1. In general, what one person may consider wasteful, another may find wise. The board works hard to ensure the best return on taxpayer's investments. the writer equates wasteful spending with the costs of urgent repair and renovation.
   
   
2. The town has been obliged to make major repairs about every twenty years since the school was built in 1950 or so, 1970, 1992, and now in 2011).
   

3. The roof has reached the end of its useful life. The facilities manager broke through on inspection; the shingles continue to blow off and expose underlayment; the roof leaks in a number of places, resulting in water damage to walls and requiring frequent patching. Roof failure during the school year would threaten students’ safety; emergency repairs would be costly, disruptive to the educational program, and could lead to temporary closure of the school.
   
   
4. The heating system is failing. It works intermittently and requires frequent, costly maintenance and repair. Students wear coats in some classrooms and are too hot in others. Ventilation is inconsistent in many classrooms and does not meet codes for adequate air exchange.
   
   
5. The heating system consists of 3 primary but separate systems and a number of unit ventilators. The system is uncoordinated and inefficient.
   
   
6. The integrity of the building envelope is compromised beyond reasonable levels. Many windows have rotting frames; same for siding.
   
   
7. The driveway in front of the school is often congested and unsafe. Drainage is poor and results in a frequently eroded surface that requires grading.
   
   
8. The temporary wing (“caboose”), manufactured in 2001 and purchased used used in 3004. will soon reach the end of its projected life and need to be replaced; in the meantime, repairs, especially more adequate insulation, require financing.

In one respect this is true, but the writer is only telling half the story, whether by design or by simple error.

1. Some additional expenses included in the mailing’s analysis of overspending are required by the state funding mechanisms and are intentionally not budgeted because they are not related to LCS programs. Other additional expenses, often unanticipated services for students but governed by state and federal rules or the result of operational emergencies, may also come with reimbursement or offsetting revenues.
   The figures cited in the mailing are correct. Unfortunately, the writer failed to report that these unexpected expenses are often covered by a compensating revenues from state agencies or elsewhere.
   
   
2. In three of the years the writer examined, the school actually ended the year with a surplus; in the other four, expenditures did indeed exceed revenues, or what we believe are understandable reasons. (Examples: $65,000 in a single year when far more staff than anticipated changed their health coverage from single to family plans.)
   
   
3. The total imbalance for the seven years in question is therefore $132,380, NOT anywhere near $1m. Most of that sum ($130,987) came in a single year.

For a detailed accounting click HERE.

1. How will the board hide expenditures in a budget that appears line by line in the town report?
   
   
2. Who are the "select few" who benefit from town services more than others? Does the writer mean parents and their children? We have long had a generational contract whereby adults of all ages help pay for children's education just as adults paid for theirs.

1. The town has had to finance major repairs every twenty years since the school was built in 1950, specifically in 1970, 1992, and again now. Systems reach the end of their useful lives.
   
   
2. The 1993 renovation was poorly done. We taxpayers bear some responsibility in this. We rejected proposals multiple times. In the end, the board was obliged to contract with the very lowest bidder who did poor work and then went bankrupt and disappeared.
   
   
3. The board has recently postponed repairs in anticipation of the bond. Why spend money on items that will be replaced anyway?
   
   
4. There is a perverse incentive to do things in large chunks. Ongoing repairs count against per pupil spending limits, whereas major improvements, especially those requiring architectural help do not. Sometimes it makes better economic sense to defer maintenance.
   
   
5. How we got here does not change the fact that major repairs are needed.
   
   
6. The bond will in the short to midterm significantly reduce the money required for repair.

the writer claims that the board chair's statement that failure to pass the bond could result in a spike in taxes is "an empty threat by a desperate School Board" and that the board "has hung this threat over our heads for years and all we have to show for the uncontrolled spending is a run-down building that has been neglected. We have homes in Lincoln that are over 100 years old and in better condition than the school.”

1. the writer confuses a threat with a statement of probability. With the bond, the predicted tax rate will stay about the same this year as last, despite an anticipated annual payment of between $135,000 and $141,000. If, say, we only repair the heating system next year (it is failing), the cost would be about $300,000. If this were a part of the regular budget, the increase in taxes would $.11 over the current estimated tax rate for next year. For a home valued at $250,000, that means an increase in taxes of $1,300 dollars. The following year we would need to replace the roof at an expense of about $175,000 while continuing to spend a fairly large amount to keep other outdated systems running. The year after that we’d need to spend perhaps another $300,000 on the building envelope.
   
   
2. Houses do last 100 years, but not without major investments from time to time. Public buildings take much more abuse than single-family homes. A 20-year renovation cycle is common and has been the case in Lincoln since the school was built.

1. The board has spent most of its time arranging funding that actually allows us to pay back less than we borrow and overall saves over $766,000 compared to a traditional bond. This attractive option is based on the federal dollars we have supposedly neglected to seek.
   
   The current interest rate of 1% over 16 years saves us $529,684 compared to a traditional bond at 3.92%. Furthermore, the mechanism for reimbursement requires the town to deposit our yearly payments into a sinking fund, from which a final lump sum payment will be made at the end of the bond period. The sinking fund will earn us a return as it grows during that same period. That rate of return will be greater than the 1% interest we would be paying. At current rates, the sinking fund will earn us about $237,000 extra over the life of the bond.
   Total: 3/4 million dollars in savings.
   
   
2. Thanks to the work of the SU treasurer, the school has already won grants for two boilers and lighting installations which have shaved over $41,459 off the cost of the original bond.
   
   
3. Members of the superintendent’s office are routinely notified of promising grant opportunities by the Vermont Superintendent’s Association. The SU received over $300,000 in grants last year.
   
   
4. Dave Venman has contacted both of our Vermont senators and our representative to Congress. Some small grant possibilities suggested by Senator Leahy’s office may apply to our project.
   
   
5. The principal has contacted GotGrants.us., a grant aggregator. Two representatives conducted a site visit . They were enthusiastic and highly creative in imagining our project from different angles -- especially the original, larger project that included adding educational space. From their comments, it is probably fair to say that funding for "bricks and mortar" is a challenge. The expectation is that communities maintain their own public schools. At present, they are investigating grant opportunities that would focus on funding the tech lab as being a community tech center--we would still supply the balance of funding through the bond..
   
   
6. Time horizons are long and success uncertain; the windows for spending monies proscribed. Even if the board were to win grants, funds might have to be disbursed in timeframes that do not match the needs of the project.
   
   
7. While the scale of this project is large for a small community, it is not a priority for many granting agencies.

1. Like grants, contributions are uncertain. Who will manage such a campaign? Who will manage collected funds? Who will administer their disbursement?
   
   
2. The repairs are needed now.
   
   
3. Will residents who are fearful of tax hikes be willing to make donations in an amount equal to what is needed?