Guest Commentary: There are options for school district

Rueben H.
03/04/2010 11:59 PM

Wow...

Report a Violation

Mark B.
03/04/2010 11:55 PM

My estimates for the total cost of each of the operating referendum proposal options was based upon the school district's consolidated financial statements filed with the state for FY 2009. These financial reports showed funding based upon 1,416 students. The March 1 "Good News", published by the district, indicates I underestimated the cost of each of the proposed referendum options. Apparently, a "weighting factor" applied to the actual number of students is used to determine the "unit value" of students the district is using to calculate the total number of dollars it is proposing to levy under each of the options. This weighting factor drives the costs of the proposed referendum higher. Consequently, the 10 year value of the $300/student "unit" levy is in fact $6,040,000 instead of $4,300,000; the $425/student "unit" levy is $8,420,000 rather than $6,100,000; and the newly proposed $550/student "unit" levy must be around $11,000,000 instead of my estimated $7,800,000. Without any referendum monies included, the "normal" 2010 property tax levy has already been approved at $4,371,757 which is an increase of over 25% from last year's 2009 property tax levy. If there are no changes in the subsequent years from the approved "normal" 2010 levy, its 10 year total will be nearly $44,000,000. Add to this amount the value of any of the proposed referendum options, and you get the total amount the school district is asking its property owners to pay (between $50,000,000 and $55,000,000). Remember, non-homestead (cabins, seasonal) and certain other property owners, under state law, will not be required to pay any portion of proposed operating referendum dollars which resident voters might approve.

Report a Violation