ELECTIONS / BURBANK SCHOOL BOND : Sides Paint 2 Vastly Different Pictures of $100-Million Issue

Depending on who holds the brush, the $100-million bond facing voters is either the only hope for renovating and repairing Burbank’s deteriorating schools--or an inaccurate, wildly optimistic plan that could leech the pockets of already overtaxed residents.

On Tuesday, voters will decide which portrait they accept.

“The whole issue is, as a community do we want to take responsibility for rebuilding our school system?” said school board member Denise Wilcox. “Do the children of this community merit that kind of effort?

“Burbank as a community has always placed schools as an important part of the infrastructure of our city.”

If approved, the bond will be used to modernize, renovate and rebuild the district’s schools. Burbank High School would be completely rebuilt, Burroughs High School would be expanded and renovated, and all other schools would be renovated.

Bond supporters say the measure would mean slightly higher property taxes--an average of $33.63 a year, or “the cost of one fast-food meal per month.”

But opponents have accused bond promoters of misleading the public. “It is my opinion that the cost will be many more times what they’re telling us, and that’s what concerns me,” said Joel Schlossman, a Burbank resident who once ran unsuccessfully for City Council.

“They’re taking the easy way out and asking us to dig in our pockets and sign a blank check.”

During the last election for both the school board and City Council, Burbank’s aging and increasingly inadequate schools were a frequent topic of discussion.

“All one has to do is tour any school in the Burbank Unified School District” to realize the extent of the problems, said District Supt. Arthur Pierce.

“Basically we are talking about buildings which are 40 to 70 years old--most of which have never had major renovation.”

The schools bear deep scars of age: leaking roofs, falling tiles, poor lighting, sewage backup, brown water. Many classrooms have no air-conditioning and sometimes become so hot that computers shut down.

“One has to say if a computer is too hot to operate, what about a human being, a student or teacher who is in that classroom which is 90 degrees, 100 degrees or higher?” Pierce said.

If the schools are not expanded, the district may be forced to adopt a year-round session to deal with overcrowding, district officials say.

Last year, the school board determined that the renovations and rebuilding would cost $138 million and devised a plan in joint meetings with members of the board and the City Council. The plan calls for schools to receive $23 million from the City Redevelopment Agency, about $15 million from the state and the bulk of funds from the bond.

“The Burbank Board of Education has been able to structure a very unique financing package that will enable us to completely rehabilitate and modernize every school in our district,” Wilcox said.

Each property owner’s yearly cost would be based on the assessed value of the property as determined by the county tax assessor. In Burbank the median assessed value for houses is $101,000. The school board’s financial consultants, Stone & Youngberg, projected that the bond would cost the typical homeowner in Burbank about $33.63 per year.

Those who oppose the bond question both the board’s figures and the manner in which school officials have presented the bond to the public.

“This $33 is very deceptive,” Schlossman said.

Schlossman argued that the figure is significantly lower than one previously determined by another consulting firm and city staff. That firm, Praeger, McCarthy & Sealy, projected that a $100-million bond would cost the typical homeowner $112 per year, he said.

Also, the impact of interest rates on the yearly cost per homeowner has not been fully explained to the voters, he said.

“You have to keep in mind that the majority of these bonds will be issued in two years,” he said. “We cannot predict what interest rates are going to be. We know that since this stuff was printed interest rates have gone up.”

Schlossman concluded that the district arrived at the $33.63 figure by using best-case scenarios of projected assessed value and interest rates, both of which have been changing in ways that could make costs per property owner much higher, he says.

Pierce acknowledged that the first consultant and city staff projected that the average cost per homeowner would be higher than the district’s figure of $33.63.

“But they were different proposals for different purposes and have no relationship to one another,” Pierce said. Unlike the current plan, the first estimate was based on the idea of selling the bonds all at once, which explains the higher costs, he said.

Opponents also question the growth rate used by district consultants in calculating the projected cost of the bond per homeowner.

Even though “two previous experts--two from the city and Praeger--projected that assessed value would grow at a much lower rate,” the district’s consultant uses a rate of 8.75%, said resident Ted McConkey.

“It’s dishonest,” McConkey said.

The annual cost for each property owner “goes up if the growth rate is not as high as they say it is,” he said.

In its ballot statement about the bond, the Los Angeles County auditor/controller’s office projects a growth rate of 5%. That figure, however, is “a generic formula” for Los Angeles County that does not consider factors specific to Burbank, Wilcox said.

“We’ve had a 14% growth rate in Burbank over the last 25 years,” she said.

*

In addition, several long-term factors unique to Burbank--the increase in tax base that will result over the next few decades once the now vacant Lockheed property is developed, and the selling of pre-Proposition 13 homes, which significantly increase in assessed valuation when sold--justify the use of a growth rate of between 8% and 9%, Pierce argued.

“That’s a conservative estimate,” he said.

Tyler McCauley, assistant auditor controller said the county tries “to use what we consider the most reasonable figure.”

“Our figure is based on the past three years and then a general estimate of where we think generally growth will go. . . . Both parties, us and them, are trying to predict growth over the next 20 years.

“Admittedly it’s trying to guess the future. A lot of things change.”

In the past the need to improve the schools rarely surfaced as an issue of debate, but in the remaining few days before the election, some opponents question the district’s characterization of its campuses.

“They’re portraying this dismal picture of students not getting an education, students not having classrooms and students in classrooms that are falling down,” said Elizabeth Michael who opposes the bond. “I think that’s alarmist. I don’t think the situation is anywhere near that bad.”

The problems at the schools are “not so urgent that they could not wait until we are in a better economic position to handle a rise in taxes like this,” she said.

School officials say the picture is in fact dismal and will grow even more critical the longer the city waits. “They know that the need is unquestionable,” Wilcox said. “What they’re trying to do is create this aura of confusion among the voters.”

The outcome of the election may stem in part from residents’ view of the local economy.

“These are bad times,” McConkey said. “When people get anxious about the future, they are not likely to buy new cars and increase their taxes.”

But others say they expect the economic future to be much brighter and they want to ensure the same for Burbank students.

“Burbank has been through some of the worst of the recession already,” Wilcox said. “Burbank city officials believe we have no place to go but up. They’re very confident of that.”

Bond Facts

If the Burbank school bond passes, low-income elderly and disabled property owners will not be affected, city officials said.

Last month the Burbank City Council approved a subsidy plan that will reimburse low-income elderly and disabled property owners for the cost of the bond, which will be added to property tax bills. To be included in the subsidy plan, residents must be 62 or older, disabled, with a yearly household income of less than $16,900 or 19,300 for two people.

The plan, characterized by council members as a means of assisting low-income residents, has been criticized by some residents as “vote buying.”

Other features of the bond:

* Approximately 60% of the bond will be paid by commercial property and 40% residential, district officials said.

* The bond is supported by the Burbank Teachers Assn., Parent Teacher Assn., Burbank Chamber of Commerce and many other local groups.

* The bond is opposed by Taxpayers Against Corruption and Double Taxation, Dr. Michael Stavropoulos and other residents.

* The bond requires a two-thirds vote to pass.