Timeline for new school bonds on table

By Emily Richmond

Wednesday, July 27, 2005 | 10:49 a.m.

The Clark County School Board will debate Thursday when to go back to voters for additional funds to continue building new campuses as well as remodeling and replacing older ones.

That timeline could determine whether additional schools are added to the roster of those already operating on year-round schedules.

School Board members have repeatedly expressed concern that the public would view such schedule changes as a political maneuver rather than a logistical necessity.

"It's almost like holding the parents hostage," Clark County School Board President Larry Mason said at a facilities work session in May. "It's like we're saying, 'If you don't give us the bonds we're going to have to go to year-round calendars' "

Voters in 1998 approved the district's plan to sell bonds to pay for construction and also extended a portion of the property tax that was due to sunset.

The district initially expected to raise $3.5 billion over 10 years for 72 new schools. Because of soaring property values that increased revenue coupled with improved fiscal management, the district now expects to finish the 10-year capital improvement plan having built 90 new schools and 11 replacement campuses.

But district officials also expect to be short as many as eight elementary schools when the current bond measure expires in 2008, with the classroom seat deficit more than doubling by the following year.

Joyce Haldeman, executive director of community and government relations for the district, said she believes the right time to go back to voters is in 2008.

However, she said, there may be pressure from the public to push up the date to 2006 as more elementary schools either delay switching to a nine-month calendar or switch to year-round schedules.

Currently about half of the district's nearly 200 elementary schools operate on year-round schedules.

"There are some parents who like the year-round schools and some neighborhoods that have resisted them," Haldeman said. "There may be some discomfort with the public if waiting (until 2008) means every elementary school goes year-round."

In the 1998 bond measure campaign voters were told the schedule for building 88 new schools was based on the assumption that elementary campuses would operate year-round, Haldeman said.

Robin Munier, president of the Nevada PTA, said many parents have reported that the year-round schedule works well for their families. Parents are more concerned about the overall state of public education than the calendar used to deliver it, Munier said.

"The quality of instruction, access to the materials students need, those are the top issues," Munier said.

It's too early to estimate how much money the district expects to need for the next bond measure, said Walt Rulffes, co-interim superintendent of the district.

That figure will depend on a variety of factors, Rulffes said.

The School Board will have to decide whether it wants to change the number of campuses on year-round schedules. Additionally a planned expansion of the district's full-day kindergarten program will require additional classroom space, as will complying with a Legislative mandate to reduce class sizes and eliminate team-teaching.

Another factor could be the new property tax cap, that limits increases on owner-occupied residences at 3 percent and other properties at 8 percent.

The land-value boom over the past eight years has meant extra money for school construction above the minimum guaranteed by the bond measure, Rulffes said. A similar windfall is less likely with the cap in place, he said.

But the cap doesn't apply to new construction, which is good news for the district's coffers, Rulffes said.

"Theoretically there is some correlation between new construction growth and a need for new schools," Rulffes said.

The cap isn't expected to jeopardize the district's construction commitments under the 1998 capital improvement plan, Rulffes said.

Virginia Valentine, assistant county manager for Clark County and chairwoman of the Bond Oversight Committee, said the district has done "a very good job" with its capital improvement plan. Valentine, who has served on the committee since 1996, said there has been continual improvement in the district's management processes.

"They've got it down to where it's highly visible and the accountability is much more direct," Valentine said.

Some of the problems plaguing the district are issues for other public agencies as well, including rising costs as a result of high prices for fuel, steel and construction labor, Valentine said.

"They've done a good job managing the bond funds under some dynamic and challenging circumstances," Valentine said.

There may have been some expectation among voters that the district would eventually have the majority of its elementary schools on nine-month calendars, but that isn't what was outlined in the 1998 bond measure, Valentine said.

"People would like nine-month schools, but it's more expensive and we expect the district to be cost-conscious," Valentine said. "That may mean making operational decisions that are less popular, but sometimes that's the trade-off we all have to live with."

Valentine said she believed the district should wait until the 2008 ballot to ask voters to approve additional construction funds.

"In my experience, watching similar efforts for flood control, transportation and public safety, when you can make the case to taxpayers and you have credibility, they will support what you are asking for," Valentine said.

"It will be incumbent upon the School District to show they've done a good job with the money they've already been given and to demonstrate the need for more schools."