Letter to the editor: a taxpayer’s view on the Manchester School Bond Proposal

September 30, 2023

Dear Editor,

I would like to give a fuller picture of the Manchester School Bond proposal on this November’s ballot. Many of you have seen fliers around town, received them in the mail, as well as perhaps attended the public forums describing and discussing the needs for upgrades in our aging schools. I recognize the amount of time and effort that has been put into the proposal. A year and a half project with multiple companies, organizations, and State of Michigan paperwork. Everyone knows about government paperwork. It is noted multiple times there will be “no new taxes” to the voting public. I would like to pose a few thoughts from the taxpayers’ point of view, since they are the school’s lenders.

First, the loan Manchester schools is asking for is a $64.8 million bond, 54% higher than the 2001 bond for $34.9 million to build a new high school. Please compare this to our neighbors to the south. Clinton schools had $34.6 million (53% less than Manchester’s current proposal) approved in 2021 for a 17-room, two-story addition, including staff and office space, a weight room, a science prep room, and a gymnasium with new concessions and locker rooms for the High School, eight rooms for the Elementary School, and two 1,000-square-foot classrooms and a 1,747-square-foot multi-purpose classroom additions to the Preschool building. They expect to have all projects completed by the beginning of the 2024–25 school year. More information can be found in this wonderful article, “Clinton Community Schools seeks major changes to buildings with proposed bond,” on www.lenconnect.com. Some will argue inflation has significantly raised the cost of materials; however, is the construction company Clinton Schools hired going to do the project for a loss? Inflation will put a squeeze on their budget. I am sure there will be some changes to the plans as funds and supply chain issues arise. The reality is, Manchester’s engineering and construction companies will have the same financial challenges and will change plans, as admitted in the first public forum when questioned about this. Manchester Schools is asking to borrow money and presenting their plans on how they will use the money. However, it is not a contract with the voters. Facts are they may not deliver all they promise due to increasing cost and supply change issues.

Ask our Dexter neighbors. They passed an $8.4 million bond to fund a new building for the Dexter Area Fire Department and the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Office. The new site outside of town would move the Public Safety building out of the congested downtown by the river. There was a sign advertising where the new home of the police and fire station would be, on the plot of land the city purchased on the southeastern corner of the intersection of Ann Arbor Street and Meadowview Court in 2019 with the purpose of constructing a new public safety facility at that location. Since passing the bond, the voters are now upset that the Police and Fire Department are building where the original station stands. I’m sure they had their reasons, however, it is confusing to the voters who were excited about and voted for a fresh new spacious start outside of town for their officers and fire personnel.

Second, Clinton Schools is making additions to accommodate the growing student population. Manchester’s student population has declined by 21% over the last six years. Here is a table of student enrollment data compiled from www.MiSchoolData.org. Also, of the local schools and schools in the Cascades Conference, Manchester shares the highest millage rate with Dexter schools at 8.5 mills. Dexter has a student enrollment 23% larger than Manchester. The millage rates were taken from “2022 Millage Rate Comparison Report for School Districts — Debt Millage” from www.Michigan.gov.

Manchester has also asked for four bond proposals and had them passed in 2000, 2001, 2009, and 2014. This will be the fifth ask from the taxpayers to support our schools. What are they doing with these continued loans when their student numbers consistently decline? According to the 2023 Bond Proposal Community Forum provided by the school, Clinton has asked for two bonds, in 1997 and 2021, and Tecumseh in 1998 and 2000. They sound conscientious about asking for taxpayers’ dollars.

Fun facts about Washtenaw County. We are taxed at the highest property tax rate of all 83 counties in the state of Michigan. Freedom Township, where I am from, has the third highest property taxes of the townships in Washtenaw County. While the school sells their plans with all the bells and whistles, they do not consider the extended burden this puts on the taxpayers. The school still owes $13 million from the 2001 bond proposal for the new High School. According to the information provided in the 2023 Bond Proposal Community Forum provided by the school, the 8.5 mill bond would decline to 3.18 mills in 2026 and continue to decline until the 2031 tax year when the 2001 30-year bond is finally paid off. It was well stated by a participant at the first public forum that while there is no tax increase, this is also a lack of a tax break. My taxes would drop by $1,286 in 2026. A home owner with a property value of $350,000 would enjoy a tax saving of $931 per year in 2026. If this bond passes, Manchester Schools will be in debt for another 30 years. We absolutely have to consider the large burden on our millennials who are struggling financially with high home/property values and mortgage rates and trying to raise a family in times of high inflation. The tax bill also passes on to the next generation entering the tax rolls. This is a large amount of debt to place on the younger taxpayers’ shoulders. For those of you who traditionally vote “yes” to support the schools, consider the legacy of debt if this bond passes.

Please take a minute to deeply consider these facts that are not on the Manchester School bond fliers and think about what you are voting for. I have attended the first two public forums and have learned a lot about the process. I acknowledge the need for improvements and updates to our aging buildings, track facilities, and computer network. I thank all the companies and individuals for their time to come to Manchester twice to answer questions. I also thank Dr. Bezeau, Shannon Cajic, Ben Bruursema, and staff who have spent countless hours on surveying the public, making calls, filling out paperwork, and answering questions. I am still left pondering, though. Should we vote this down and ask for a more fiscally responsible bond proposal? The school can put their revised, more reasonable bond proposal on the next ballot for a vote. This proposal is not all or nothing. Please research and consider the facts given here and make an informed, conscientious vote.

Respectfully,
Kara Hieber
Freedom Township Precinct Delegate

Views expressed in any Letter to the Editor are always exclusively those of the author. Do you have something you want Manchester to know? Send your Letter to the Editor to themanchestermirror@gmail.com. Note: Our letter to the editor policy is to not run letters to the editor on election topics in the edition immediately before the election. That means for this upcoming election, you must submit your election-related letter to the editor by October 21 to have it published before the election.

For as little as $1 a month, you can keep Manchester-focused news coverage alive.

by Sara Swanson

Sara Swanson is an editor, writer and founder of the Manchester Mirror.