School bond vote proposed

As part of his recommendations to the Eugene School Board to deal with an expected budget shortfall of between $22 million and $30 million, Superintendent George Russell is proposing that the school district place a $130 million facilities bond measure before voters in May.

Meanwhile, the city of Eugene is continuing to debate the merits of placing an income tax measure on the same ballot that would raise money for the school district.

Will voters go for both?

“How are we thinking about the public reaction to these two proposals?” Shirley Clark, a school district budget committee member, asked at a budget panel session Monday night.

In an interview earlier on Monday, Russell said he thinks “it would be a tough go to have both on the ballot at the same time. One, because I think it would be confusing to voters. But two, then do you put folks in a forced-choice kind of thing?”

The bond measure would provide money to replace 60-year-old Roosevelt Middle School and to expand McCornack Elementary to accommodate students from Twin Oaks Elementary, set to close at the end of the 2011-12 school year under Russell’s proposal. The bond measure also would provide cash for roofing, paving, plumbing, heating, electrical, safety, technology and other upgrades across the district.

A city tax, which also would benefit the Bethel School District, probably would be used to avoid laying off some teachers and restoring school days in the Eugene district, school board Chairman Craig Smith said at Monday’s budget meeting.

But the tax money would not be available until April 2012, which still leaves the district in a pinch for the 2011-12 school year and needing to tap into reserve funds to get by, Smith said.

One option is to hold off placing a bond measure before voters until November. But district staff members have said there are advantages to having a bond measure on the May ballot.

Those include being assured of $15 million in federally funded Qualified School Construction Bonds, which could save taxpayers $17 million over the life of those bonds; taking advantage of the fact that the district’s debt obligations are lower in 2011-12 than in 2012-13; and the fact that a bond measure approved in May would allow the district to shift about $1 million in annual building costs currently covered in the general fund.