No Deal Yet in Matea Vallet Land Dispute

[Arch]

kae said:

Comparing (203 & 204):

The total expenditures are higher for IPSD on the Expenditure amounts page. Looking at the top smaller table on that page. it looks like several numbers are higher (Instruction, Support Services, Other Expenditures); However, the Expenditure rates show lower per Pupil spending. Tax rate per $100 is higher in IPSD while EAV per pupil is lower. On Expenditure %, it looks like we spend less on Education and more on Bond & Interest. Revenue amounts show that we pull a lot more taxes than 203 and a lot more State Aid and other State funding.

RE: B&I expenses. 203 is built. 204 is/was still building.
...at least that's my understanding.

We also have 9K more students than they do as of a couple years ago (comparing 2004-2005 year)

80% of our revenue comes from property taxes, where they derive 82% of their revenue from property taxes.

What does this show us? That they are not the same district.

[kae]

bob said:

The $105k was also before codmenation was filed so it was a open market offer.

The $257k price also included the right to purchase the 55 acres.

Doesn't "open market" just mean that someone else could come in and offer more?

$257.5k is still more than twice $105k, which doesn't conflict with what I said.

Also, didn't the right to purchase the additional 55 acres expire when the first referendum failed to pass and the district did not have approval to purchase the land and build?

Isn't this a different condemnation law suit?

[kae]

archwinsome said:

kae said:

Comparing (203 & 204):

The total expenditures are higher for IPSD on the Expenditure amounts page. Looking at the top smaller table on that page. it looks like several numbers are higher (Instruction, Support Services, Other Expenditures); However, the Expenditure rates show lower per Pupil spending. Tax rate per $100 is higher in IPSD while EAV per pupil is lower. On Expenditure %, it looks like we spend less on Education and more on Bond & Interest. Revenue amounts show that we pull a lot more taxes than 203 and a lot more State Aid and other State funding.

RE: B&I expenses. 203 is built. 204 is/was still building.
...at least that's my understanding.

We also have 9K more students than they do as of a couple years ago (comparing 2004-2005 year)

80% of our revenue comes from property taxes, where they derive 82% of their revenue from property taxes.

What does this show us? That they are not the same district.

Then why compare them?

[Arch]

kae said:

archwinsome said:

RE: B&I expenses. 203 is built. 204 is/was still building.
...at least that's my understanding.

We also have 9K more students than they do as of a couple years ago (comparing 2004-2005 year)

80% of our revenue comes from property taxes, where they derive 82% of their revenue from property taxes.

What does this show us? That they are not the same district.

Then why compare them?

I was wondering the same thing. Being that you're one of the ones w/ problems w/ the finances, I was hoping you could/would shed some light on that.

[Arch]

kae said:

bob said:

The $105k was also before codmenation was filed so it was a open market offer.

The $257k price also included the right to purchase the 55 acres.

Doesn't "open market" just mean that someone else could come in and offer more?

$257.5k is still more than twice $105k, which doesn't conflict with what I said.

Also, didn't the right to purchase the additional 55 acres expire when the first referendum failed to pass and the district did not have approval to purchase the land and build?

Isn't this a different condemnation law suit?

I thought 2006 was their last chance up at bat on the land before they had to sell back the property purchased and give up all future condemnation claims etc.

[bob]

Also, didn't the right to purchase the additional 55 acres expire when the first referendum failed to pass and the district did not have approval to purchase the land and build?

That doesn't matter. We had to pay extra for that right to purchase.

I still like to see the timeframe between the $105k bid and the codmenation filing.

[doctorwho]

archwinsome said:

kae said:

Comparing (203 & 204):

The total expenditures are higher for IPSD on the Expenditure amounts page. Looking at the top smaller table on that page. it looks like several numbers are higher (Instruction, Support Services, Other Expenditures); However, the Expenditure rates show lower per Pupil spending. Tax rate per $100 is higher in IPSD while EAV per pupil is lower. On Expenditure %, it looks like we spend less on Education and more on Bond & Interest. Revenue amounts show that we pull a lot more taxes than 203 and a lot more State Aid and other State funding.

RE: B&I expenses. 203 is built. 204 is/was still building.
...at least that's my understanding.

We also have 9K more students than they do as of a couple years ago (comparing 2004-2005 year)

80% of our revenue comes from property taxes, where they derive 82% of their revenue from property taxes.

What does this show us? That they are not the same district.

also 204 has lower admin costs - a higher % spent on the education piece -- compared to state avg by far.

Expenditure by Function 2004-2005 (Percentages)
Numbers are for the entire district and are not available by individual school.
Dictrict % -- State %
Instruction // 56.4 -- 47.4 higher than st avg
General Administration // 0.8 -- 2.6 far lower than state avg
Supporting Services // 25.5 -- 2.5 push
Other Expenditures // 17.3 -- 17.5 push




they can be compared, but always has to be at a rate or per student -- since populations are not the same. When Plainfield and Oswego are done, their rate % will be higher than ours - and 203's not that far off now - wait until they have to address the infrastructure problems they currently have....physical plants much older and many in need of serious repair.

2003 tax rate per $100
5.06 IPSD
4.36 203 ( no building in how long ?)
4.90 Plainfield 202 and before a lot more building -including 3rd HS and another HS to come also
4.80 Oswego before 2nd HS in here and 7 -9 more schools to be built

[blankcheck]

Regarding the finances- They are stating that we have earned enough interest to cover the overage costs of the new hs. What about interest that we have to pay? That eats into the interest we may have earned on our investment.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

Regarding the finances- They are stating that we have earned enough interest to cover the overage costs of the new hs. What about interest that we have to pay? That eats into the interest we may have earned on our investment.

Actually the interest earned would wash the interest paid if there wasn't a delay or risng costs. We are still paying for the $126 + interest. In a perfect situation we could have used the money from interest earned and used it to pay some of the interest payable. BTW it is not all interest earned, there is money from land donations and such.

[wvhsparent]

Have they actually issued any bonds from the ref yet?

[bob]

Half.

[blankcheck]

So therefore, we are paying interest on the bonds issued PERIOD!

[blankcheck]

Question, why would you issue bonds before you need them???

[bob]

blankcheck said:

Question, why would you issue bonds before you need them???

1) There were start up costs like paying the architect and such.

2) They needed the money just in case BB settled, early.

You should be glad they did because they got a much lower rate than they would have recieved this year.

[harry]

bob said:

blankcheck said:

Question, why would you issue bonds before you need them???

1) There were start up costs like paying the architect and such.

2) They needed the money just in case BB settled, early.

You should be glad they did because they got a much lower rate than they would have recieved this year.

To be clear.. 1/2 of the bonds were issued in 06?? Could you please site the source of this info?? Thanks B0b