My kids have both attended school in the Mounds View School District. As the Star Tribune reports, the district is looking for money,
and a lot of it, for building projects:
At Irondale High in the Mounds View district, the “four corners” area becomes a traffic jam during passing times, officials say. The district’s $164.8 million ask is one of the biggest in the metro area. But officials say most buildings are already beyond capacity, with another 1,600 students expected within seven years.
As a marching band parent, I've spent a lot of time at Irondale over the years. It's an old building and it's not unreasonable to ask for the money. While our taxes would go up, I'm willing to spend the money. But there's only so much money to go around, especially for people on fixed incomes. And if the school district needs the money, should the county and municipal governments make do with less? That's a question worth asking:
Inner-ring districts face a challenge, though: a core of older voters on fixed incomes for whom “yes” votes can mean a big tax hike. In Roseville, the proposal would add more than $400 a year for median-valued homes. In New Brighton, a City Council member held her tax form up to visiting leaders from the Mounds View district and said of the $400-plus bump she faces: “That’s kind of a kick, right?”
The City Council member in question is Gina Bauman, who is running for reelection this year against considerable opposition. She has long been the meddlesome priest who often stands alone against the merry spenders who make up the rest of the council, along with the
mercurial mayor we featured yesterday. They would like to raise taxes, too. Some of the people on my street are original owners and have been in their houses for 50+ years. It's going to be a challenge for them to pay more in taxes. Bauman is correct; an extra $400 a year is kind of a kick. That's why it's important to choose your priorities. Can the municipal government make do with less money? They'd rather not find out.
11 comments:
Some of the people on my street are original owners and have been in their houses for 50+ years. It's going to be a challenge for them to pay more in taxes.
Thats the most racist thing i've ever heard.
There have been proposals to "lock" property taxes for seniors at whatever they paid when they turned 65. It solves the problem a bit. The other thing you can do is, as I did, go to the District and make certain every penny is actually needed and that there isn't another way. The "ask" in our District went from $300M down to $65M.
If you go to the school board, get a group, and be prepared for the head of the school board to flat out lie to you about things like "time value of money" and the expense of adding on to existing buildings. That's what I experienced when I asked the Chaska school board why not, given that the referendum only passed with 52% of the vote, to respect the other 48% and build only enough Chanhassen High for the students they actually expected. They're still 1000 students short of capacity between the two high schools, just as I predicted back in 2007.
Another thing to keep in mind is that school districts often hold on to vacant buildings, let them decay, and then ask for money for a brand spanking new building that's built for 100 years (if they'll only maintain it), but which they really only intend to use for about 40. Yes, having a couple of contractors or civil engineers in your group can be extremely helpful in pointing this out.
Bubba, I've seen what the school district wants and, based on my personal experience, it's not unreasonable. None of the scenarios you outline in your comment related to the situation here. The school district is using every building under their purview. They haven't opened a new building since the early 1970s. Mounds View High School was built in the early 1950s and is essentially landlocked; this isn't an analogous situation to what happened with Chanhassen High School.
Because our kids compete at other high suburban high schools, I've seen a lot of them over the past few years. The schools in the south and west metro are much newer and nicer. What the MV school board wants is to add on to existing buildings. I'm actually surprised and grateful the district isn't asking to build a new high school to replace MVHS, which was built in the early 1950s and really is outdated. That would have been even more expensive than what they've asked for.
I'm much more concerned about the city council in New Brighton, which just likes spending money because it makes the city employees happy. They spend money on salaries and virtue signaling. It's much easier to reject.
Thats the most racist thing i've ever heard.
Heh. Have you considered running for municipal government in New Brighton? You'd fit right in.
I realized I made an editing mistake on my earlier comment. The first paragraph should say:
Irondale High School was built in the 1960s and is essentially landlocked.
Mr. D: :^). I was intending my comments for a more broad set of situations. I hope you're right in your assessment of the school board as more responsible--but in light of my experience and Jerry's, I've got to believe it may be something of an outlier. (how DID they get all their spendthrifts on City Council?)
Okay, that makes sense, Bubba. I think your concerns about how school districts spend their money generally is accurate. To back up, our district is an outlier, because things have changed. Back in ’04 or so, it looked like enrollment was on a permanent decline and as a result the district did retrench. They sold their old headquarters building (essentially an old farmhouse) and moved the headquarters to one of the elementary schools, which then closed. Another grade school closed and became the place where the district ran ECFE programs, instead of renting space elsewhere, as it had in the past. There had been a previous construction levy, which mostly went for infrastructure changes in the existing schools, although Irondale did get a new gymnasium, which is already too small. That levy is still on the books, I believe, but it hasn’t paid for much more than maintenance in the last 5-10 years.
What’s changed in the Mounds View district is that the enrollment numbers have been on the increase for the last 5-6 years and the trend line suggests the increases will be even larger in subsequent years. The schools that were shuttered are now back in use and it’s still not enough. The new levy will be used for additional classrooms in the existing school buildings. In this round, Irondale would get a new auditorium, which it could really use, as the original one is pretty threadbare. The music department at Irondale is among the best in the state, but the facilities it uses pale in comparison to what I see in my travels. My kids made do, but in my view it’s not sustainable long term. So, I’m okay with spending the money. But something has to give, and to me that means the municipalities and the county need to get the ol’ green eyeshade out. I don’t think they will unless we force them to, though. And that means getting rid of the spendthrifts.
You know, if you've got a big influx of families, that would imply not only a big need for new schools, but also a need for parks, roads, sewers, and the like. Since for some odd reason we don't assess impact fees on new housing and buildings--might as well let the old-timers subsidize their new neighbors, I guess--my best guess is that your city taxes are going to rise, not fall. Good luck getting rid of the spendthrifts, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
My experience with school districts is that unless growth is explosive, they tend to over-build by about 30% and malignly neglect buildings they don't like, and the notion that population could contract, and that they might do well to sometimes use temporary buildings that can be removed, seems to be about the furthest thing from their minds. I can see about 10% over-capacity, and not every building can be renovated economically, but seriously?
What you need to understand is that there are two different kinds of local taxes. County property taxes are based on "millage," or a certain percent of the total property value, which means more money to the county if new homes are built and pays for sewer, water, etc. School taxes, OTOH, are based on total revenue, so that when new homes are built, school taxes actually go DOWN for the existing homeowners. It also accounts for why school districts need more money all the time, to cope with added students without any added money.
My school district is "lucky" in that the old lying, spendthrift administration was fired and smart, honest and frugal people took over. They still spend a bit too much, and on some "silly stuff," but at least they do a great job of education.
Sorry, just found your comments in my SPAM filter.
Post a Comment