Lee’s Summit Resident, Embarrassed Lee’s Summit School District is Using Scare Tactics to Push Tax Levy
 | |
By Guest Columnist Marlene Alley
I am a Realtor for Infinity Realty, and a long-time resident of Lee’s Summit. My husband’s family (Hertzog) is second generation, life time residents of Lee’s Summit. I have been an active participant, on the Board of Directors, and member of my local PTA. In addition, I have provided many volunteer hours at my children’s school, inside the classroom. I am, and have always been, FOR our Lee’s Summit schools. As such, in the past, I have always voted “yes” for all school and tax levy elections. However, this time, it’s different.
I am both ashamed and embarrassed at our School District for inaccurate and scare tactics that they are currently using to try and push this new 89 cent tax levy to get passed in the special February 9 election. Additionally, a lot of time has been spent on researching the actual facts by local residents, including a good friend of mine, who is a local resident and attorney, Linda Marshall.
This first item is not about my concerns with all of the TIFs that Lee’s Summit has granted large developers in the past. However, as it specifically pertains to this tax levy the school district is pushing, currently, there are several hundred thousand dollars in the Blackwell TIF Account. The School District used its two votes on the TIF commission to drain funding away from the schools and put it into this account. Of that amount the school would be entitled to 30% if they had not cast their two votes for the Blackwell TIF. (How many teachers’ salaries could be paid with this money?)
The second item is the current School District Levy. If it seemed like we paid more in taxes this year, we did. The rate went from 5.946 to the present level of 6.0456. Despite the School District’s claim about shrinking revenue, according to the Jackson County Collection Department, our School District actually received over one hundred million dollars ($104,543,499.45 in 2010 and $102,992,328.69 in 2009). Additionally, the School District actually has $2 million more from property taxes this past year.
According to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Schools, even though, it’s true the School District is short about $6 million from the State, they actually received an additional $8 million from the federal government in 2010 (which includes money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). Specifically, The R-7 District received $49,705,752.71 in 2010 and $55,332,485.97 in 2009 from the State, but received $14,802,193.64 in 2010 and $6,053,577.70 in 2009 from the federal government.
As my husband will attest to, math is not my strong suit, but if my calculations are correct (and my husband, who is my human calculator has verified), this should put the School District ahead by about $4 million.
But on the R-7 website, the District claims: “The financial crisis is compounded by growing enrollments and rising costs in areas such as fuel, utilities and benefits, including state-mandated retirement contributions.”
Last week, I couldn’t believe I saw a flier that the School District allowed to be sent home in my children’s backpacks (which I believe is in direct conflict with the District policy that shouldn’t ever allow this type of flier to be sent home in the children’s backpacks at all). What makes this even worse, is: in the Flyer in HUGE print, they make it look like the enrollment increased by 500 this last, but if you take your magnifying glasses out, and look at the very small print, in their website, you find that this is the additional enrollment since 2007 – not our current school year. It turns out that (Page 4 in the question and answer section of the R-7 website) the rapidly growing enrollment really amounts to only half of that amount this past year.
There are 18 elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 3 High Schools. Again, the whole math thing, there has actually only been an increase of about 1 1/2 students per grade.
I believe our school principal at Highland Park is one of the best around. However, I have recently seen pleas from our principal being sent out via email in our children’s Thursday Packets, urging everyone to vote for the levy. She states that there will be widespread cuts in teachers. So, attorney Marshall looked up on the District’s website and found a summary of the proposed cuts if the levy doesn’t pass: The total number of teachers or instructional staff proposed to be cut in 2011-12 are 16 - 2 full time AIM and ASPIRE teachers; 10 general and another 4 elementary school teachers. Again – the math thing comes to light: This is less than one teacher per building.
According to our City’s records, there are two TIFs due to expire in the next two years. The School District will receive $1.8 million in additional tax revenue from them.
Stay with me for just a little longer. Back to the School District’s website salaries and benefits make up 74% of their budget. The Tribune recently published a list of the salaries of administrative staff of the R-7 School District. There are at least 10 administrators (several that I think need to be looked at to see if one of THEIR positions can be cut, instead of teachers), that make between $120,000- $205,000 per year – not EVEN including the tens and thousands of dollars in benefits. We have some of the highest paid administrative people in the Midwest! If these ten administrators would take just a 10% cut in pay, it would give the district an extra, $150,289. According to the district website the average teacher makes $48,000. So, let’s do the math again – that would employ almost three teachers!
In the Flyer sent home it says that “Included in the 20% cut (Extra-curricular #1,#2,#3):
“Elementary: after-before school choir, district-wide honors orchestra, environmental club, lead elementary librarian, science fair, student counsel, remedial reading coordinator, safety patrol, yearbook, Crossroads learning Center, and other activities and programs specific to individual schools.”
I can only speak to Highland Park for the last five years, but we don’t have an environmental club- (we do have an outdoor classroom paid for by the PTA). We don’t have a science fair, safety patrol or a lead librarian, and I can’t imagine that special choir and or student council really cost that much, PTA is always looking for ways to help so if that is really an issue maybe they could step in. Our yearbook is also paid for by our PTA and parents, so that also shouldn’t be included in what would be cut.
What this means for Home Owners:
Lee’s Summit currently is the 9th highest in the State (out of 523 districts) in school levies. If the levy passes we would be #2. As a comparison, Blue Springs which has received many of the same honors as our school district ranks #18. (These statistics have come from the Missouri Department of Secondary and Elementary schools.) According to the District’s information the .89 cent increase per $100 of assessed value would translate into an increased levy of $336.00 for a home assessed at $200,000. Trying to sell a Lee’s Summit home, with such a high levy, the Buyer’s will offer less money to the Seller, and then the Seller will have to sell their home for less, de-valuing the property further, until this 89 cent tax levy ends up netting the school district no more money, yet costs residents and business owners more. This will cause more foreclosed homes, and empty businesses as they are forced out of business by too high of taxes to be in Lee’s Summit.
For a commercial/small business owners whose tax value is higher than residential, this means a lot more money in taxes. It will mean that the price of your child’s dance classes, Karate classes, not to mention food at local restaurants will go up because the cost of owning commercial real estate will go up. I know of two small businessmen in this City that have told me they will go out of business if this new increase passes.
Finally, the election board will be sending the School District a bill for more than $120,000 for the special election in February – instead of the School District waiting to put this on the ballot in April when they know there will be a higher voter turnout – which is what they are trying to avoid. This $120,000 would employ 2 ½ more teachers!
I am friends with several teachers that live and teach in our school district. This is certainly not meant to anger them, nor our school principal. However, I think the whole truth needs to be put out there – not the grossly exaggerated advertising the School District seems to be actively allowing to happen.
I think if we institute “activity fees” and/or “transportation fees” for school activities like: football, soccer, band, strings, AIM and ASPIRE, science club, etc. (making them self-sustaining, it is a much more responsible way for the School District to handle funds instead of this proposed 89 cent levy.
John Plaas, I applaud you in being able to sift through all of the smoke screen and think into the future when you voted no for this increased levy.
I want to also thank attorney Marshall, and all of the others residents and business owners who are totally for our School District, and have worked so hard in gathering the actual facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment