Springville school bond up for debate

An evening debate pitted neighbors and friends against one another yet again as Springville residents divided over a school bond proposition that will appear for a second time this year on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The multimillion dollar bond proposal would fund an expansion of the single-school district that would include a multipurpose building and nine additional classrooms.

According to Springville Chamber of Commerce president Rick Mitchell, the idea for the community gathering came about at a chamber meeting during which multiple members expressed a desire to understand more fully the issue at hand.

Springville Veteran’s Memorial Building, where the event was held, filled nearly to capacity as three proponents and two opponents presented their respective sides of the argument in a moderated discussion in front of an attentive audience, the majority of whom appeared to support the measure’s passage.

Local business owner Dennis Townsend and Springville board member Paul Tuttle presented the opening statements for their dissenting opinions on the issue, with Townsend emphasizing the tax increase with the potential passing of the proposition and Tuttle foreshadowing a possible decline in student performance without it.

Townsend expressed frustration that the bond, initially presented in May and rejected by 57.1 percent of voters, had returned to the ballot.

“People do not appreciate their elected officials turning a deaf ear to their clear direction and especially not when it involves running a one-issue election at the expense of those who just voted the issue down,” he said, referring to the school board.

According to Townsend, the proposition cost $4,800 to include on the November ballot.

Tuttle, in turn, pointed to $5.2 million in state funds available if, and only if, Springville voters approve the proposition and raise $6.7 million through property taxes.

“We can address these needs now when the state is willing to help, or wait until later and take on the cost ourselves,” Tuttle said.

Debate participant Rick McIntire, former school board president and an opponent of the bond, argued that erecting additional facilities on campus would have little effect on the quality of student performance.

“People teach children, not buildings,” he said.

McIntire repeatedly referred to an enrollment chart depicting the decline in enrollment at the school over the past nine years.

The school currently has 363 students enrolled, 66 of whom are transfers from other districts.

“We are scrambling to find people to fill those classrooms. We should not be doing that,” McIntire said.

McIntire referred to the transfers as potential beneficiaries of a tax increase to which they would not be subject.

“None of their parents will pay anything,” he said, referring to the 18 percent of students currently attending Springville Elementary from other districts.

However, his proposal to reduce the number of classrooms needed on campus by serving only district students was met by vocal disapproval from the majority contingent of supporters in the audience.

Attorney Robert Krase, representing the Yes on O side, depicted the students as victims of the community’s refusal to pay for new buildings through the proposed bond.

“Our own students are being punished because they don’t have these facilities,” he said.

Krase said students are currently under-served because they lack access to on-campus facilities such as an indoor eating area, assembly site and performance room.

Audience questions drove the discussion from how to maintain the proposed facilities, to alternative funding options, to the financial status of the state of California as a whole.

Townsend offered the potential of recouping past taxes paid to the state from the Springville area as a way of avoiding an increase in current property taxes.

“A lot of that money is supposed to come back as facilities funding,” Townsend said, adding that state officials believe the area is “too rich” to need revenue assistance.

“The case needs to be made back to Sacramento that we can’t afford to do that on our own. We need the tax money back that we’ve been paying,”  he said.

In response, Krase stated his belief in the unlikeliness of such an action resulting in positive results.

“Either you get by because you’re poor enough, or you need to have a bond. We’re in the category that we need to have a bond,” he said.

Closing statements from both sides of the debate went over their allotted four minutes each, though only the opposition position, expressed by McIntire, was recognized as such by the audience.

The proposition is one of only four school bonds presented during 2009 on local ballots statewide, one of which was Springville’s previous attempt to pass the bond in May.

A minimum of two-thirds of voters are needed for the bond to pass on Nov. 3.

-- Contact Sarah de Crescenzo at 784-5000, Ext. 1045, or sdecrescenzo@portervillerecorder.com.