Topic: School board seeks levy renewal
started by: binanca
Posted by binanca on Aug. 20 2013,1:02 pm
Just once it would be nice if a financial director/manager could actually live within their means and/or even maybe plan a budget and actually stick to it.... 
and if it doesn't balance out then maybe make some wise decisions and cut some "fluff" like the rest of us have to. There seemed to be some broken promises the last go round, I wonder what will be on the "chopping block/threat list" this time. 
Posted by hairhertz on Aug. 20 2013,2:40 pm
It won't be in administration or non-classified personnel, just my "educated" guess.
Posted by Self-Banished on Aug. 20 2013,8:16 pm
Funny thing is that no matter where you live, if they lose they just get on a ballot again in an off year.
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 22 2013,10:14 am
Much of it goes back to the problem, no, the big problem with public sector unions. Even that dose of a president FDR knew that the rise of public sector unions would decimate economies. Look at Detroit or San Bernardino and Stockton. Look what happened to Greece when their public sector gained the upper hand to control things. In Minnesota, two of the biggest dangers to the states' future economy are AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union) and AFT (American Federation of Teachers union.)Private unions are not the huge threat like the public ones. Public unions threaten our children, welfare and safety, and the union bosses use those threat quite effectively to scare the public into submission.
Posted by Memphis on Aug. 22 2013,10:43 am
They need the levy for their in house clinic!!!
Posted by MADDOG on Aug. 22 2013,2:50 pm
The article doesn't say why the reason for the renewal. But of course they don't want to lose what they have reaped from the taxpayer.All it says is that because of changes in state policies, taxpayers should see a small decrease in taxes. I don't recall how much this levy is costing homeowners now?
Sounds like a chance to make up a little of the taxes the county board is peeling from you in wheelage taxes. 
Posted by Twiggs50 on Aug. 23 2013,11:23 pm
It's probably to pay for the new furniture and carpet they're getting at Brookside.I'll be voting "NO" for sure. They waste way too much money on unimportant things, it's not for the good of the kids, believe me.
Posted by jaaah on Aug. 28 2013,7:52 am
Yes, it does benefit kids. Volunteer in a classroom and you'll see how awesome all the staff does with kids. It isn't hard to volunteer contact the district office. It is very rewarding and you will make a difference in the life of a child. Instead of complaining about schools, work with the schools!
Posted by This is my real name on Aug. 28 2013,12:41 pm
Weren't some of the budget cuts that necessitated this referendum recently restored?I am legitimately asking this question, not saying. I thought that Dayton had restored some of the cuts to education funding (or at least indicated that he would). If that is indeed the case, why would we extend the referendum? The district would have their funding from the state restored.
Or would they view the ending of a referendum as a loss of revenue, even with the restorations? Do they figure that we are already used to being taxed that amount anyway, so we shouldn't really miss it if the funding continues?
Either way, the problem isn't with the funding. It's with the education industry budgeting their money. About 50 percent of our tax money goes to education. How much of that money actually makes its way into the classroom where it makes a difference?
Posted by pepi-lapew on Sep. 07 2013,10:23 am
I used to volunteer at one of the schools untill they decided that they needed to know my income, and a bunch of other things. Thats when I said it was enough.
Posted by hymiebravo on Sep. 08 2013,9:05 am
The desserts don't look very good on the school lunch menu. You would think by now they could have come up with something better than peaches and pears.
Come up to the compulsory hog trough kids and get your dull unimaginative slice of canned peach.
Posted by cueball869 on Nov. 04 2013,1:11 pm
Since I got a letter from the school district telling me that my taxes would go down if I voted yes to this issue. I was wondering how much my taxes would go down if I voted no. Does anyone know the answer to that question?
Posted by This is my real name on Nov. 05 2013,7:18 am
I hope there is a high voter turnout today. I believe they deliberately ran the issue during a non-election year, hoping for low voter turnout (except among those supporting the issue). If the measure is defeated, they can try again next year before the referendum expires—except that will be during a mid-term election, with higher voter turnout.The referendum also doesn't seem to be as publicized as in years past. Those who are in favor of it are going to vote, trying to get this through. They're counting on those against it staying home. I hope voters on both sides of the issue show up in high numbers.
Vote for the referendum. Vote against the referendum. Just vote and let your voice be heard.
Posted by Santorini on Nov. 05 2013,8:46 am
(This is my real name @ Aug. 28 2013,12:41 pm)
QUOTE
Weren't some of the budget cuts that necessitated this referendum recently restored?
I am legitimately asking this question, not saying. I thought that Dayton had restored some of the cuts to education funding (or at least indicated that he would). If that is indeed the case, why would we extend the referendum? The district would have their funding from the state restored.
Or would they view the ending of a referendum as a loss of revenue, even with the restorations? Do they figure that we are already used to being taxed that amount anyway, so we shouldn't really miss it if the funding continues?
Either way, the problem isn't with the funding. It's with the education industry budgeting their money. About 50 percent of our tax money goes to education. How much of that money actually makes its way into the classroom where it makes a difference?
I am legitimately asking this question, not saying. I thought that Dayton had restored some of the cuts to education funding (or at least indicated that he would). If that is indeed the case, why would we extend the referendum? The district would have their funding from the state restored.
Or would they view the ending of a referendum as a loss of revenue, even with the restorations? Do they figure that we are already used to being taxed that amount anyway, so we shouldn't really miss it if the funding continues?
Either way, the problem isn't with the funding. It's with the education industry budgeting their money. About 50 percent of our tax money goes to education. How much of that money actually makes its way into the classroom where it makes a difference?
Watched a round-table discussion on PBS just last week about school budgets. They said about 80-85% goes toward salaries & benefits for current & retired employees
Posted by pepi-lapew on Nov. 05 2013,10:49 am
My wife and I couldnt wait to vote NO.
Posted by Santorini on Nov. 05 2013,10:05 pm
It passed!!!Raises all around!!!
Posted by This is my real name on Nov. 06 2013,4:56 am
(Santorini @ Nov. 05 2013,10:05 pm)
QUOTE
It passed!!!
Raises all around!!!
Raises all around!!!
It isn't an increase. The vote was whether or not to continue the last referendum. This just means that the old one will not expire.
Posted by cueball869 on Nov. 06 2013,5:01 am
Wouldn't it have been a decrease if it didn't pass? What else do you call it?
Posted by This is my real name on Nov. 06 2013,6:12 am
(cueball869 @ Nov. 06 2013,5:01 am)
QUOTE
Wouldn't it have been a decrease if it didn't pass? What else do you call it?
I call it maintaining the current level of funding. A lack of a decrease =/= an increase. This will not raise the level of funding, with the exception that the tax level will apparently increase with inflation. It is not a new tax or a new referendum. It was a vote to continue the existing referendum.
If it didn't pass, yes, it would have been a decrease beginning in 2015. The old referendum would have expired and our taxes would have decreased, at least for that portion.
EDIT: According to the Tribune article, taxes will go down marginally anyway. That would have been the case whether or not the referendum passed. Had it not passed, they would have gone down even more.
< Tribune article about referendum >
Posted by Santorini on Nov. 06 2013,7:40 am
I repeat... raises all around!!!
Posted by Santorini on Nov. 06 2013,8:03 am
Continued referendum...increase in school spending for next 2 years passed by legislature...plus lawmakers included a new option for districts; if districts don't get referendums passed, districts now have the authority to levy up to $300 per student without presenting it to the voters!! Isn't that equivalent to taxation without representation
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 06 2013,8:08 am
^ Last I heard the school board is elected by us. 
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 06 2013,9:28 am
Yep, all politics are local
Posted by hairhertz on Nov. 11 2013,12:37 pm
(Santorini @ Nov. 06 2013,8:03 am)
QUOTE
Continued referendum...increase in school spending for next 2 years passed by legislature...
plus lawmakers included a new option for districts; if districts don't get referendums passed, districts now have the authority to levy up to $300 per student without presenting it to the voters!! Isn't that equivalent to taxation without representation
plus lawmakers included a new option for districts; if districts don't get referendums passed, districts now have the authority to levy up to $300 per student without presenting it to the voters!! Isn't that equivalent to taxation without representation
Apparently our representatives voted to allow this.