We Could Learn a lot from Oregon Trail

• 
  
  

We realize we've gotten quite a lot of hits on our blog about the proposed bike path between Beaverton and Gladwin. Many people are trying to learn about the issue. Some people realize why we have a concern, and they share that concern. Others realize the concern, but feel we're helpless. And still others rail against opposition to the trail.

That small minority of people not only feel that the trail is the best thing that could ever happen to them in Gladwin County (which we find selfish; but then again, we don't believe that the rights of the individual should ever be up for measure against the rights of "the greater good."), and don't care what the cost may be to build or maintain such a monstrosity. It just would be nice to walk and bike a trail.

In fact, one member of this small minority took the opportunity to reach out to a state and federal non-governmental organization - the Rails to Trails Conservancy - in an attempt to find out "real facts" about the proposed trail that may connect Beaverton and Gladwin.

This person made sure to circulate the following message from the Rails to Trails Conservancy, commenting that a call had even been made from the Washington office, although no one was home to take the call at the time.

From the Rails to Trails Conservancy:

• "...don't worry, the state of Michigan would work to ensure that any proposed path is done correctly. Feel free to keep me posted on the matter. I would be happy to provide any materials about the benefits of trails."

No one can argue the benefits of having trails. They sure are nice on the state land, and in our national parks and forests. Shoot, trails are even nice on our private property - when they are our own, and off limits to the public.

But we overwhelmingly disagree with the premise that people should give up a portion of their own, private property for a trail or an easement - and if you think that's not what could happen in this case, you're fooling yourself.

The email from the Rails to Trails Conservancy is great, but here's the thing - there are not enough rails to trail a path from Beaverton to Gladwin, folks.

michiganrailroads.com

Face it: Private property MUST be acquired to create a connecting route, which is what the ultimate goal is. It's not just the ultimate goal here locally - it is the ultimate goal to have connecting routes of bike and walking trails all across this country.

Gosh, sounds inviting, but think of the individual - think of the folks who may be affected. If it was you, you would not want it to be so. In fact, our small minority tattler has a predisposition for fighting for their own personal property rights with one inhaled breath, and calling for a trampling of others' rights in the subsequent exhale....

We find that to be not only inconsistent and unsettling, but egregiously selfish. And again, we are not saying that we are anti-bikes, or anti-paths, or anti-healthy... We are saying, we are pro-property rights, pro-individual rights, and pro-fiscal responsibility.

In fact, with us - that fiscal responsibility is part of our moral compass. We have people here in this county that are losing their jobs, their homes, that are on fixed incomes; our municipalities are scrapping with the state for money, and the state is scrapping with the Feds for money.... And we want to build a bike path that will require costly maintenance into perpetuity?!

We should all be offended. We should be offended by this disgusting waste of taxpayer money, and by the flippant money toss at a target as frivolous as a PATH when cities, schools, and even our own county are taking extreme pains to be responsible, making extraordinarily tough choices that result in impact to both services, and the lives of folks who are on the chopping block.

Maybe in brighter days a path will be an exciting endeavor, but not right now.

Another point to be made is that this particular project to which we refer is NOT a Rails to Trails project. It comes from Federal Wellness and Prevention funds, which are made available through the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare); handed down to the Center for Disease Control; and disbursed to local health authorities (in our case, Central Michigan District Health Department, which received $1.6 million) for distribution to "partner agencies."

(P.S. $1.6 million would just about fund our county for an entire year. Just sayin'.)

Already, some townships and cities have received $17,000 to conduct studies on the proposed trail project. Future costs include surveying, land use studies, and property assessments.

Our Rails to Trails friend above also said that "the state of Michigan would work to ensure that any proposed path is done correctly...." Funny that. Notice the use of the word "correctly." Not "appropriately" or "right" - "correctly". You do the semantic math.

Let's face it: Money talks. If it didn't, we wouldn't be so torn about sending $1.6 million back to Mt. Pleasant in the bloody satchel it arrived in. But as we've been advised - when you turn down one grant, you might not get the next.....

Does anyone know what much of the "Wellness and Prevention" grant money that has been received has been spent on? Billboards, radio and TV ads. Please. Please show us all the people that our tax dollars helped make healthier.

For an example, we pulled some of the agency's more recent work for your viewing pleasure. Since they are paid for by us, we thought you'd like to evaluate their effectiveness...their "bang for the buck," if you will. Enjoy:

Click here to be that lucky *25th* viewer!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAgg8KiZesQ

Your click makes the total views *31*! Sweet!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT-kCkLaAf4

Then of course, there there's our personal favorite - an oldie but a goodie from the Michigan Department of Community Health: 

Happy Pap Day!

Click here if you can't miss this treat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IamRaSXXzfc

If you're like many of us, you played Oregon Trail on a Commodore 64 or an old Apple. Graphics have gotten better, but the game is still pretty much the same - and we can learn some pretty good lessons from Oregon Trail.

(Seriously. If you get time, you need to check out this blog post by Jacob St. Martin of Big Fish Games. It should be required reading:)

http://www.bigfishgames.com/blog/what-can-the-oregon-trail-teach-us-about-personal-finance/

So what can Oregon Trail teach us? 

Let's start here:

Think about it this way: $1.6 million spent on a Bike Trail this year has the potential to snowball into millions more spent on it upkeep....FOREVER. 

In fact, is it not completely ridiculous that we are allotting an insane amount of money on keeping people "healthy" by buying ads and indebting ourselves to maintaining a trail into perpetuity? Doesn't that seem wasteful? Sort of like this:

Think of it another way: The federal government is spending $1.6 million developing a health plan for wellness and prevention which might initially cost us very little in matching funds (say....20 bullets), but will result in an overkill...much, much more than you needed....and it might very well be wasted, because there are not enough "party members" to help carry the load. And if the government continues to "hunt" this area, with its predatory gifting of federal dollars, the area will indeed become scarcer and scarcer, as fewer people can afford to pay for those "overkill gifts."

From what we see, it's an insidious system...giving points to agencies like health departments in the form of health rankings, which qualify them for more money to use just as they are using this money. 

Think of the times they have come at us with crisis situations: "Flu kills." "Your children are fat." "Swine flu has doubled...."

(I am not saying dysentery wasn't a thing in 1848, I just like the graphic....)

But if you're putting a disproportionate amount of resources into fighting one thing - like an outbreak of dysentery - don't be surprised if a lack of attention to other matters results in a catastrophe!

As some public officials continue to point out, "Your children are fat." So do we accept a one-time gift, and in doing so promise to allot future resources, and maybe even land, to the prospect of a bike path that likely will NOT result in one child losing a single ounce, or do we tell the Feds to go away so we can focus on not tipping the wagon and losing our kegs, food and two valuable party members....(who may or may not be compared to....say....deputies....)?

Because here's how Oregon Trail ends: (remember this?)

Points? Really? But Nicole had dysentery... We left almost 2000 pounds of good protein to the wolves, coyotes and vultures.... We lost Arthur and Mike, for the love of Pete!!!! And I get.... points?! What the heck does that get me?

Well, probably might get you another grant for another path....or some more billboards....or another celebratory Pap Day Cake.... or a study... or a street sign... or someone to tell you how to feed your kids....

You know what we say? Tell them to stick that money. This trail notion's gone far enough:

Cut the trip short.... Independence looks mighty nice.

cc

"Why Do You Hate Bikes?" (OR: The (non)Sustainable Trail of Tears)

Let me start this out by saying that biking and walking are terrific, healthy activities. The phenomenal part about them is that you can do them virtually anywhere! But does it really have to be on a bike path designed to run from Gladwin to Beaverton?

Over time, we've heard people ask, "Why do you hate bikes? Why do you hate healthy? Why do you hate paths? Why do you hate safety?"

Well, I suppose it's time to address those questions.

When we say "Sustainable Trail of Tears (STOT)," we are referring to the plans floating around about a bike path that will extend from Gladwin to Beaverton for people who would like to walk or bike between the two cities. It will be paid for initially with a portion of a 1.7 million dollar grant that the Central Michigan District Health Department received called a "Community Transformation Grant", administered through the Center for Disease Control. The goal of the grant is to get people to eat more vegetables and fruits, stop smoking, and be more physically active.

They have allegedly created vegetable gardens at some elementary schools, and paid for advertising and billboards throughout the area (because THAT makes people healthier for sure).

Could a bike trail help people get healthier? Sure....if they use it. But it may not be healthy for our fiscal future; and it might not be a happy thing for the people whose property will be part of the acquisition for the trail and easements.....

We've not heard of a definite "path" that the STOT would follow, but if it goes along with the current flow of path traffic, it may follow - as we've heard it might - the Cedar River.

OK, so initially the CMDHD grant might fund the building of the path... But who will pay to maintain it? Who will pay someone to come out and move fallen limbs?

And while we're at it - will it end up being somewhere where criminals like to go hide out in the cut? And if so, will we need extra police presence? And if we don't - because there aren't enough - will we have to put surveillance cameras out? How about lighting?

And can we sustain that long term? Who will be responsible? The county and cities? The Health Department? The State? A Regional Entity? And when they can't afford it anymore, will it simply be leased to an entity who wants to care for it?

And about the land taking - how much exactly would be needed for a trail and an easement? According to sample agreements, the average appears to be around 66 feet. And who would that affect? Well, we went to the GIS Map Viewer and took some screen shots of property along the Cedar River to show that REAL PEOPLE may be affected by this project.

<kinda takes on a different feel when you can put names and faces on it, huh?>

First off, here's a look at the Cedar River from Gladwin to Beaverton.

Now, here's a closer look:

There are some plots that belong to the state.

But then....If the trail follows the river, there are some plots that might coincide with the trail (depending on what side of the river will be followed)  that belong to private owners. These are the ones that may be asked to sacrifice a portion of their own property for "the greater good." We're not saying they are for sure; we're just saying, consider the possibility. Because someone WILL be asked to sacrifice property. In fact, many might be asked.

Like we said - kinda puts a different slant on it, when you can imagine someone asking you to give up some of your property for a bike path, doesn't it?

When asked about the Bike Path by Kelly Miller, Commissioner Don Birgel said, "It's a grant! What do you want us to do, tell them to take the $1.7 million back down to Mt. Pleasant?"

 Why, yes.... Yes, Don, that's EXACTLY what we want you to tell them.

T'was the Night Before Budget Cuts

In case you didn't know, tomorrow (Thursday, December 12) the Gladwin County Board of Commissioners will meet at 9 a.m. in the Commissioners Chambers on the third floor of the Gladwin County Courthouse to adopt a balanced budget - which they must do by law.

In case you're not sure what's up for elimination and/or reduction, this article from our friends at The Gladwin County Record and Beaverton Clarion sums it up:

On the chopping block: 

County puts cuts on the table on the way to adopting budget

GLADWIN COUNTY – The Gladwin County Board of Commissioners presented a list of proposed cuts Tuesday, Dec. 10, some of which prompted discussion from department heads and other employees at both the regular board meeting and the Budget Workshop that followed that meeting.
Among the proposed cuts are Michigan State University Extension. Under their Memorandum of Agreement with MSUE, the county has a 120-Day out clause, which they discussed using today.
If they opted out, services would be funded through around the end of March.
“We’re not going to shut the phones off and evict [MSUE],” said Board Chair Josh Reid.
Beaverton Area Business Association President Rev. Karen Blatt attended the meeting and urged the county not to drop MSUE, noting her experience with the agency’s involvement with Beaverton and Gladwin Leadership program.
MSUE District Coordinator Shari Spoelman was also on hand.
“I would hope that we are able to work through this hiccup,” she said, describing the services offered in Gladwin County, from 4-H to Project Fresh and other programs.
She added that if the board goes with their out clause, they will not be able to enroll youth in the 4-H program beginning in 2015.
“I would like to urge the board not to sever that tie,” Spoelman said.
Reid said that the board had asked to break apart that Memo of Agreement and fund specific parts of the agreement, however Spoelman said that’s not an option given the way the state funds the program.
Commissioner Vice Chair Terry Walters expressed his disappointment in the Finance Committee’s decision to consider the opt-out.
“I would like to look at cutting something else,” he said.
In the end however, the board voted during their regular meeting to draw up a letter stating that they were considering using their 120 day out clause.
In addition to MSUE, the board is proposing cuts to the Sheriff Department and Jail, including the elimination of a lieutenant position and a sergeant position, which would eliminate two deputies.
Sheriff Mike Shea indicated that that language was misleading.
“[The Board says] elimination of a lieutenant. I have *a* lieutenant,” he explained, stressing that there is only one lieutenant at the department. “That’s all I have.”
He added, “If we’re getting rid of two deputies, just tell me… I’m a big boy. I can handle it.”
The Sheriff also indicated his dismay at the proposed reduction in hours of the Jail Administrator and other administrative positions, adding that corrections staff are responsible for transporting inmates and taking care of them.
“They’re not nice people,” he stressed.
He also added that the cuts could have an impact on revenue.
In addition to those reductions, the board plans to eliminate Marine Patrol and cap Inmate Nursing at 40 hours per week, and is asking that court security hours be reduced at the discretion of the Sheriff.
Board Chair Josh Reid noted that the community had spoken when they turned down the Public Safety Millage.
“It is a shame that the Public Safety Millage did not pass,” he said.
Sheriff Mike Shea said that’s not the idea he got from the public.
“They never said, ‘We want less police,’” he said, speaking of the public’s response to the county’s proposal for a public safety millage. “It’s not about police. It’s not about public safety. It’s about county finances in general. It’s not about cops.”
Circuit Court Judge Thomas Evans also weighed in on proposed cuts to the courts, which include the reduction of a full-time clerk to part-time in Probate Court, District Court, and Friend of the Court; as well as the elimination of the Research Attorney.
He indicated that the Research Attorney is mandated by law, and that the two Circuit Court Judges have been making do with one, when they should have had two. He also added that the position offers the county a high level of “bang for their buck.” The position is 50 percent funded by Clare County, and is staffed typically by young people who are bright and willing to work for a pittance in order to gain experience.
He also added that the position in Friend of the Court is 80 to 85 percent funded by the state.
Board Chair Josh Reid expressed his frustration that during budget talks, the board was reportedly told by the courts to “use last year’s numbers.”
“There have to be cuts,” he said, adding that he was willing to sit down with the judge - or any other department head - and discuss the proposed reductions.
“We hit those target numbers like we said we would. It can be done,” Reid said, adding that even so, he is open to suggestions. “We’d welcome input from department heads before making those cuts.”
Judge Evans finished by saying that he is concerned that the board is headed into a “Failure Spiral” by cutting service levels and making reductions that could negatively impact revenue.
“I don’t disagree with you. I really don’t disagree with you, but I don’t know what our options are,” Reid said.
“There are no payless paydays,” Whittington said, adding later that the courthouse is down to four days per week of being open.
“Do we go down to three?” he asked.
Commissioner Terry Walters echoed the frustration of the rest of the board.
“The County isn’t going to give us an operational millage – we saw that with public safety,” he added.
Reid asserted his belief that there is no right answer, or as Commissioner Birgel put it – “no silver bullet.”
“None of it is perfect,” Reid commented. “Absolutely none of it is perfect.”
Additional cuts being considered include a cut by attrition at the County Clerk’s office by not filling a position after a retirement; the reduction in hours of a part-time position in the Treasurer’s Office; the elimination of Janitorial Services to be replaced with contractual services; the reduction of the full-time clerk to part-time at Animal Control; the reduction of all part-time employees to no more than 29 hours per week; as well as the reduction of some appropriations – from $25,000 to $12,500 to the Airport; and from $15,000 to $7,500 for the Economic Development Corporation.
The proposed cuts come as the Board of Commissioners have to adopt a balanced budget for 2014. In order to do so, they assert that they must cut around $500,000 from the budget. That will give them approximately $400,000 worth of cuts, and they are hoping to realize around $100,000 more from contract negotiations.
The County will vote to adopt their 2014 Budget on Dec. 12 at 9 a.m. in the Gladwin County Commissioners Chambers on the Third Floor of the Gladwin County Courthouse.

Along with the story, the Record and Clarion videotaped the regular Board meeting and the budget workshop Tuesday, so if you have some time, you may watch them! Here are the links:

Board meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAOOXwLquhs

Budget Workshop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNyWRkrrjxU

 

 

We realize that many of you will come out to express your displeasure at the cuts to MSUE, which effectively create the perception that there will no longer be 4-H in Gladwin County.

 

But here's the deal, folks: Why does the 4-H program have to be run by MSU Extension? Are there not leaders? Are there not parents who can pay dues? The state refuses to disassemble their Memorandum of Agreement with the Board of Commissioners in order to allow us to pay for what we can afford, so why would we entertain placating them with additional monies?

 

Here's another thought. Said it before, but will say it again: Drop the frivolous lawsuit against Denise Miller. It's racking up costs every day. We can't afford those either, and I am offended that we keep paying because the commissioners won't drop it.

 

And lastly, return Zoning to the Townships. That'll help avoid future legal costs.

 

See you tomorrow!

Beaverton Bond Proposal: Watch the Video, Read the Blog, Attend a Meeting

Note: The next meeting of the Beaverton Rural Schools Board of Education is Monday, Dec. 9 at 7 p.m. in the Beaverton High School Media Center. Educate yourself, and show up!

"There is a misunderstanding of what is happening. A bond issue is borrowing. The school district sells the bonds, receives the money up front and agrees to pay the money back over time with interest. The bond issue that is expiring made the payments on the loan we took out to build the high school. The high school is paid for. This bond issue is going to be used to fund operations and maintenance. The school district is going to get that money up front and is going... to have to pay the interest on it over the term of the bond- 15 years or 30 or whatever. All the buses aren’t going to be purchased at once. In the last bond scheme 16 bus purchases where spread over 11 years but the interest on the last bus purchased started accruing as soon as the bonds were sold. That put the interest cost for that last bus over $48,000 before a kid ever sat in it. This is like a family that doesn’t have enough cash to go to McDonalds but decides to go to the steakhouse because they can use the credit card. After all it’s for the kids. Right? Wrong. It’s shortsighted and is going to lead to bigger trouble down the road. If the population and along with it the school enrollment continues to drop property values will decline. Revenue to the school will continue to fall and in the end the school won’t be able to make the bond payments. A sinking fund is used to pay for major repairs. It is of short duration and will not have the interest costs or management costs associated with a bond issue. Sinking fund money can be used to repair the roofs and repave the parking lots instead of using money from the general fund. This will give the board a little breathing room to get the operating costs in line with the student population."

~ Bill Lang

There was a public presentation Dec. 6 of the school finance status and why a bond extension may be the only way our school system may survive the increased mandated costs, declining enrollment, and debilitated infrastructure we have currently.  

To watch the video, click here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tSFDo5J89g

There were 45 bodies in the BRS media center that heard the presentation given by our superintendent Susan Wooden that followed the B1 committee slide show. They obviously put considerable effort into the project, but as always - closer examination is crucial.

Sometimes crisis situations bring opportunity. And if we're gonna borrow our way out of danger, we might as well get some comfort out of it in the process.

Thus Exibit A:

There is a citizen committee (comprised of more than 45 people, we are told) that are meeting to try and come up with a plan that the voters might accept. The purpose of the survey above is to get community feedback and to build the model from those surveys that will end up being the bond extension request we will see on May 6. The results of the surveys received and the input from the B1 committee determine the "SCOPE" that is turned into the State.

The idea is to solicit the services of a well known construction management firm with expertise in navigating the school bond / construction scenario. The budget numbers from the survey may be inflated we are told, but any portion that comes in under budget will allow the remaining proceeds to be moved to a different project or enhancement so the SCOPE in a sense is not concrete. The term used in 2010 was "GREEN CONCRETE".

The construction management company makes its money from a percentage of total project cost. We know from the last bond extension request in 2010, that the Construction management fee may not be revealed until after the ballot initiative is passed. It is confusing why our school leadership would sign on to an open-ended agreement with a construction management firm until after the school bonds are sold, but the concept was not questioned last time.

Enter Exhibit B:

We can only assume since the entire sum of of bond sale money will be utilized, the actual fee of the construction management firm is not necessary. Quite possibly the mindset is, "They'll tell us when we are out of money." Hard to say, but we have been told that the management fee runs between 5-7 percent. There has been a request that that fee be addressed before a commitment.

The sales pitch once again is on financial necessity. The B1 did a good job of creating a power point presentation explaining the dire position of the school district, how we got there, and the repercussions of missing what they term a "once in a life time opportunity."

For some of us, that is a correct assessment. The proposed language right now is a 30-year extension. many on the B1 may not be with us when the bond sale is satisfied in the year 2044.

The committee is focusing on not increasing the rate at which citizens in the district are taxed.

The millage requested will be 1.35 on a district valuation of 335 million dollars. But to get the 9 million desired, the term is estimated at 30 years.

The discussions on immediate infrastructure deficiencies have been circulating for years, and it should be fairly safe to say that a community investment of this magnitude - which includes our school buildings and grounds - needs to be maintained. Keep in mind that the school funding levels are supposed to cover the cost to operate all functions of our school district, all appurtenances and aspects. None the less, we don't have the money in our fund equity to pay for major repairs like roofs and asphalt repairs. How ever that system failed, we are here today and it needs addressed.

There are disagreements on how the major issues should be addressed, but few disagreements that the issues NEED addressed, the most notable would be the the terms in years and interest accrued.

The problem with a long term obligation being proposed is evident with the following slide from the presentation.

Exhibit C:

If we look at the graph, in 2010-11 _ if you divide the red expense column by the number of students, you get a cost per student of $8507.00. Then if you go to 2014-15, where it is projected we will be a deficit district, the cost per student jumps to $9210.00. If the cost per student was maintained from 2010, this graph would look much different. We'd actually have a small surplus.

I would say the increased costs are likely tied to labor, and Compton admitted that the state-mandated pension contribution has risen considerably. A 30-year bond extension will have little affect on the health of the school if the cost per student continues to climb and the student population continues to fall.

It is understood that a financial infusion should buy time to allow the school district to make the cost per student match revenue, but we really do need to hear how they propose to do that or the bond extension is a non issue.

We as a community will end up with more public debt, an unsustainable school budget, some nice new short term amenities...but still on the road to insolvency.

When the City of Detroit found their public obligation outward curve model of sustained growth starting to bend inward and contracting. Their leaders chose to borrow, to sell bonds to maintain the status quo, or at least to prolong what ended up being the inevitable - Detroit was beyond bailing out.

Our economic system, love it or hate it, is built on growth - population growth, job growth, and increasing value of property. When economies contract, it is devastating to a fixed government model with bureacratic mandates. Ask our county government how the minefield of attrition is plotted. It is very frustrating.

But every generation has to rely on the adults in the room to protect the kids.

Sometimes I wonder if we deliberately ignore that our good intentions tend to hurt the next generation we purport to love.

Example:

Today we go to the community with a proposal that "does not raise taxes" and has "no additional cost to tax payers...."

Enter Exhibit D:

We have the luxury of going to the public with this language. But consider the following implications.....

How many items on the survey have a 30 year life expectancy?

Buses, computers, security equipment, asphalt, roofs.....

Kids in tenth grade today, if they decide to reside in Beaverton, will be on the hook until they are in their mid 40s. And all the buses, computers, security equipment, asphalt, and even roofs will need replaced again.....

Will the future school leadership be able to come to those future folks and say that we have a once in a lifetime opportunity that does not raise your taxes or cost your community any more money? It is a concept that is repetitive in local, state, and federal governments. We escape discomfort by passing it to future generations.

We should be aware of this problem by now. And if regular thinking folks don't look into their babies eyes and look down the road instead of in front of their feet, the bubble will burst again.

We had a housing bubble of easy credit blow up - and it was devastating. We have an impending education bubble of easy money. With job prospects few for our youth, there will be many defaults. With the local governments selling bonds to stave off disaster, we are looking at problems ahead like our warning beacon: DETROIT, MICHIGAN.

We don't have to use the old play book and follow the Pied Piper out of town. We have the power of history, and the world's biggest library piped into most homes. WE CAN research these issues.

Our immediate needs can be addressed through a sinking fund approved by the voters. A sinking fund - as we stated before - will save a tremendous amount of interest.

Our most recent district valuation is approximately 335 million dollars.

Enter Exhibit E from our Equalization Department:

Think about our immediate needs to push the district back onto the tracks - 1 mil would generate 335K dollars. 2.8 would net over 900K per year. INTEREST FREE. And it wouldn't cost our kids one cent. With no prevailing wage requirements.

Now other things to consider with the bond extension: When we sell bonds the state has prevailing wage mandates. Those mandated labor costs do not match our small community demographics. And really isn't fair when you consider the projects that are being requested be completed out of necessity and emergency. The repairs need to be done as economically as practical.

Exhibit F:

Nobody would begrudge a decent wage, but state mandates in a crisis situation don't set will with tax payers.

Now considering crisis - that is the basis of this request again. Just like it was in 2010. Also, the time frame for decision is compressed again. We have to formulate a plan and submit it by the end of December.

Let me tell you, snap decisions around the Christmas season cannot end well!

There was mention of an extension of time and we fully encourage the B1 and our board to take heed.

At the time of this writing, everything is on the table. We are told that the survey helps the B1 determine what the public could tolerate as far as a ballot request. IT IS GREATLY ENCOURAGED THAT EVERYONE TURN IN A SURVEY to:

Susan Wooden

Beaverton Rural School Superintendent

swooden@beavetonruralschools.com

http://www.brs.cgresd.net/

The survey should have been put out much earlier. As well as been sent home with students, and put in the paper. This is a district-wide issue, and the hesitance by our school to get information out early is troubling.

I feel the crisis situtation is being used as leverage to accommodate unecessary expenditures. We must separate apples from oranges when we consider the very information that our acedemic leaders are offering us. If the projections are accurate that we will be losing 40 students per year, the goal is to decrease debt, not take on a generational burden.

There will be a ballot question given to the voters of the Beaverton Rural Scool District to see if they can justify extending the construction bond that requires 2.8 mills for principle and interest and is set to expire in 2015.

The language will be coming out shortly so this posting is a bit premature, as some facts and figures that are currently absent. Just keep in mind that the request is coming and it's not a bad time to review some not so distant history in regards to local school funding requests.

Bonds are a long term funding obligation. While the school gets all the money up front, the tax payers get the long term tax burden.

We should be reminded that tying maintenance items to long term financing may save short term general fund dollars, but it is not saving us anything, on the contrary, It is going to cost us more to maintain our investment in the school infrastructure.

Any long term funding obligations should be scrutinized. Currently, the tax base continues to erode, enrollment continues to decline, and local economic activity is not projected to see any measurable increase short of EDC manipulation that has never proved any long term positive effect.

Many Schools have turned to sinking funds as a way to locally fund infrastructure repairs.
while existing law limits the use of such funds to the purchase of real estate and the construction or repair of school buildings., the positive aspect is the local dollars go directly from us to the school. No borrowing, No interest, and written properly, no long term obligations.

"A sinking fund millage is a limited property tax, considered a pay-as-you-go method, for addressing building remodeling projects. State law allows a district to levy up to five mills, for no longer than 20 years. It is more like a bank account where you can access the money on-hand to pay for projects as they are completed. The district will not be paying interest for the money used. The State of Michigan has legal requirements, restrictions and guidelines for public school districts that plan to fund capital enhancements or facility repairs through sinking fund millage levies."

There is also legislation working through that I don't disagree with. Allowing voters in a district to approve sinking fund millages without limitation on what the funds are to be used for. I would just expect that each request that is approved, be utilized in a manner consistent with the original request.
http://votesmart.org/bill/8554/23157/38351/bill-huizenga-voted-yea-passage-hb-4141-expanding-the-use-of-school-sinking-funds#.UpK5ICfNIhI

While we wait for the campaign language to roll out, let's rewind back to 2010:

Beaverton Rural Schools were hot after a 15-year bond extension. Our primary school is currently being considered for dormancy. If the last bond would have passed, we would be three years into an obligation to pay for a new gymnasium, 4 new class rooms, a new parking lot, new security system, and a new secure entrance for a school building not occupied.....

Please step into the way back machine link below:
http://www.gladwinmi.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/article_5017edd9-3ea9-5eff-9db1-ad8e93d9f01d.html?mode=jqm

Education should always be the primary focus along with a community obligation to maintain our investment in local school district infrastructure.

There is an open invitation to join the B1 citizen committee and help formulate the plan going forward.

We will be following the Bond request closely and reporting as information is presented.

Beaverton Rural Schools Website: http://www.brs.cgresd.net/