A fundemental problem here is the school district is trying to impose a permanent solution to a temporary problem. We are in an economic downturn, house values have fallen so tax income drops. Trying to solve this temporary problem with a permanent tax increase is not fair to those of us who foot the bill. I hear NOTHING about dropping the rate when the economy and associated tax revenue returns. I am NOT in favor of this one sided solution. I am guessing if this passes, when the economy returns the extra money will be consumed in new programs with no thought to future "rainy day" economic downturns leading to yet another desperate appeal for more money from the taxpayers.

A fundemental problem here is the district is proposing a permanent solution to a temporary problem. We have a down economy and deflated housing values resulting in lower tax income. When the economy and house values recover will the added .49/$100 tax increase go away? I don't think so. When the economy recovers and the district is getting 17% MORE income will they balance the books then park the remainder in an endowment that could cover losses in a downturn? I don't think so. Had that thinking been in place we would have had one to cover the current temporary problem - We all want a strong Ladue School District, I think our first step is stronger leadership before more money

You are protected by the Hancock Amendment! If property values increase more than the cost of living, the tax levy will then be automatically lowered. The only exception is new construction.

Westminster doesn't count since that was a bond issue and not part of the operating revenue. The district did have the funds to run Westminster when it was purchased however the housing market continued to fall in Ladue. They probably should have asked for a tax increase at the same time as the bond levy. If the levy fails housing will mostly like drop further and the schools will be in even more trouble and need more money. It becomes a vicious cycle and niether the homeowner or the schools win. I understand not wanting to pay more taxes when it doesn't seem like it benefits the community or you just can't afford to pay them anymore. Many people will continue to move to Ladue for the schools if they continue to be excellent. The taxes are less than a year of private school education for the majority of homeowners. With excellent public schools the area can demand a premium price for their homes. The Hancock Amendment protects the homeowner if housing prices go back up. I don't understand punishing the district when you can afford to pay the taxes and when it will hurt the whole community and district in the long run.

In response to Careaboutladue's comment on what do we think is wasteful: It is the wrong question. The issue is revenues are way down, all of us are experiencing that. None of us have the option to ask taxpayers to bail us out. It is not "are the teachers making too much" or "did someone waste money". The issue is revenues are way down and the School District is paid to manage the problem. Hearing "These are expenses that are out of our control" does not work for my family if the mortgage is not being paid, it doesnt work with my suppliers at my business. The buck stops with me. I have to deal with the reality of the situation. Business as usual will bankrupt me and my business. I have to continue to make tough decisions to get through it. I don't want to run the school system, I am paying others to do that. If they ask my for my experience on how I cope with it I would ask ahve all administrators taken a temporary pay cut? Are all non-esential staff gone (do we still pay $95k/yr for internal PR? - can an outside firm do that cheaper?) I don't pretend to know the internal workings of the District but tough decisions like these need to be made during this TEMPORARY economic downturn. I would possibly listen to a request for a TEMPORARY (2 yr?) increase but I am absolutely against asking for a permanent increase that results in 17% MORE money once the economy turns around

The education of our children is NOT a wasteful expenditure. The district has severely tighted its belt over the last year and we are looking at more cuts - to language, physical education, and fine arts. We are also faced with increasing class sizes. Many of the residents of Ladue moved here for the quality schools - other than schools and location, Ladue does not have much to offer. If we allow the quality of our schools to decline we are only left with location. Not only will that hurt our children but it will affect the housing prices in the district as well!

Certainly, the quality of the public schools is one important factor in home valuation. However, in Ladue, we have another dynamic. Many children attend the private schools and many families move here to be close to them. So, your argument that everyone moved here for only the public schools is wrong. With Burroughs, MICDS, Chaminade, St. Joseph, Community, Villa and Oak Hill, Immanuel Lutheran in the district and DeSmet and Viz just outside, I would bet the private/public ratio is pretty close to being even. The tax increase sought by LSD is a very big one. It is being calculated at the current lower home assessments. When assessments rise again, your tax rate isn't going back down and your taxes will be even higher. When voters see how much this tax increase is going to cost them, I predict this tax hike will go down to defeat. The problem at Ladue is that almost all the money goes to payroll. We have too many administrators who make too much for a smaller district. And, from what I have read, this is only the first request for higher taxes this board wants. I will be voting NO.

Flyoverland,

The Hancock Amendment means that the tax rates will be rolled back if the property values rise.

I wonder what you have to gain from spreading disinformation?

Have any of the vote no proponents spoken to the Board or the Adminstration to get the facts behind the budget? To understand why expenses where a given number in a particular year that you have a question about? If you feel the district is wasting money and hasn't been prudent then what should they have spent the money on or what exactly was it spent on that was wasteful? The staff is not overpaid when compared to other districts nor are the teachers. Data is available to prove that yet you continue to claim everyone is over paid. I hear an awful lot of noise but no real facts behind it. What exactly did the District spend money on that you deem to be so wasteful?

CareaboutLadue makes a lot of assumptions. Sorry but "doesn't count" - doesn't count! To suggest any additional burden on taxpayers "doesn't count" is an affront to those of us asked to carry the financial burden. It is like my daughter asking for more money for college in this down economy and saying "well the added money you have to pay because tuition went up doesn't count" The reality is both families, businesses and school have to buck it up in this down economy. Saying "We had money before the economy turned down" indicates school leadership lacked the discipline to understand economies go up and down - good fiscal management plans for rainy days with reserves, endowments and other tools then when the economy turns makes tough decisions to quickly to respond to lowered revenue - I am not "punishing" the school district any more than I am "punishing" my daughter by saying "spend less" cutting expenses across the board at my home and business to survive and be able to continue to provide jobs for those employees left or "punishing" myself for taking a deep pay cut. I am respectful of all sides on this - we are neighbors! And I have to respectfully disagree this time - in the past these tax increases have gotten an automatic YES vote from our family but this proposal has taught us we have to now stop and ask tough questions, the audacity to ask for a tax increase now has changed my perspective on these going forward

Of course it is for the children! Class size, language and fine arts education, physical education, and technology education are for our children and for the future for all of us. If we are going to compete in a global economy with need to keep up with improving education not moving backwards with these cuts.

This whole idea that the district is "throwing money at the problem" is ridiculous. Yes, there are many cases in education where giving more money to school districts does virtually nothing. Case and point, our own St. Louis City Schools. For a district to be successful you need supportive parents, good administrators, and money. With St. Louis City schools, to just have money is not going to solve the problem. But with our schools we have 2 of the three right now to remain excellent. We are missing the funding right now due to decreased home values and therefore decrease revenue for our schools. It is as simple as that! We are not "throwing money at the problem". We are trying to keep our district excellent. We have not passed an operating tax in this district for over 30 years. We have passed Propositions recently, but nothing for our operating budget. We have the lowest tax rate in the county...and you get what you pay for! For those who say the board is irresponsible, then run for school board and work for change. We need this to pass or we will become a district of mediocrity...surely we can do better!

Those who support higher taxes always point out that we "have the lowest tax rate in the County." It's absolutely true. However, what they always conveniently forget to include is that we "have the highest property values in the county." Let me take you back to third grade math class. There are two parts to a multiplication problem. The tax rate and the assessed home valuation. Multiplying our rate times our home values yields much more money than the higher tax rates seen in other districts multiplied times their lower price homes. You spend dollars, not percents. While the rate has not increased, our home values have. Since you mentioned 30 years, I won't even embarrass you by pointing out that even given the current moribund state of real estate values, the dollars received by the district have gone up and gone up incredibly over that period. If you applied the higher rates used by other districts, few people would be able to afford to live here, other than the ultra-wealthy. While schools, public and private are important to home buyers, buyers also look at taxes. Had the school district come to the taxpayers and said, "we would like to increase the rate for two years and see if home values had rebounded," I might have some sympathy. This rate increase, however, will survive the downturn. I urge taxpayers to vote NO.

Hi Tom,
Please stop robo-calling my house to try to turn me against this much-needed tax levy. Our property taxes have all gone down in recent years, leaving the school district without the resources necessary to teach our children. This is simple economics. The tactics of "TakeBackLadue" show Ladue residents in a terrible light; I hate to think of my neighbors as cheap, dishonest, and manipulative. If you have a solution for how to teach more students with less money, I'd like to hear it. If you don't have any ideas, at least please stop calling my home with this vicious nonsense.

flyoverland,

If the tax levy passes, the operating tax will be 3.24. If property values go up in the future, the operating tax goes down that percent minus inflation.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/const/a10022.htm

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

The ballot language only applies to local sales tax (sometimes called Prop C money) not local property tax. The Hancock Amendment still applies to local property taxes. You state that you read the district website. The Proposition states "...to eliminate fully the sales tax reduction in its operating tax levy for school purposes
as provided under Section 164.013 RSMo."
The district then explains As a result, if Ladue Schools passed an operating tax levy increase without a Prop C Waiver, the district would not receive the full financial benefit of the approved increase . Specifically, the Prop C rollback would reduce the tax rate by approximately $ .10 . To have the same financial impact with a roll back in place, the district would need to request a tax levy increase of approximately $ .59 ($ .49 + $ .10)

Reading is fundamental.

If you are against spending money on education, fine, but do not spread disinformation.

JFB,
The Prop C waiver is not waiving a constitutional right. Maybe there is room in a government class at Ladue High School for you. Every district in St. Louis County has passed a waiver. When Prop 1 passes, it will be the first time that Ladue will be above the state allowed level without a tax levy and needs that waiver like every other district.

You are right, this would be a 17.8% increase in local property taxes. Assessed valuations are down 9% and enrollment is up 22%.

When there was a baby-boom in this country, new schools were built and students were educated. Now there is a big increase in population and you are looking for a way to say "no".

I was at a Board meeting when someone got up and set that when air conditioning the schools was on the ballot, 40% voted NO. I get it. You do not believe in public education and are part of the 40% who vote NO to everything involving public education.

Just be honest. This has nothing to do with Ladue Schools and everything to do with your world view.

Enrollment in the Ladue School District is down this year.

Enrollment is flat in 2011-2012 and is up 22% over the last 8 years.

Flat implies no increase or decrease. The enrollment is less than last year. Please do not invent your own facts.

flyoverland - You are correct. Enrollment decreased by 0.38% (15 students) from the 2010 count day to the 2011 count day but this doesn't change the FACT that enrollment has been up over the last 8 years.

cck, I will make you a deal. Let's look back over the same eight year period and see how much our taxes have gone up. This district spends too much, especially on the bureaucracy. Let me ask you this, why does the Supt. of Schools make almost twice as much as the Governor of Missouri? More than the Mayor of St. Louis. More than the County Executive?

real leaders in a financial crisis take a pay cut until they find a way to return to financial stability. Should al administrators take a pay cut while revenue is down and we cut benefits like free education for teachers kids maybe I would believe the district leaders have done all they can to deal with this tough economy - the rest of us had to do these things AND we don't get to go to our customers and demand they pay more when things are tough

Mark, are you serious? We should not consider whether people will be able to pay? It is that attitude that says to retired people it doesn't matter what happens to you, just that we get what we want that will defeat this tax increase.

flyoverland,

Missouri already has a property tax waiver for senior citizens.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously said that taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.

I do not know where we would be without you, flyoverland, looking out for the little guy who can't afford the lowest property tax rate in St. Louis County.

Advocates of higher tax rates are quick to jump on the "low relative rates" bandwagon, and back that up with the populist "the rich can afford it" slogan. The other side of the argument is "high relative values". This shouldn't be class warfare, and i don't think we can debate the value of good schools. The question is precisely this: is an 18% permanent tax increase warranted in reaction to a few years of decreasing property values? For 30 years of steadily soaring values, rates were held steady and revenue went up, up, up. If, as anticipated, we work through this current decline, values (and revenues) will rise even WITHOUT a rate increase.

It is pretty clear someone has to look out for the little guy when deal with this school board.

By the way, destination, the waiver you mention (find it here http://dor.mo.gov/personal/ptc) would not apply to many in Ladue. However, there are many retired people who planned to spend their retirement years in their homes, which they paid off. Even though they might be above the threshold of this waiver, they are by no means rich anymore. They are living on social security, a pension, if they are lucky and savings. Most pensions do not increase in value. Savings have seen almost no return for the past few years. So, their income is no longer "fixed," but declining along with their home values. So, are you saying is, these people could easily afford to survive, just not in their home in Ladue. So, should they should just sell their home and move if them staying means your kid's teachers and administrators don't get another raise? Just asking.

I disagree, the quality of the education in Ladue has delcined. Class sizes are dramatically larger, the elementary schools are overcrowded, experienced and fabulous teachers have been offered early retirement deals and replaced with just out of school teachers. The influx of brand new, young teachers has led to lots of maternity leaves which have been very disruptive to the education of our children. My middle child has had three teachers go out on long term leave in three years.

Selling our house, moving to Univercity City, and sending our kids to private school has definately been a consideration. Would probably be even higher if we thought we could get a good price for our house but who wants to move to Ladue with the current state of the schools.

cck - who wants to move to Ladue with a pending 18% property tax increase? One of several? That's part of the reason you can't sell your house. The city has never seen more vacant houses. If you want to kill the golden goose, just keep squeezing.

the waiver you mention (find it here http://dor.mo.gov/personal/ptc) would not apply to many in Ladue. However, there are many retired people who planned to spend their retirement years in their homes, which they paid off. Even though they might be above the threshold of this waiver, they are by no means rich anymore. They are living on social security, a pension, if they are lucky and savings. Most pensions do not increase in value. Savings have seen almost no return for the past few years. So, their income is no longer "fixed," but declining along with their home values. So, are you saying is, these people could easily afford to survive, just not in their home in Ladue. So, should they should just sell their home and move if them staying means your kid's teachers and administrators don't get another raise? Just asking.

Revenue = Rates * Assessed Valuation.
Schools should be concerned with Revenue (how much they get to spend). Taxpayers should have the same concern. Rates are a smokescreen. What is our average tax bill? Higher than EVERY other district listed, and increasing by 18% if this new tax passes. When the housing market recovers, homeowners pay 18% more on the recovery as well.
This is a bad deal. The school district is asking for too much, too quickly.

And what is the average price of the houses in the other districts. Get REAL>

This misses the point. Even with a lesser percentage Ladue takes in far more income per household given the average house value is far above most of the school districts listed above. This is typically a $1000-$2000 per household tax increase and EVEN MORE when home values recover

Andrew - you obviously run in a very different crowd from most people I know. As the mailers we keep getting from the vote no side keep telling us our taxes will go up by $470. Most people I know will have a $400 to $600 increase.

JFB,

Are you going to continue to call those in favor of Prop 1 "communists" like you did in this thread http://ladue-frontenac.patch.com/articles/ladue-offers-public-meetings-round-tables-to-discuss-ramifications-of-prop-1#photo-9263772

I am sure you are even more charming in person.

JFB- Are you aware that 17 full time teaching positions are being eliminated, 5 staff and adminstrative positions eliminated. Forgien Language will be gone from elemantary schools, reductions or elimination or music, art and PE. The AAA bond rating of the district will be lost due to placing the district in financial distress. These unfortunately are the facts. Clayton is very comparable to Ladue and supports their schools and now is ranked higher than Ladue. Gifted and enrichments programs will be cut or eliminated as well as AP Courses at the High School. The school will survive but it will be like any other mediocre school in the country. Is this acceptable for you?

JFB,
Why don't you call mjf a "COMMUNIST" like you did to Prop 1 supporters?

Do you understand bond debt is completely different from operating revenue? You keep interchanging them like the district can use the operating revenue to pay off the bond debt. The bonds will be paid off as revenue is collected to pay them off. That revenue stream is already in place to pay off the bonds as long as people keep paying there taxes. Do you understand that the bonds are rated AAA? This means that the rating agencies have examined the tax base and because it can more than pay off this debt it gives it a AAA rating. Not many schools districts carry this rating in the country. If the district had large amounts of debt these bonds would not have been rated AAA. The district does not have an large amount of debt compared to other districts. I can find the numbers on that if you are interested. The operating revenue is tied to a different rate which is tied to home valules. This operating levy rate has remained unchanged for 29 years and it now only needing to be raised because of the downturn in housing. The district has been able to through prudent financial mangement make the budget work till now. They have made all the cuts they possible can without changing the quality of the education. The bond debt as nothing to do with operating income It will however affect the AAA rating of the district if this levy fails.

If I called someone a COMMUNIST, I think I would remember. But here it is...

RP wrote," My child attends private school, and I pay tuition. . I don't want to pay for my neighbor's children too."

LadueMom wrote, "Like you, I pay taxes in this District, and a lot of taxes at that. My chid's education is far from free. Residents in the Ladue School District are not asking for a handout or a free lunch. . . just a quality education for our children."

You wrote, "Laduemom - you ARE a communist. Rinaldi isn't name calling - just clarifying that you prefer others to pay your bills. "

JFB, you think that Public Education is COMMUNISM. Keep it up. The great thing about your comments is that the Internet does not forget your name calling and ignorance of what COMMUNISM is.

FI,
I have lots of letters behind my name as well. I am not impressed with JFB's understanding of basic concept of finance.

First of all, it is Dr. McKenna.

I think this board is not great either, but if you look at the current state of the district, there is little left to cut. I would prefer having businessmen or businesswomen on the board, but they are not running.

JFB, who you say is an expert, would rather call people names (COMMUNIST) than run for the board.

MJF - I am not interested in participating in this board any longer - not because I don't have arguments for you but because we (the yes supporters) have been called communists, freeloaders, pensioners, and finally Nazis. I see no point in discussion here any longer.

Ladue has the highest ACT scores in the state. Teachers are on a merit pay system and have been for 60 years. Ladue is what is right with educations.

LL, You call people NAZIS. That is not right in any circumstance unless there is genocide. This is a direct quote from another thread, "Why is the yes side behaving like Nazi's?"

You should be ashamed.

What would you call attempts at stifling expressions of free speech by reverting to sign stealing? How exactly would you classify that type of despicable behavior? Didn’t storm troopers tear down signs and prohibit people from expressing their opinions? I simply questioned why the “yes” had to revert to this type of extreme behavior – there haven’t any reports of Yes signs being stolen. Are you so afraid of free expression that you want to shut it down if you do not agree with it? Believe it or not the first amendment protects offensive speech. Do we have the right to compare anti-freedom behavior like sign stealing to the Nazis? As offensive as you might find this question – the answer is yes we do! And I will defend your right to express yourself in any way you want. Unfortunately we see many times that dilusional left wingers like you are afraid of freedom. People like you think that freedom is only acceptable if the expressions and actions of others are aligned with their point of view.
Any time that we see our civil liberties and freedom under attack should we sit back and politely ignore it or should stand up and shout? Maybe we need risk insulting people for the sake of clarity. I apologize for nothing and am personally embarrassed that we live in a community where people steal political signs because they do agree with that position or candidate.

Mr. Destination - forgot to remind you that LHS has the lowest ACT scores in the LSD district. LHS finished last behind Burroughs, MICDS, St. Joseph's Academy, Chaminade and Villa. Given a choice where would you send your child? Would the children of Ladue be better off if their parents had a voucher that could be used at the school of their choosing? Public education is trapped in mediocrity. The best way to improve public education is to get government out of the education business and give the tax money directly to the parents in the form of a voucher. Besides the teacher’s union who would object to educational choice? Why?

LL,

If you do not know what is wrong about comparing people to Nazis, there is no helping you.

The difference between Ladue and all of the private schools you mentioned, is that Ladue does not have an entrance exam, all of the others do. Ladue takes all comers including those with learning issues.

Ladue has had merit pay for 60 years. The teachers are accountable. With all of the criticisms concerning the school district and Prop 1, I have yet to see someone criticize the job the district does in educating students. I would like to see you expand upon this. While you are doing that, you can continue on your NAZI rant.

Your talk of vouchers explains your real motivations.

Louis - there have been both reports of stolen Yes signs as well as vandalism in Yes supporters yards. Someone placed a toilet with a Yes sign in a Yes supporters yard. Outrageous but that doesn't make them a Nazi!

And when the district was given a AAA rating - what was the rating agency thinking? We knew when the bond passed Ladue did not have operating funds for the new property. They were already cutting the budget. Then this fall they had to figure out how to utilize the property. Where was the business plan before they purchased the property???? You do not buy something without having a usage plan, funding, business plan??? No business in their right mind would do this. But the Ladue school board did it. I am not a business person, but I know these facts.
Get real. That is why I am voting no.

I don't believe anyone who is choosing to vote "no" is "confusing what is going on in our federal government to what is going on in our district". I can assure you, most Ladue school district taxpayers are not living in a bubble that has been somehow immune to the state of our country's economy. We have all been affected.

Again, look to the School Board for their out of control spending and poor decision making if you are looking to place blame. Review the budget.

http://docs2.ladue.k12.mo.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-3871/2011-12%20Revised%20Budget.pdf

SS,

I emailed a teacher last night. Ladue still has merit pay. There was a transition period when the district switched from one system to another, but evaluation still dictates pay.

You are correct that pay raises have not kept up with the cost of living.

The former merit pay system was a joke. It was nothing but an automatic raise. A community finance committee in 2004 audited the plan over ten years. In over about 3500 opportunities to rate teachers less than ten opportunities were not at the absolute highest ranking. It was just an automatic annual raise and is the reason our payroll system jumped so high over that time. We are now paying the price for huge annual raises back then that have compounded over time.

FI,

Please provide a link to this audit of which you write.

Thanks.