Lee’s Summit Resident, Embarrassed Lee’s Summit School District is Using Scare Tactics to Push Tax Levy - Lee's Summit Tribune - Lee's Summit News
Lee’s Summit Resident, Embarrassed Lee’s Summit School District is Using Scare Tactics to Push Tax Levy - Lee's Summit Tribune - Lee's Summit News
January 29, 2011
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.
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.
Also this April, I want to encourage everyone to vote for John Plaas - since he was the only one on the school board to question this tax levy and vote no.
Enough is Enough!
Thank you so much for this information. It seems this school district has found it can ask for money over and over again and because the great citizens of this district want the best for their kids, get everything they want. The sad fact is, most of us don't either have the time or have the knowledge to know where to go to dig this information up.
My pet peeve is the fact the taxpayers are also footing the bill to build state of the art athletic complexes with just about everything the pro leagues have. I want our kids to have a good experience at school, but it's snowballed out of control and I am certain has drained money away from areas of much higher importance. Maybe it's time we begin to look at other models used around the world in which these activities have been privatized. I think we would also see these other models do not rely so heavily on overpaid administrators.
I won't be able to vote in the election on the 9th, so I'm voting by absentee ballot. If this is your situation as well, I believe the office in Independence will be open this Saturday as well as during normal business hours during the rest of the week.
John Simonds
Enough is Enough!
I’m disturbed that Jack is foolish enough to think I’m that stupid! Passing this levy is ALL about the timing. But let’s face it, with 2,500 school district employees (and their significant others), some Armageddon scare tactics and a typical low voter turnout in February, the district does have a huge advantage in numbers and they know it. Never mind the fact that it will cost us taxpayers $120,000 for this special election!
If I take the School Board (Jack) at their word and go with the thought process that this decision was made solely for the purpose of gaining 60 days of planning, then I have to question their fiduciary decision to spend $120,000 when they are coming to me with their outstretched tin cup. Couldn’t the administration create two sets of plans – one if the levy passes and one if it doesn’t? If it’s all about planning time, why couldn’t this levy have been on last November’s ballot and given everyone an additional 3 months to plan? It’s not like the district didn’t know it was going to ask for this levy. I heard about it early last year.
Oh, where are the FOOLS (Friend’s out of Lee’s Summit) banners, billboards, signs, mailers, full-page newspaper ads and promotional flyers this time around? The absence of the FOOLS propaganda affirms my position that the powers-that-be thought they could keep this levy low-key and slip it right on by the taxpayer. The small group of FOOLS scratches the back of the district by spending tens of thousands of dollars promoting the “No tax increase” bonds and levy’s and in return the school district rubber stamps the Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Transportation Development Districts (TDD) and the like which help line the pockets of the business owners, but provide little or no school district funds until the TIF bonds are paid off many years down the road. For this election, the best way the FOOLS can help the school district is to keep things on the down-low to help suppress voter turnout. The TDD and TIF discussion is for another day, but it does have a roll in all of this. We are a bedroom community and our 80% residential tax base is way out of whack, so until we get some additional commercial development and business in Lee’s Summit to take on some of that tax burden, it falls on the shoulders of the homeowners.
The school district underestimated the public awareness and now the lskids.org (small, rehashed group of self-designated civic protectors) is scrambling to quell the uprising. I have a feeling you might start seeing some additional “Vote Yes” signs popping up around the city now that the cat is out of the bag. I have children in the district and obviously want the best for them, but I too am appalled at the LS R-7 tactics! So, on the principal that the end doesn’t justify the means, I guess that’s a NO vote for me.
Frank Drebin
Artificial turf and aquatic centers come from bonds vs operating levies so they are different "pockets"? Really??? They both come from my pocket, that is as disingenious as the "no tax increase bond issues".
We pay property taxes to the Metropolitan Community Colleges, they now have an underutilized aquatics center. My pocket is getting tired.
You will cut strings budgets? Fine, I already drive my daughter to competitions, district rehearsals, I buy her competition music, I buy her instruments, I pay for her private lessons...what will you cut? Notwithstanding, I would prefer to pay user fees, then the cost of my daughters' extracurricular activities are not paid by the unemployed/underemployed because, remember, they are losing their homes.
We are being asked to replace state money with a levy. What happens when the State's economy recovers and more funds are available for the schools? Will we get a roll back of our levy? I suspect not.
I, too, find the timing of this election to be suspect. Yes, I hear the reasons, but sometimes the appearance is overwhelmingly more convincing than the words. Honestly, I feel the District and the levy supporters have been very patronizing of me. I get the impression they just assume I will vote yes because they say it is important. That feeling started with the information meeting where Dr. McGeehee gave a briefing but no questions were taken from the audience. You just told us what you want us to know and our questions are not important.
Not this time, enough is enough.
At this point my major concern is one of trust. How can the District continually refer to one set of bond issues as "no tax" increase, implying somehow they are therefore "free"? They must realize that people think that and are therefore inclined to vote for it. What this really means is that the district is going to incur a debt, which must be paid, and it is going to be paid for with tax dollars. The money will not come out of thin air. For the District to mass market it to the citizens implying there will be no tax effect is simply not genuine, and also begins to make one wonder what other tricks and half truths are being put forth.
Another troubling issue is the whole "two buckets" rigamarole. This is the one where we are told the capital improvements budget is always apparently overflowing with money and they literally have to invent ways to spend it (Such as robotics labs, Astroturf, and incredible glass buildings), but the operating budget is always in the red and in a crisis mode. This again seems to be an invented situation exploited by half-truths and convenient omissions of fact.
Perhaps if the district would let a few of these no tax increase bond issues expire and not simply invent new ways to spend money, the taxpayers of Lees Summit would regain trust that the district is just not on some sort of spending spree with borrowed money.
Perhaps if just a few of these past "no-tax" bond issues had not been brought forth, is it not true that the District could have had some of it's debt retired by now, and then there could have been an option now, when we really need it, to have it brought into the general operating fund?
If some of the OLD DEBT could ever actually get retired and not replaced with NEW DEBT, it seems the District would have some options or at least some clout with the taxpayers. It seems the District would instead like to just have as much money a they can get, and the effect is that we are getting eaten alive with taxes, yet not the slightest amount of remorse or shame from those burdening us.
The other large trust issue is that the amount of marketing that seems to be performed by school employees, using school resources, on school time. Each time an issue comes up, the district bombards us with printed flyers brought home by the kids, robocalls, emails, and sometimes even feature length professional videos displayed during school events. How much money is being spent on the materials for this? How many employees are spending their time doing this instead of educating our children?
The District will explain that this activity is allowed under law, as they are merely stating facts, and not "technically" trying to get you to vote any certain way. Ask yourself, honestly, after seeing anything they have produced or said, are they truly trying to educate you, or are they blatantly trying to manipulate your opinion?
Times are tough--people are literally losing their jobs, losing their homes each day. Many people lucky enough to still have a job have taken 20% or more pay cuts and have lost many of their coworkers to layoffs, and their retirements and 401K's are also obliterated.
It is not fair for the District and employees of the District to lay a guilt trip on the citizens and make them out to be "the bad guys" or not school friendly. How many school bond issues have been defeated in the past 15 years? I cant think of ANY. The citizens of Lees Summit have given so much over the years. No one is asking anyone in the District to go through anything that they themselves, their friends and families themselves have not gone through.
I would urge everyone to vote NO on this tax increase. Throwing more money at the situation is not the answer. We can then get an actual citizens based committee together to explore ALL the options, nothing off the table, and come up with a viable solution.
I'm also frustrated about all the flyers, emails, and phone calls I have gotten from the district on this levy issue. They are clearly using a lot of resources to get their message across.
I am sure that in most of their hearts they believe they are thinking independently and in the best interests of educating students. But if the membership of the CAC is largely made up of current and former employees of the district, their families, friends, or other people with a financial stake in the outcome of a vote, it is a huge problem and needs to be remedied before ANY future recommendations can be taken at face value.
If the District is going to constantly tout that they are merely acting on the advise of a supposedly independent and unbiased CAC, it should be a TRULY INDEPENDENT AND UNBIASED CAC!