Sunday's State Journal reproduces this table for comparing property tax rates in Dane County:
http://danedocs.countyofdane.com/webdocs/pdf/treasure/tax_chart.pdf
I just found it interesting to see where our communities fall...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Despite what was quoted in the paper about how our citizens are over-taxed and we're still pay for schools, etc., my property tax bill (Monona)went down. The school tax went down about %5 or so. So why is the board not giving any consideration to a referendum to prevent severe cuts in things like music and class size?
This may be one reason:
http://www.wistax.org/news_releases/2008/2008_13.html
Excerpt:
Debt per student varied considerably by school district in 2006-07. Two union high districts—Wilmot ($35,773) and Northland Pines ($27,769)—had the most debt. Of the 369 K-12 districts, Monona Grove ($22,534) led.
Those numbers are a bit old, currently our referendum debt per student is $56M/2917 = $19.2K.
Our debt ratio is high because we are currently paying off two new assets, the high school and the middle school. The total service for referendum debt amounts to about 3 mils on your tax bill. (I believe in future years we will be glad to have made this investment now, as nothing makes a bad budget situation worse faster than a decaying physical infrastructure.)
By contrast an operating referendum does not add to district debt, it would be pay as you go. A $1M operating referendum would be around 0.5 mils, or 50 cents per $1000 of property value. (That's $100 on a $200K home.)
Wouldn't a referendum only fill a budget hole for a year or so? I seem to remember an article that estimated 15 million over the next 5 years, meaning that under projected growth, the district would probably need more than a million dollar referendum or be stuck with more cuts next year.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but please try to fix the budget situation for the long term. I think much of our nation's current finacial problems come from boards, politians, and businesses thinking short term.
You can extend referenda for over several years, not just a year or two.
Long-term budget fixes sound nice in the abstract, but are hard to do when it comes to schools. Witness the previous board's attempt to cut to half-time a principal at a school which had less than 200 students in in at the time (Maywood). People screamed bloody murder. Maybe they were right to do so, but eventually something's going to get cut -- principals, teachers, even janitors -- that makes people upset.
It appears that we as a district are going to start making significant cuts that are going to negatively affect students. Increasing class sizes, eliminating principals, cutting minutes from elementary related arts contact time, making cuts in middle school music,encore and core programs-these all will have a negative impact on students.
And I would venture to say that these are the very curricular and co-curricular offerings that attracted and will continue to attract families to our school distict.
Last year, and 5 years ago and 10 years ago we as a community school district valued these offerings and took pride in what the district offered. Have our values changed? Has what we want our children to receive for an education changed?
Our family moved into the district because of what MG had to offer our children-schools with principals, schools that offered string instruction for elementary students, schools with a middle school concept that allows students the opportunity to truly explore and go through those critical discovery years in an environment that allows them to do just that, and high school that is not too big and is still able to offer a wide array of courses and prepare our children for the next level of education.
And when I read the above post about an opperating referndum costing $100 on a $200K home (or about $8 a month)I wonder why we are not considering it.
Are we truly asking what is best for the children of the MG school district?
All good points. I suggest you contact your local school board president:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/article_88d2050a-ef61-11de-b758-001cc4c002e0.html
Excerpt:
"This is really the first time we've had to make serious cuts, and we really do need to make them this year," Fox said . "I'm sure staff is concerned because 80 percent of our budget -- and this is the case of most schools -- is salaries and benefits, so you can't make these kinds of cuts without cutting some staff. That's certainly nothing any of us want to do. But clearly that's what's going to have to happen."
Monona Grove is unlikely to resort to a referendum, said Fox, since the district is still paying off two school buildings -- Glacial Drumlin and Monona Grove High School -- and proportionally is paying one of the highest levels of debt service in the state.
"We feel we have to make an effort to reduce the budget first, before we would even think about going back to the taxpayers," Fox said.
The board has taken no decision on an operating referendum, we haven't even had a discussion. Susan must have meant to say "I feel".
My thoughts are two fold: First given the state of the economy I would judge that an operating referendum would probably be unpalatable to the community (I would be willing to be proven wrong on this); and second - it won't fix the problem: this isn't a temporary dip in district funding, this is a growing structural deficit which is built into the state funding formula. An operating referendum would do no more than delay the pain a year or two - we need to do better than that.
I don't mind being taxed for schools so bring on a referendum. I would rather pay extra than have any more painful cuts to my child's education. One of my children is in a classroom where there is beyond the maximum number that is recommended by the school board. I am so jealous of those kids that are in classrooms with 5-6 less kids. It makes such a difference. Then to know that the max will be probably be extended in years to come "for budget cuts" makes me question public school education. I have to consider that she will only be able to do these grades one time (no second chances!)and whether I am short changing her by keeping her in this district. I know that all districts are under this same duress but it still doesn't help me feel better.
My kid has a nice small 2nd grade class (17 students) and a crappy teacher. It took two years to rebuild this child's confidence. Yes there are no second changes, so fix the teaching problems first (it is way more important than class size). If there is any money left over then reduce class size.
"Long-term budget fixes sound nice in the abstract, but are hard to do when it comes to schools. Witness the previous board's attempt to cut to half-time a principal at a school which had less than 200 students in in at the time (Maywood). People screamed bloody murder."
It was that same school board who built GDS and put the district in this situation.
Really? How?
By creating a 29 million black hole of debt to build a school based on wants, not needs. Had we decided to renovate Winnequah and add on the Taylor Prairie instead of building GDS, we would have no overcrowding in CG, all of our buildings were open and operational, there would be no extra bus routes or duplication of services and less teachers driving back and forth. Nice going- the Board really has shortchanged our kids. One of the members who supported these decisions is running this year- let him know you're not grateful!
"...Had we decided to renovate Winnequah and add on the Taylor Prairie instead of building GDS..."
A nice bit of revisionist, Monona-centric history here. The comment assumes such a referendum would've been approved by the voters of the district. That's highly unlikely -- everyone (really, everyone) in Cottage Grove would've voted against it, and the 30 percent or so of voters in Monona who oppose all school referenda would have doomed it to defeat. Even the "solution" proferred by those opposed to GDS (adding on to/renovating Winnequah, and building an elementary school in CG) would've cost nearly as much as the GDS referendum.
And the GDS referendum was pretty popular -- nearly three out of five voters (59 percent) in a big turnout election favored it.
"Really? How?"
I mean come on-on one hand you want to argue that board wanted to cut (prinicpal at Maywood) and save all of us from this current deficit and on the other hand you want to play cute and ask "how?"
Operation and capital budgets are entirely separate. The "black-hole" of debt referenced above is entirely financed by a taxpayer approved levy and so has absolutely no impact on the operating deficit. Further it is being paid off in good order and on schedule, so it is not a "black-hole", while providing first class facilities for the benefit of the community. The additional operating expense (mostly teacher travel for 6th grade co-curriculars) mentioned was also covered by a small operating referendum that passed by the voters at the same time. So there is no impact on the operating budget, and therefore no impact on the deficit. Indeed, the new school will have lower operating and maintenance expenses which will leave the district in a better financial situation in the long run.
The above statement that the prior school board or the middle school referendum is related to the operating deficit is demonstrably false.
I seriously doubt renovations to Winnequah could have met the requirements for a 21st century middle school the district really needed.
"So there is no impact on the operating budget"
Peter, you are smarter than that statement and so are most of the voters.
The district carrying a school that is shuttered-does not increase operating expenses?
I could go on with other examples, but my point is that if the board had not pushed for building a new school-did something a little smaller-we may have been able to go to the public with a referendum today.
Now, the school issues is done and I do not want to move my kids around like a chess piece or revisit those days.
However, when an anonymous poster says the previous board was trying to be MACK the KNIFE and the public would not let them-(when I know darn well they were not MACK the KNIFE) they really were about something else (I will stay quiet ast to what or you will delte my post.)
"The above statement that the prior school board or the middle school referendum is related to the operating deficit is demonstrably false."
Your statement is a little false and a little true. Would you NOT agree that the referendum for GDS limits are opitions at this point in time?
Let's say we went with something smaller and saved 1/3 the referendum costs. The debt service due this year would be $1.1M instead of $1.6M, on your tax bill that would reduce your mil rate by 0.29 from 18.6 (in Monona) to 18.3. We would still have the 4th lowest tax burden for Dane County municipalities listed, so no - I don't think that there would be much difference relative to public support for an operating referendum, its such a small portion of the total tax bill.
Peter, Don't I remember you saying that if we built Glacial Drumlin our district would never have to build again? How has that turned out? Did it solve our overcrowding issues?
"Did it solve our overcrowding issues?"
What overcrowding issues? Our schools aren't over-crowded, by any normal definition of that word. Glacial Drumlin is UNDER capacity. TP is not over-capacity; it's at capacity, and recent housing trends would suggest the district won't see major upticks in enrollment in CG. Cottage Grove school is over-capacity by, at most, a classroom or two -- nothing that can't be solved with some imaginative building usage, programming changes, or some affordable temporary classrooms.
Alleged "overcrowding" seems to have become a Trojan horse for people who can't get over their long-held criticism of a very successful referendum, endorsed by a large majority of the district's voters.
I'm sure the parents of CG will be happy to hear that.
I believe I said that the referendum would meet our needs for the forseeable future, but also in the long run we would need additional elementary space in Cottage Grove. I stand by that statement.
Indeed enrollment projections predict nearly flat (or even some declines) enrollment in CG elementary levels for the next 5-6 years, and the current level of crowding in CG is less than desirable, but manageable. As money invested in building projects is unrecoverable if unneeded I think it would be unwise to invest in facilities under the current circumstances and absent any additional indication of need.
"
Alleged "overcrowding" seems to have become a Trojan horse for people who can't get over their long-held criticism of a very successful referendum, endorsed by a large majority of the district's voters."
Didn't our current super point out that there was over crowding?
Peter, is there overcrowding in the CG elementary schools? What is the opinion of the administration?
CG elementary is "overcrowded" in that some of the spaces have been converted to uses for which they were not designed. For example it is my understanding that the large group instruction room is being used as a music room to free the music room for a classroom. This leaves the building without a convenient large group instruction space. This is not desirable, but I think it is manageable, and I hear it is nothing compared to the problems experienced in Winnequah prior to the construction of GDS.
Given that you believe the "overcrowding" in CG elementary is mananageable, do you, Peter, think adding modular units would be an unnecessary expense to our district, especially given a million dollar deficit?
Given that you believe the "overcrowding" in CG elementary is mananageable, do you, Peter, think adding modular units would be an unnecessary expense to our district, especially given a million dollar deficit?"
Well sheesh-don't we have a building that could be used already?
Modular units are cheaper than busing students to Monona.
Still waiting to hear what your opinion is on the need for modular units in Cottage Grove, Peter. Thanks for your response in advance!
Determination of need is up to the administrators most familiar with the situation. Modular units would represent a cost, so the administration would have to justify that need to the board. Given the current environment that need would have to be compelling.
But given what I know about the situation I think that some additional space, in the form of modular units, could likely be justified for the next two years. I would have to see a plan and would hope there is a way to use such units to free up classroom space inside the building to minimize impact to students.
Our baseline enrollment projections show modest increases in CGE, 3% for two years and then significant decreases for a couple of years. Modular units, while less than perfect, provide a flexible and inexpensive way of dealing with these fluctuations without incurring long term commitments.
Post a Comment