Rocky - Chronicles of my decision - First Post

[proschool]

When I bought my house 6 years ago, I paid approx $5,500 in property taxes. In 2005, I paid just over $11,000. That is a ridiculous increase.

I believe that the question at hand is the bond and interest rate on everyones tax bill. That is where the school district gets the money to pay for its school buildings and it works like a mortgage.

As far as I know that rate will not be higher than it was 6 years ago. It would have been lower than it was in the recent past even with the last referendum.

If someone has the bond and interest rate history can you please post it.

The problem that the school district has is that it has many more kids and it can't teach twice the amount of kids with just a five percent increase. They have to ask for ore money but the money is also spread out among more people. In short the district has to ask for a referendum just to keep the tax rates what they have been in the past.

As fas as I know spending per students has not been increasing drastically if at all. There are just many more students and that is the issue.

[blankcheck]

Pro- You have to remember that the Bond & Interest represents only 16% of the total the school district asks for. They will be going in 2009 for another referendum. That figure is unknown at this time. Also, your comment about asking for more $ but spread out among more people makes no sense. More people are contributing to the whole with or without adding students to the district.

[momof3]

Pro - I understand your post to mean that while the operating expense part of your tax bill are based on %'s, in other words, your house value determines how much you pay, but the B&I portion works slightly differently. The district has a fixed target - 124 million, that is divided among so many houses. The operating expenses are a moving target, influenced by the tax cap and home values.
Is this true?
Also, in reply to 204's operating expenses increasing, we spend below the state average to educate each kid (per the report card) and score in the top 5% of districts in the state (per the SchoolSearch 2006 Bright A+ Awards). But I don't know if that ratio is going up or down.

[proschool]

momof3 said:

Pro - I understand your post to mean that while the operating expense part of your tax bill are based on %'s, in other words, your house value determines how much you pay, but the B&I portion works slightly differently. The district has a fixed target - 124 million, that is divided among so many houses. The operating expenses are a moving target, influenced by the tax cap and home values.
Is this true?
Also, in reply to 204's operating expenses increasing, we spend below the state average to educate each kid (per the report card) and score in the top 5% of districts in the state (per the SchoolSearch 2006 Bright A+ Awards). But I don't know if that ratio is going up or down.

The bond and interest fund is more like a fixed target because a set amount of money will be borrowed at a certain rate for a set period of time. That payment will be payed by all the property owners in the district in proportion to how much of the property they own. Even as home values increase the total bond and interest payment should remain the same. If your home value doubles and nobody else's does then you will pay more taxes in the future and everyone else will pay a Little less. If more properties are added to the district then your bond and interest payment should decrease because there would be more properties to share the load even if your home value increases.

I believe that the bond and interest rate is limited by the tax cap law because it requires a referendum to issue the bonds.

The operating expenses is a moving target because it is influenced by insurance costs, heating costs, salaries etc. It is limited by the tax cap in that the school district can only increase its spending by so much percent per year unless a referendum is passed. As far as I know the tax cap law does not make allowances for a growing district. If there are more properties and more students and more assessed valuation then the district will have to lower its tax rate to comply with the tax cap law unless the voters approve a referendum.

[proschool]

blankcheck said:

Pro- You have to remember that the Bond & Interest represents only 16% of the total the school district asks for. They will be going in 2009 for another referendum. That figure is unknown at this time. Also, your comment about asking for more $ but spread out among more people makes no sense. More people are contributing to the whole with or without adding students to the district.

The referendum before us now has to deal with the bond and interest rate and nothing else.

Of course, the figure for the next referendum is unknown at this time.

"more people are contibuting to the whole with or without adding students to the district." What is that you said about My comments not making sense?

[driven]

Hi Rocky!

Boy can I relate to your dilema! I too was confused. Especially when the pressure from both sides began. I decided to close my ears to each side and look at what I know to be fact.

When Welch Elementary opened my child was the first kindergarten class there. One year after opening, the addition on this brand new school began. Bad planning. A couple years later that same child opened Fry Elementary. One year later, Fry started an addition. Bad planning. That same child is now at Scullen Middle School, the first MS with portable classrooms. Those portables arrived just 3 yrs after the school opened. Bad planning. $11 million spent to build Peterson Elementary. Now the empty building sits with no students to fill it's halls. Bad planning. In 2001 I voted YES to a referendum that would convert middle schools to freshman centers in order to AVOID the need for a 3rd high school. Fast forward to the 2005/2006 referendums, now they want the third high school they told us in 2001 to vote YES to avoid.

Each side (YES or NO) will selectively use data to try to influence you in one way or the other. I would just recommend not listening to the agendas of others and go with what you know.

[rew]

I felt like you Driven. I felt the SB tripped and faltered way too often. I committed to going to the SB meetings and seeing for myself and asking questions...and that's why, now, I have some understanding of the pressures this board operates under. Every single decision there are opponents and or constraints, legal and otherwise.

Driven never states that the 3rd HS isn't needed, but will vote NO. This is exactly what the SB deals with on every decision. People with agendas, not looking at the decision at hand.

I have attended current Ref meetings where I have heard "build it without athletic fields, no pool - cut corners!" When the SB gives voters what they ask for...that's when they trip!

[rew]

Rocky, another resource for you is parents of current HSers and MSers, especially NVHS, because that school is operating "at capacity" this year.

[driven]

rew said:

I felt like you Driven. I felt the SB tripped and faltered way too often. I committed to going to the SB meetings and seeing for myself and asking questions...and that's why, now, I have some understanding of the pressures this board operates under. Every single decision there are opponents and or constraints, legal and otherwise.

Driven never states that the 3rd HS isn't needed, but will vote NO. This is exactly what the SB deals with on every decision. People with agendas, not looking at the decision at hand.

I have attended current Ref meetings where I have heard "build it without athletic fields, no pool - cut corners!" When the SB gives voters what they ask for...that's when they trip!

I too have been to these meetings. I fully believe in doing my homework. Unfortunately, this is politics and politics as usual. The Vote No camp has not been as aggressive in my area. They have just expressed their view points and moved on. I cannot say the same for the Vote Yes camp in my area. They have been far more aggressive. To the point of insulting by saying because I was undecided I must not care about the kids.

I believe on gathering the unbiased facts. I will continue to attend these meetings hoping for the light bulb moment I have yet to experience. I just hope my humanity isn't continually questioned because I want to be thorough. More proof of my trying to be thorough and ignore the bullies, is the fact that I faithfully read this mainly YES board.

By the way, I am not convinced a 3rd high school is needed. That's why I go to the meetings awaiting enlightenment.

Also, I have no idea what you mean about giving voters what they want... I don't think any side would want the 3rd high school to be built without the same athletic opportunities given to their students as with NV & WV.

As for agendas, my agenda is make your own decision Rocky. Yes or No.

[driven]

rew said:

Rocky, another resource for you is parents of current HSers and MSers, especially NVHS, because that school is operating "at capacity" this year.

I agree. My child is currently a student at Scullen and loves it! No complaints about the portables.

We feel like, even though Scullen is the only MS in the district to have portables, our child is getting a first rate education. The social aspect has also been wonderful.

I do not feel that moving my child out of a seriously overcrowded MS would make the experience any better than it already is. We have no complaints. On the contrary...We Love Scullen!

[charmant]

driven said:

rew said:

Rocky, another resource for you is parents of current HSers and MSers, especially NVHS, because that school is operating "at capacity" this year.

I agree. My child is currently a student at Scullen and loves it! No complaints about the portables.

We feel like, even though Scullen is the only MS in the district to have portables, our child is getting a first rate education. The social aspect has also been wonderful.

I do not feel that moving my child out of a seriously overcrowded MS would make the experience any better than it already is. We have no complaints. On the contrary...We Love Scullen!

Do you mean, driven, that your child is going to graduate out of portables with...........gasp.......... a good education? It can't be!!! ;D

[driven]

charmant said:

driven said:

I agree. My child is currently a student at Scullen and loves it! No complaints about the portables.

We feel like, even though Scullen is the only MS in the district to have portables, our child is getting a first rate education. The social aspect has also been wonderful.

I do not feel that moving my child out of a seriously overcrowded MS would make the experience any better than it already is. We have no complaints. On the contrary...We Love Scullen!

Do you mean, driven, that your child is going to graduate out of portables with...........gasp.......... a good education? It can't be!!! ;D

We love Scullen...portables and all! ;D The portables have been a non-issue. As a matter of fact, some students simply love the change of scenery.

[fence]

driven said:

rew said:

Rocky, another resource for you is parents of current HSers and MSers, especially NVHS, because that school is operating "at capacity" this year.

I agree. My child is currently a student at Scullen and loves it! No complaints about the portables.

We feel like, even though Scullen is the only MS in the district to have portables, our child is getting a first rate education. The social aspect has also been wonderful.

I do not feel that moving my child out of a seriously overcrowded MS would make the experience any better than it already is. We have no complaints. On the contrary...We Love Scullen!

I guess my only comment might be what makes most sense to invest our money in? Without the gold campus conversion, the majority of our middle schools will need portables - that is a given. I wonder if the cost of those portables at the majority of our schools over the next 15-20 years would amount to the same cost as building a new school.....

And however much your child enjoys middle school, its probably in spite of the portables and not because of them. My son loves Hill in spite of the fact that he can't fit down the hallway at pass time.

[driven]

fence said:

driven said:

I agree. My child is currently a student at Scullen and loves it! No complaints about the portables.

We feel like, even though Scullen is the only MS in the district to have portables, our child is getting a first rate education. The social aspect has also been wonderful.

I do not feel that moving my child out of a seriously overcrowded MS would make the experience any better than it already is. We have no complaints. On the contrary...We Love Scullen!

I guess my only comment might be what makes most sense to invest our money in? Without the gold campus conversion, the majority of our middle schools will need portables - that is a given. I wonder if the cost of those portables at the majority of our schools over the next 15-20 years would amount to the same cost as building a new school.....

And however much your child enjoys middle school, its probably in spite of the portables and not because of them. My son loves Hill in spite of the fact that he can't fit down the hallway at pass time.

I would not say my child's MS experience is based off of the portables at all.

I would say that crowded halls have in no way affected the excellent education my child is receiving from Scullen. Even with the crowds, my child continues to have no tardies and has not been affected academically in any way.

$124.7 million is a lot to spend for less crowded hallways don't you think?

[rew]

Many people camp on vacation, but they don't abandon their conventional homes. Portables have been used to ease temporary overcrowding for years...but there's a reason they have not replaced traditional school buildings.