NO TAX INCREASE Bond Issue

NO TAX INCREASE Bond Issue

Posted in the Lemay Forum

First Prev
of 14
Next Last
Me too

United States

#2 Apr 24, 2012
I am also proud as a graduate and parent of Fox graduates. Please tell us more about this no tax increase bond issue. That generally is the selling point for debt that is due to retire and they want to replace it seamlessly with additional debt and package it as no increase in your taxes. How about packaging an idea to reduce taxes?

Have you seen the tax burden recently on the personal and real estate tax bills? This school district makes up the clear and huge majority of my overall personal and real estate taxes. I have no problem with the good work that is done by our district.

I am more concerned by the school board members who think that their own personal interests are above the good of the district. The majority of voters recently re-elected a board member whose wife was hired as the district nurse while he was on the board. That is a nepotism case if ever there was one. We have another board member who, as a member of the electrician's union seems to keep getting his employer awarded the maintenance contract for the school district so he can remain employed there. When his original company folded he managed to get hired on by the replacement contractor who took him on without going through the rotation at the union hall. Pretty good work if you can influence it - I mean get it. Tell me what the school board is going to do about these examples of poor ethical behavior and then we can talk about setting good examples for our children.
Proud District Parent

Columbia, MO

#3 Apr 24, 2012
What is a “No Tax Increase” Bond Issue

A "No Tax Increase" Bond Issue is made possible when existing bond issues are paid off. As the debt decreases, the City can issue new bonds, with voter approval, and pay them off over time within the current property tax levy. Thus, there is no need to increase the current property tax levy to pay the debt.
Matt Hay

Brooklyn, NY

#4 Apr 24, 2012
Proud District Parent wrote:
What is a “No Tax Increase” Bond Issue
A "No Tax Increase" Bond Issue is made possible when existing bond issues are paid off. As the debt decreases, the City can issue new bonds, with voter approval, and pay them off over time within the current property tax levy. Thus, there is no need to increase the current property tax levy to pay the debt.
I am trying to wrap my head around this one. Say you take out a $10,000 Loan due in 15 years. You have about $6k in principal you still owe at year 10, so you then take another $4k out against that $10k line for another 15 years, and that is what you call "no increase"? The problem with your logic is that in theory, after the term of the loan, you should get a "tax decrease" as a result, however, what is being done, is trading the anticipated "tax decrease" and just continuing to use those funds which were initially voted upon for a fixed term.

So, I guess this is about what the definition of "No Tax Increase" actually is.....while the rate is not increasing, the length of time which that rate must be sustained is certainly being extended, thus I am paying more in the long run. That sounds like a Tax Increase to me. Unfortunately, once you let government raise rates, they never go down, as spending just increases to meet the additional revenues, and they become "addicted," just like a heroin junkie. That is why you still see some, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, still love them some red light cameras. They love the cash, not necessary the cameras. They are just the harpoon to get it into their proverbial veins.

I assume the same folks who think Trash is "free" are the same ones who believe that there exists such a fairy tale as "No Tax Increase" financing. Unless you are the Federal Reserve, and can depreciate currency through Qualitative Easing, there is always an inherent cost to borrowing funds. That is the way finance works. Why not just be honest with folks, rather than prey on those that might actually believe your financial fiction? Your argument is disingenuous at best, and just flat out intentional dishonesty at worst.
Nick Venable

Osage Beach, MO

#5 Apr 24, 2012
Mr. Hay, your explanation of "no tax increase bond issue" is pretty much correct. But then, so was "Proud District Parents". And it was correct over 30 years ago, while I was still attending Fox, when they were doing the same thing. No, your taxes do not go up, but they do not go down as they might if the previous debt was retired. I think MOST people are already quite aware of what this is, and what they are voting on. For my part, I am glad to continue to pay the same rate to fund the education of our kids, our future. Infrastructure needs repair and maintenance to not only keep up the value of the assets of the district, but also for the safety and quality of education of our kids. My kids are out of the district now, graduated and moved on. But I am more than willing to help pay to educate your kids. As they say, they are our future. If I have a complaint about this bond issue, it is the fact that the district has cut funding for a fine arts program (vocal music, yes, my pet program) yet continues to fund sports......... Unfair in my eyes, my guess is there is much more money spent on sports than fine arts which I find no less valuable. Nonetheless, I will vote FOR this.
And frankly, this thread has nothing do do with your pet complaints of red light cameras and free trash. Nothing to do with the school or the bond issue.
Matt Hay wrote:
<quoted text>
I assume the same folks who think Trash is "free" are the same ones who believe that there exists such a fairy tale as "No Tax Increase" financing.
Mr. Hay, the people of the district and of Arnold are NOT as stupid as you would make them out to be. And, as I have told you before, your asinine condescending attitude makes you look like an a$$. You should probably make an effort to get over yourself.
NO Vote

Arnold, MO

#6 Apr 25, 2012
I will vote NO.

I have here my 2010 and 2011 Personal Property Tax receipts. I have had the same vehicles for over four years. In 2010 I paid $370 and $240, or 65% of that, went to C6. Last year I paid $410 and $290, or 71%, went to C6. The 5th column on the receipt under where it reads "-- 2011 Personal Property --" shows the individual valuations for the vehicles. The sum of those values is shown in the VALUE field. It shows the vehicles clearly went down in value by 16% over the one year yet my taxes went up 10% overall. The C6 portion went up 19%. The overall tax rates were 6.5112% for 2010 and 6.5208 for 2010. So while the tax rate went down by .0096%, the school district's cut went up 19%. The next closest is Rock Fire who had about $40 each year.

I will vote NO.
No Way Jose

Arnold, MO

#8 Apr 25, 2012
I also will be voting NO! The school district is squandering the money they receive on management positions as opposed to issues that deal directly with educating our youth. Concentrating on reading, writing and arithmetic along with more physical and arts education would be a good thing for the district. Maybe some real life classes explaining finance and planning would help students and administration alike. Field trips used to be learning experiences instead of exercises in entertainment. Teach the kids facts and how sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in the real world and not the everybody wins fantasy world created in the school setting.
NO Vote

Arnold, MO

#10 Apr 26, 2012
I read that letter. The school tax levy HAS increased and you are stupid if you think otherwise or believe this bond issue is a good deal for taxpayers. Sure let us just raise by $18 million our bond debt and extend repayments another ten years and tell the clueless that it is no tax increase. The board packages this crap and convinces these mindless buffoons to sell it for them.

It is no wonder this board is perpetuating this nonsense. No one is paying attention to their hiring as the transportation manager a person with no high school diploma just because the superintendent's buddy needs a job for her husband. What's another $100k per year when it is for a good friend?

Wake up. You are being screwed.
dollie

Arnold, MO

#11 Apr 26, 2012
No Way Jose wrote:
I also will be voting NO! The school district is squandering the money they receive on management positions as opposed to issues that deal directly with educating our youth. Concentrating on reading, writing and arithmetic along with more physical and arts education would be a good thing for the district. Maybe some real life classes explaining finance and planning would help students and administration alike. Field trips used to be learning experiences instead of exercises in entertainment. Teach the kids facts and how sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in the real world and not the everybody wins fantasy world created in the school setting.
I vote NO...Amen...Agree
dollie

Arnold, MO

#12 Apr 26, 2012
NO Vote wrote:
I will vote NO.
I have here my 2010 and 2011 Personal Property Tax receipts. I have had the same vehicles for over four years. In 2010 I paid $370 and $240, or 65% of that, went to C6. Last year I paid $410 and $290, or 71%, went to C6. The 5th column on the receipt under where it reads "-- 2011 Personal Property --" shows the individual valuations for the vehicles. The sum of those values is shown in the VALUE field. It shows the vehicles clearly went down in value by 16% over the one year yet my taxes went up 10% overall. The C6 portion went up 19%. The overall tax rates were 6.5112% for 2010 and 6.5208 for 2010. So while the tax rate went down by .0096%, the school district's cut went up 19%. The next closest is Rock Fire who had about $40 each year.
I will vote NO.
I will vote NO....Correct person.
dollie

Arnold, MO

#13 Apr 26, 2012
Nick Venable wrote:
Mr. Hay, your explanation of "no tax increase bond issue" is pretty much correct. But then, so was "Proud District Parents". And it was correct over 30 years ago, while I was still attending Fox, when they were doing the same thing. No, your taxes do not go up, but they do not go down as they might if the previous debt was retired. I think MOST people are already quite aware of what this is, and what they are voting on. For my part, I am glad to continue to pay the same rate to fund the education of our kids, our future. Infrastructure needs repair and maintenance to not only keep up the value of the assets of the district, but also for the safety and quality of education of our kids. My kids are out of the district now, graduated and moved on. But I am more than willing to help pay to educate your kids. As they say, they are our future. If I have a complaint about this bond issue, it is the fact that the district has cut funding for a fine arts program (vocal music, yes, my pet program) yet continues to fund sports......... Unfair in my eyes, my guess is there is much more money spent on sports than fine arts which I find no less valuable. Nonetheless, I will vote FOR this.
And frankly, this thread has nothing do do with your pet complaints of red light cameras and free trash. Nothing to do with the school or the bond issue.
<quoted text>
Mr. Hay, the people of the district and of Arnold are NOT as stupid as you would make them out to be. And, as I have told you before, your asinine condescending attitude makes you look like an a$$. You should probably make an effort to get over yourself.
Nick, my children have also graduated and moved on. Really, if the money was being used for the kids and not to over pay top personnel, diff story. If we did not have so much waste, I don't mind helping. Is our district going to have to be taken over by the state??? Something needs to be done now. It is evident our school board approves too much without really checking things out. More money for raises, that's how I see it.
Nick Venable

Osage Beach, MO

#14 Apr 26, 2012
dollie wrote:
<quoted text>
Nick, my children have also graduated and moved on. Really, if the money was being used for the kids and not to over pay top personnel, diff story. If we did not have so much waste, I don't mind helping. Is our district going to have to be taken over by the state??? Something needs to be done now. It is evident our school board approves too much without really checking things out. More money for raises, that's how I see it.
Look at it this way, without the bond issue, is any of what you are complaining about going to change? No, they will just make more cuts. And really, what have you heard that I haven't; the district being taken over by the state? Please. It is well within your rights to vote no. For my part, I believe the kids need it. I will vote yes. I do not think our districts personnel are as overpaid as you think they are. Remember, better pay generally attracts better teachers. Oh, they may make more than the average, but our district is BETTER than the average. Perfect? Not by a long shot, but better teachers, better schools, better programs and better kids.......... As I said, with full knowledge of what a "no tax increase" bond issue means, I will vote yes and encourage everyone else to vote yes as well. In the long run it IS for the kids.
Fox students come first

Arnold, MO

#15 Apr 26, 2012
No Way Jose wrote:
I also will be voting NO! The school district is squandering the money they receive on management positions as opposed to issues that deal directly with educating our youth. Concentrating on reading, writing and arithmetic along with more physical and arts education would be a good thing for the district. Maybe some real life classes explaining finance and planning would help students and administration alike. Field trips used to be learning experiences instead of exercises in entertainment. Teach the kids facts and how sometimes you win and sometimes you lose in the real world and not the everybody wins fantasy world created in the school setting.
I think the school needs the improvements they are asking for, but the problem I have is that the money is already there. They just spend it on the Administration and thier familes instead of the students. apperantly, We can not afford a $100,000.00 bus for students to use to get to school. but, we can afford a $70,000.00 luxury suv for the superintendant to use to go home with ever night??? I guess a quarter of million dollars a year sallary is not enough for her to afford her own car. I would like to use it for a trip next weekend. I hope i can because after all, I did pay for it.

You the tax payer will pay for this bond through your personel property tax and realestate taxes. remember that when you vote.
dollie

Arnold, MO

#16 Apr 26, 2012
Nick Venable wrote:
<quoted text>Look at it this way, without the bond issue, is any of what you are complaining about going to change? No, they will just make more cuts. And really, what have you heard that I haven't; the district being taken over by the state? Please. It is well within your rights to vote no. For my part, I believe the kids need it. I will vote yes. I do not think our districts personnel are as overpaid as you think they are. Remember, better pay generally attracts better teachers. Oh, they may make more than the average, but our district is BETTER than the average. Perfect? Not by a long shot, but better teachers, better schools, better programs and better kids.......... As I said, with full knowledge of what a "no tax increase" bond issue means, I will vote yes and encourage everyone else to vote yes as well. In the long run it IS for the kids.
That's just it. You say it is for the kids. Really? You know better. If we have better teachers, schools etc, why all of a sudden do our schools have all these needs. People must not be doing their jobs. Just like your own home. Your working on it yearly, not all of a sudden. Does this mean the maintenance area is not doing their job? Maybe we should have each student pay a book fee like they do in Illinois. Would that upset some parents? You bet. But hey, maybe it would wake up some people about the pay some people are making and jobs being created that don't need to be there. Maybe someone needs to go in and clean house starting with the school board.
dollie

Arnold, MO

#17 Apr 26, 2012
Fox students come first wrote:
<quoted text>
I think the school needs the improvements they are asking for, but the problem I have is that the money is already there. They just spend it on the Administration and thier familes instead of the students. apperantly, We can not afford a $100,000.00 bus for students to use to get to school. but, we can afford a $70,000.00 luxury suv for the superintendant to use to go home with ever night??? I guess a quarter of million dollars a year sallary is not enough for her to afford her own car. I would like to use it for a trip next weekend. I hope i can because after all, I did pay for it.
You the tax payer will pay for this bond through your personel property tax and realestate taxes. remember that when you vote.
Do we really pay for her car to drive to work? People if this is for real, omg wake up! This is uncalled for...hmmmm we should not be paying for any of these people's cars for work. they make enough money to pay for their own. And we have some families that can't pay $1.00 for their kids school parties because the parents are not working? I vote NO
Proud District Parent

Columbia, MO

#18 Apr 27, 2012
Well now you know why I wrote the second line in the second paragraph....

Don't let petty bickering divert from the overall good that will come from the influx of funding that can elevate our fine district exponentially.

Quality costs and as I see it they are doing nothing diferent than what happens everyday in "the real world".

The bottom line is apparently you mental giants can not percieve how progress is actually accomplished. Stay on your hole and leave the rest of us to move forward.

Try participating in the system instead of standing on the sidelines whining about what you didn't get for free!!!
Bickering

United States

#19 Apr 27, 2012
Is it petty bickering to observe the favoritism and the neoptism that goes on in our school district?
If you are on the board, you get to stay employed by the electrical contractor that gets the contract for the school. The contract is decided by the board. Petty bickering?
If you are on the board, you get to hire your wife as the school nurse. Petty Bickering?
If you are on the board and have a disturbingly questionable event in your past, the district puts out a policy where all board members must be escorted while on school property but you still get access and stay on the board. Petty Bickering?
If you are the superintendent you can hire relatives and friends to high dollar positions.
dollie

Arnold, MO

#20 Apr 27, 2012
Proud District Parent wrote:
Well now you know why I wrote the second line in the second paragraph....
Don't let petty bickering divert from the overall good that will come from the influx of funding that can elevate our fine district exponentially.
Quality costs and as I see it they are doing nothing diferent than what happens everyday in "the real world".
The bottom line is apparently you mental giants can not percieve how progress is actually accomplished. Stay on your hole and leave the rest of us to move forward.
Try participating in the system instead of standing on the sidelines whining about what you didn't get for free!!!
I get sick of people saying it is for the kids!!! REALLY!
professional skeptic

Saint Louis, MO

#21 Apr 27, 2012
Bickering wrote:
Is it petty bickering to observe the favoritism and the neoptism that goes on in our school district?
If you are on the board, you get to stay employed by the electrical contractor that gets the contract for the school. The contract is decided by the board. Petty bickering?
If you are on the board, you get to hire your wife as the school nurse. Petty Bickering?
If you are on the board and have a disturbingly questionable event in your past, the district puts out a policy where all board members must be escorted while on school property but you still get access and stay on the board. Petty Bickering?
If you are the superintendent you can hire relatives and friends to high dollar positions.
In 2010, a board member's wife made over $72,000 for her position as a school nurse.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stl-info/m...
NO Vote

Arnold, MO

#22 Apr 27, 2012
Proud District Parent wrote:
Well now you know why I wrote the second line in the second paragraph....
Don't let petty bickering divert from the overall good that will come from the influx of funding that can elevate our fine district exponentially.
Quality costs and as I see it they are doing nothing diferent than what happens everyday in "the real world".
The bottom line is apparently you mental giants can not percieve how progress is actually accomplished. Stay on your hole and leave the rest of us to move forward.
Try participating in the system instead of standing on the sidelines whining about what you didn't get for free!!!
Where is the judging icon that lets me say frack kin g clueless?
Seriously

Fenton, MO

#23 Apr 28, 2012
What exactly are they wanting the money for?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lemay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) Dec 5 Eileen 1,493
News Ken Poteet Leads Sterling Bank Event In Raising... (Jan '13) Dec 3 King Of Eastwood 12
Hotties at Philip 66 by dollar general Dec 3 You bet 24
News Trains' horns leave Wentzville man steamed (Oct '06) Nov 27 The Obvious Truth 29
More Muslims In Fenton Nov 26 Back Again 15
If you eat sleep and breath the paranormal... (Nov '10) Nov 26 Ghost stories 4
Where do the Afican Americans hang out in Arnol... (Aug '10) Nov 22 Augustus 50

Lemay Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lemay Mortgages