No Deal Yet in Matea Vallet Land Dispute

[blankcheck]

My point here is that the SB has done the all or nothing things before. It would not be a surprise to me if the land costs and construction costs go way up, that they make the 2009 referendum another all or nothing situation for the taxpayers.

[Arch]

They were 2 separate votes in 2001. They were exclusive of each other and anyone could say YES to one and NO to the other. They did not tie education funds to hard goods (building funds).

web.archive.org/web/20010306112327/www.ipsd.org/results.htm

As such, I do not believe they will do what you are suggesting by putting them as a single YES or NO for everything (building and education funds) in 2009.

[blankcheck]

You are correct however if the education fund did not pass, they would not proceed with construction (even if that one passed) That is why the campaign was call "Vote Yes - Twice"

[Arch]

Blankcheck,

You're speculating about something that did not happen 6 years ago and there will be 8 years between that (which passed by voting twice) and 2009.

[sam2]

While all of this hair splitting makes for interesting reading, it seems that the obvious point is overlooked-- every dollar the school district spends is taxpayer money. They have no other source of meaningful cash, just tax dollars, property tax, state tax revenues, federal tax revenues, referenda, it all comes from taxpayers.

As a separate point, can we please stop confusing assessed values with tax revenues? In the extreme example, from one year to the next, property values could triple, but if the school district did not spend more money in the second year, rates would fall by 1/3 and taxes collected would be the same in each year. Spending is what drives property taxes, not property values. Property value is the mechanism for distributing the costs, that's all.

[proschool]

sam2 said:

While all of this hair splitting makes for interesting reading, it seems that the obvious point is overlooked-- every dollar the school district spends is taxpayer money. They have no other source of meaningful cash, just tax dollars, property tax, state tax revenues, federal tax revenues, referenda, it all comes from taxpayers.

As a separate point, can we please stop confusing assessed values with tax revenues? In the extreme example, from one year to the next, property values could triple, but if the school district did not spend more money in the second year, rates would fall by 1/3 and taxes collected would be the same in each year. Spending is what drives property taxes, not property values. Property value is the mechanism for distributing the costs, that's all.

Sams right. If the district needs $250 million dollars that that is what it will assess. If you own 1/1000th of 1% of the EAV in the district then you pay 1/1000th of 1% of $250 million.

[Arch]

sam2 said:

While all of this hair splitting makes for interesting reading, it seems that the obvious point is overlooked-- every dollar the school district spends is taxpayer money. They have no other source of meaningful cash, just tax dollars, property tax, state tax revenues, federal tax revenues, referenda, it all comes from taxpayers.

I don't believe there was any confusion over this basic point. There was disagreement about HOW it's asked for. I think everyone pretty much agreed of one HOW being lumping everything into one single YES/NO (much like congress does with huge Bills) as being a BAD thing. Obviously breaking every single yes/no into each being a separate vote is not really doable either. Grouping like with like is a fairly decent compromise.

[kae]

archwinsome said:

Blankcheck,

You're speculating about something that did not happen 6 years ago and there will be 8 years between that (which passed by voting twice) and 2009.

What is the speculation to which you are referring "that did not happen 6 years ago"? My neighbor served on the referenda committee that year and said that blankcheck's statements are correct.

You can look at the "all or nothing" statement for yourself because it is in the archive at (http://web.archive.org/web/20000915173849/www.ipsd.org/referend/relationship.htm).

I can quote it below and I'll even highlight the "all or nothing" parts.

It has been 11 years since the last Education Fund tax rate increase. Since 1989, the district’s enrollment has increased from 6900 students to 21,400 students. We have focused our attention on providing space and hiring teachers to maintain and improve a quality program.

We have opened 18 schools and numerous additions. We have added more than 1000 teachers. We are now operating with a significant deficit.

In 1992, the "Tax Cap" legislation took effect. It fulfilled its primary mission of providing relief to our taxpayers, but in doing so has restricted the district’s revenues.

The Board of Education has anticipated and planned for an Education Fund tax rate increase since 1994. Originally, this request was to have occurred in 1999. However, changes in General State Aid funding gave us two years of reprieve.

These two referenda are inseparable. We must have additional revenues to continue our program at the levels our residents expect. We must pay our staff competitive salaries to attract and retain them. We have fallen well behind our neighboring districts in this. We also must have additional space at the high school level for the students who are currently enrolled in our middle and elementary schools. We must have additional revenues to staff and operate these new buildings.

The Board of Education has stated that the operating tax rate referendum is of far more importance than the Building Fund referendum. To reinforce that position, the Board has pledged that unless the tax rate referendum passes, NO projects included in the Building Referendum will begin. We cannot state this position strongly enough.

It would seem like deja vu to link referenda with yet another all or nothing SB pledge in 2009. What a perfect time to ask for an increase in educational funding (new building, new costs, new teachers, eight year old salary levels, building fund shortage, unplanned increase in land cost).

[Arch]

Kae,

My point is the public had the ABILITY to vote SEPARATELY on the two things. HOW they voted given the choices is not what is at issue. The fact is they COULD HAVE voted differently on the 2 things. They chose to pass both.

[kae]

archwinsome,

My point is that blankcheck was NOT speculating and the events DID happen. Your statement of "You're speculating about something that did not happen 6 years ago" was not correct because it did happen.

The school board has a plan and just because they have to divide referenda because of legal requirements does not prevent them from "all or nothing" statements. Yes, the voters could treat them separately (that's obvious), but the school board didn't (or at least they threatened that they wouldn't treat them separately.) We'll never know what the SB would have done because both passed.

Here's another archive entry from the school board at that time and their statements concerning that point.

web.archive.org/web/20000915174019/www.ipsd.org/referend/conclusion.htm

Referendum Conclusion

These referenda are parts of a series of events that have been planned for several years.

Revenues have simply not kept up with that growth. The district knew the tax cap and our unprecedented growth would eventually bring us back to the voters for an operating tax rate increase. We have been able to defer that request as long as possible. Our growth will begin to subside soon, but the higher enrollments in the elementary and middle schools will be more than our high schools can handle without additional space. If no one else moved in, we still have the need for more space at the high schools.

The two referenda will be separate questions on the ballot, but the effect is not. We cannot operate new buildings, pay our staff a competitive salary, or hire more staff without the operating fund tax rate increase. Without new buildings or staff, our students will be affected. A quality school district impacts our students and our home values. We believe these two referenda are necessary to maintain the outstanding program we have.

[Arch]

Kae, let me spell out the speculation.

Blank said

"You are correct however if the education fund did not pass, they would not proceed with construction (even if that one passed) That is why the campaign was call "Vote Yes - Twice""

It did pass. He speculated that construction would not proceed if it did not.

It did pass. So, the speculation was on something that DID NOT HAPPEN in 2001, because the education fund was passed.. and Blank was speculating on if it did not pass. The non-passage IS WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

You can say his speculation was based on statements from the school board, but it still did not go down in the IF/THEN way because they both passed.

Does that clear up the semantics now?

This time around, guess what? Construction was passed. Now what is left is the education fund, as we were already told way ahead of time. So how is this like 2001 where they were 'tied together' ?

Are you suggesting that construction will wait until 2009 to see if the education fund passes too before starting construction of MVHS? If you are I must admit, you have me baffled.

If you are balking at the order of these (construction first, then education fund) would you balk at prematurely voting on the education fund in 2006 with the referendum for construction of a new HS? Perhaps having the education fund vote a few years earlier in say 2005 before the construction vote would have made it 'sit better'? Or, is the truth that no matter HOW these votes happen or in what order people would be upset and complain ?

I'm putting my peanuts on the last statement, but please Blankcheck and Kae, answer in which order and when you would have preferred the votes to happen.

[blankcheck]

arch-my point was that the sb has put both education & construction before the voters before. Even though we could have voted for only one, they tied the voters hands that without both passing, they would not move forward with the other.
As been my experience in working on past referendum campaigns, it is always easier to pass a construction referendum because people can actually see where their money is going (a new building). With education referendums, no one really sees it because it goes into teacher salaries etc.
My point on all of this is that because of past histroy (which is really all I can base my opinion on), it would not surprise me to see another "Vote yes" twice before the voters come 2009.
Again, this is just my opinion.

[Arch]

blankcheck said:

arch-my point was that the sb has put both education & construction before the voters before. Even though we could have voted for only one, they tied the voters hands that without both passing, they would not move forward with the other.
As been my experience in working on past referendum campaigns, it is always easier to pass a construction referendum because people can actually see where their money is going (a new building). With education referendums, no one really sees it because it goes into teacher salaries etc.
My point on all of this is that because of past histroy (which is really all I can base my opinion on), it would not surprise me to see another "Vote yes" twice before the voters come 2009.
Again, this is just my opinion.

Ok, so you'll not be surprised. You're certainly entitled to feel emotionally however you wish to about it.

You still did not answer if or how you would do it differently.

[doctorwho]

blankcheck said:

arch-my point was that the sb has put both education & construction before the voters before. Even though we could have voted for only one, they tied the voters hands that without both passing, they would not move forward with the other.
As been my experience in working on past referendum campaigns, it is always easier to pass a construction referendum because people can actually see where their money is going (a new building). With education referendums, no one really sees it because it goes into teacher salaries etc.
My point on all of this is that because of past histroy (which is really all I can base my opinion on), it would not surprise me to see another "Vote yes" twice before the voters come 2009.
Again, this is just my opinion.

why is this an issue when the SB has said there will be no additional referendum for building - this statement also helping move QT along with some pols ( hence no 2 votes, all or nothing etc.) ? Some here have said the SB would never come out and say that we would not have another, yet they do and that still is not good enough. Would you have preferred passing the operating fund referendum last year also ? While I understand your issue with this, what exactly do you want them to say or do to move forward ? It seems like nothing will be good enough to move forward.....

[Arch]

Doctorwho,

Maybe the zing of asking for Additional gym NVHS $1.0M in a total 109.5 million referendum was just way too painful.

I mean, .91% of the entire 2001 building referendum must have just sent ripples through the district; the pains of which are still fresh and sore on everyone's tax bill today. I wonder just how much that 1.0 M really added to everyone's tax bill. Maybe 1 cup of coffee, if even?