After several years of very limited school construction, some Utah districts now find the piper must be paid.
Growth has caught up with some of the districts that have used housing alternatives such as year-round elementary calendars and relocatable units to the limit. Now they must either build new schools or take more drastic measures that tend to be unpopular with just about everyone, such as split sessions and year-round at the secondary schools.For several years, Utah's Legislature discouraged school construction by imposing a 70 percent occupancy requirement and mandating alternatives that expanded the use of existing schools. Some legislators claimed the effort saved about $100 million in building costs.
But it is obvious now that the limits have been reached in some districts and a school building boom of sorts is under way.
According to the State Office of Education, from May 1992 through May 1993, 10 Utah school districts asked voter approval of bonds totalling $325 million. That figure includes a $50 million bond election not yet voted on in Davis District. Add to that some $150 million in annual capital outlay needs to maintain current buildings and "you've got a great big problem," said Larry Newton of the State Office of Education's finance division. The 1992-93 school bonding is more than three times the amount of construction expenditure by all other state agencies combined, he said.
Districts such as Davis and Jordan simply have run out of acceptable options for housing the students who are flooding their schools. Growth rates have not dipped as predicted, they have outstripped expectations.
For the second time in three years, Davis District is asking voters to support a bond issue to finance new schools. Voting will take place Tuesday, May 18.
The district proposes a $50 million bond commitment, plus a two-mill voted leeway levy that would provide more money for textbooks, supplies, technology, staffing and teacher salaries.
The need is real. In the past five years, 6,400 students have been added to Davis rolls. In that period, the district built just one new school. Another 5,400 students are anticipated in the next five years - 17 percent of the total school growth predicted for the entire state - creating a need for 315 new classrooms.
Davis taxpayers already are paying one of the highest school tax rates in the state and the district is approaching its limit on bonded indebtedness. Nevertheless, voters should support the issues on the ballot Tuesday in the interest of what's best for children. The district has reached a point that the quality of education could be jeopardized by cramming more children into existing schools.
The money, if approved by voters, would build a new junior high school, two elementary schools and large additions to four high schools and four junior high schools. Air conditioning and other expenses for converting 12 more elementary schools to year-round calendars also would be financed out of the bonds, as well as the purchase of 75 more relocatable classrooms, bringing the district total to 225.
The cost of the bonds to the owner of a $75,000 home would be $40 per year.
Jordan faces much the same situation. Voters there supported a $115 million bond issue last year, and the likelihood is great that they will be approached again in the coming year for more capital money.
While the taxpayers whose children benefit from local bond issues are obligated to do what they can to provide adequate educational housing for their children, ultimately the problem in Utah may outstrip the ability of high-growth districts to handle on their own.
They are looking forward to some relief from SB1, the controversial bill that was passed in a special session of the Legislature, to supplement the local effort. Both Davis and Jordan will be significant beneficiaries of the capital outlay bill - if Gov. Mike Leavitt succeeds in finding the money he believes he can by eliminating various sales tax exemptions. School officials are a bit leery of the success of the governor's proposal.
If the money envisioned by SB1 proponents doesn't materialize, the state may have to find other alternatives to help the districts in which growth is outstripping their capacity to cope financially.
Given the unequal ability of school districts to raise school construction money, state support may be necessary to provide the buildings necessary to the state's educational mis-sion.