It rarely is, especially for govt. entities, and that’s the problem.
I urge citizens to VOTE NO to increased property taxes for Lee’s Summit R-7 School District on Feb. 8th.
Cities, counties, and state governments, as well as citizens are all facing budget crunches. Down sizing, cut-backs and layoffs are the watch words in this new decade. No one likes to see their neighbor lose their job. National unemployment is near 10% – far above the LS R-7 unemployment rate of 4% (103 divided by 2500) - but nowhere in district down sizing, layoffs, cut backs, or initiatives to increase our taxes, is there any suggestion from the teacher’s union that their members voluntarily cut their own salaries or benefit packages by simply 5%. Why is that?
Five percent of the current LS R-7 personnel budget equals $5.86 million – enough to offset the estimated 2012 Missouri state funding shortfall, or keep the 103 laid off union comrades employed. Or does union camaraderie end with “don’t touch my pay check or benefits?”
Does it seem like your LS R-7 property taxes increase every year? Well, that’s because they do.
After its 2008 lawsuit filed against the Jackson County Assessor’s decision to lower assessed values was thrown out of court, LS R-7 raised your property taxes in 2009 by 9.88 cents, up to $5.9374 per hundred assessed value, via a roll-up levy. No public vote, just district fiat. This is allowed under state law.
In 2010, the district again raised your property tax. This time by 12.01 cents, up to $6.0548 per $100 assessed value, via another roll-up levy. No public vote, just district fiat. This also is allowed under state law.
Both of these roll-up levies nearly recouped the district’s “lost” revenue from 2008’s property devaluations, yet each of these increases were referred to by the district as “slight,” all the while warning of continued budget cuts and layoffs. Those austerity measures were principally the result of reduced state and federal funding.
Also in 2010, the district asked voters to approve a $16 million dollar “no tax increase” bond issue. The bond was to make capital improvements & new purchases. The voters agreed. Bonds are simply borrowed money paid for with your property tax dollars. Once the debt is satisfied, taxes can be lowered – or redirected into district operating funds – unless more money is borrowed. To be fair, some improvements & purchases were genuine cost saving investments, and other items were considered by many to be lavish gilding on already richly accoutered schools.
District superintendent Dr. David McGehee addressed concerns about the necessity of a $16 million bond issue during a recession in his somewhat disingenuous November, 2010 article, “The Mysterious ‘turf’- ology Conspiracy.” In that article, he rightly pointed out that school financing makes a distinction between bond funds & operating funds, while conveniently omitting that both expenditures are mostly paid for with our property tax dollars.
Now comes the district’s 2011 request for a property tax increase. A whopping 10% increase! That works out to 89 cents, increasing to $6.9448 per $100 assessed value, but this time without the imposition of district “fiat.” Because of the large increase requested, the public must vote on it. That is state law, and I urge citizens to VOTE NO to increased property taxes for LS R-7 School District on Feb. 8th.
I urge this despite increased enrollment of 262 students, and the district’s effort in trimming $19.5 million from its budget during 2010-11 alone. This was accomplished with a salary freeze, 103 employee lay offs, combined classrooms, reduced summer school, eliminated or reduced extra curricular / after school activities, and deferred maintenance (this last item is truly odd considering the $16 million bond issue specifically called for new construction, remodeling, and renovation of existing schools).
It’s been said if one thinks education is expensive, try ignorance. But that presupposes only government can educate children with tax dollars, which totally discounts the outstanding success of home schooling, private schools, or voucher funded charter schools. Cities, counties and states all across the nation are wrestling with obstinate public unions to concede salary and benefit packages promised during boom times which cannot be fulfilled during the present parsimony. New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie is probably the most prominent example attempting to tame a recalcitrant budget beast.
Good teachers are prized professionals and essential for good schools. But so are solvent, tax paying property owners. Many say that without a property tax increase our good schools will cease and our property values will fall. Well, guess what? They already did, and we have some of the best rated schools in the state. The simple fact is there are forces far beyond Lee’s Summit, or the state of Missouri, or even the borders of the U.S. of A. which will impact our economic future for years to come, independent from the quality or size of our schools.
Meanwhile, here in Lee’s Summit, many are struggling in this economic malaise of record unemployment to keep the lights on, the mortgage paid, and the property taxes current. A district employee salary freeze simply will not suffice. All should have “some skin in the game.” Yet, without a single hint of concession from the teacher’s union on teacher benefits or salary, the LS R-7 district is asking voters for whopping ten percent property tax increase.
Enough is enough!
I urge citizens to VOTE NO to increased property taxes for Lee’s Summit R-7 School District on Feb. 8th.
