you are not willing to withdraw your proposal, I will have no option but to ask that this not be approved."

Undeterred, School Board member Jeff Burr said he will recommend that the two bond amounts be resubmitted separately to the panel.

"The voters should get to decide whether they want to reach into their pockets to pay to get their kids on a regular schedule," Burr said. "We're not attempting to tell the public what they should or shouldn't do."

Commissioner Myrna Williams, who chairs the debt panel, said while the district has a clear need for more classrooms, approving the entire amount would restrict the ability of other entities in Clark County to sell bonds for their needs.

And with mounting needs for public services such as water and sewer, Williams said no municipality can afford to be restricted by the school bond's debt.

"Anyone who says they don't know about the $2 billion water issue is out of touch with the world," Williams said. "If we don't have water, we won't need any schools, because we'll be a ghost town. We have to leave enough room to take care of things necessary for survival."

Williams also questioned the need for the full amount since the school district has spent only $70 million of a $605 million bond approved in 1994. Those bonds have all been sold, and the debt on them won't retire until 2016.

Williams gave the school district until July 8 to come up with a more acceptable proposal that would not affect overlapping tax rates in the county.

Any new plan must first must be approved by the School Board at a public hearing. Documents would have to be filed with the Clark County registrar of voters by July 15.

Bonds are generally paid from revenue raised by property taxes. The debt panel's job is to make sure that any proposed bond sales don't raise taxes beyond the cap set by state law, which is $3.64 per $100 of assessed value.

If a proposed bond sale would push the tax rate over 90 percent of the cap, the debt board must weigh the competing needs of other entities.

County finance officials found that the entire school bond referendum would push the tax rate up 1.3 percent, but well past the 90 percent level in four entities -- 92.2 percent in Las Vegas, 92.5 percent in Laughlin, 95.6 percent in North Las Vegas and 96.9 percent in Mount Charleston.

The bond would only raise the tax rate in the urban unincorporated county to 80.3 percent, and to 83.1 percent in Henderson.

"I don't think we should allow overlapping cap to be so high that it takes away any flexibility from somebody else," Gates said.

The proposal by the School Board gave the debt panel few options: Approve it in its entirety, reject it, or approve it with the condition that the second part be sold several years down the road.

After nearly two hours of debate, panel member Greg Jensen made a motion requiring the second half of the bond sale to be released only after assessed value was high enough or bond debt low enough to keep the tax rate the same.

Five votes are required to approve a bond sale, and only three of the five panel members present voted for Jensen's motion. City Councilman Michael McDonald and MGM Grand Chairman Terry Lanni were absent.

Gates and Williams voted against the motion, killing the entire proposal.

The debate at times became a contest of wills between the panel and Burr, who proposed the $174 million second part of the bond question to build enough classrooms to eliminate year-round schools and double sessions.

Burr said the panel's decision was setting a bad precedent in usurping the School Board's ability to decide what's best for schools.

"This is a good opportunity to make self-serving political statements," Burr said.

Gates said she wouldn't dignify Burr's comment with an answer.

"He doesn't get it," Gates said. "If you don't even have your full board support, what makes him think we won't look at how it affects the whole county?"

The $643 million Part A proposal would build 20 schools, adding about 23,000 seats. It also would expand 60 campuses (adding 14,000 more seats), rehabilitate 185 and enhance technology at 71.

Approval of Part B, with a total cost of $816 million, would create roughly the same number of new seats, but make secondary schools smaller and keep most middle schools from going year-round.

Part A would raise property taxes $38.47 a year on a $100,000 home and Part B would increase them $54.54.