Letter to the Editor:
Support Propositions A and B on April 4
If you are wondering why Propositions A and B are necessary, it is because the funds to continue to operate the City of St. Charles School District schools are falling short. Why are they falling short? (1) The District is one of 58 of 524 school districts classified by the State as a Hold Harmless District (HHD) meaning that for the last 13 years (since 1993) the District has been frozen for State funding under the Foundation Formula at $1,287.85 per student. (The cost to educate a student in the District is $7,811.99.) With a declining student population, the District looses State Foundation Formula funding in this amount for each lost student, which further complicates the funding issue. If the City of St. Charles School District received the same amount per student under the Foundation Formula for example as the Fort Zumwalt District at $1,746.57, another $2,700,000 would be received from the State. There are Districts in the St. Louis side of the river that receive as much as $6,158.64 per student under the Foundation Formula. I do not think this is fair but that is the way it is, and it forces our local tax payers to pay more than some other communities. (2) While the debt tax levy for building improvement was increased a couple years ago, the operating tax levy has not been increased for several years. In fact, due to property reassessment and as required by law, the District has rolled back the operating tax levy. Instead of increasing the operating tax levy over the past several years, the District has repeatedly trimmed its budget and two years ago eliminated 65 teaching positions. 57.6% of the District’s operating funds come from the local tax payers making the District highly dependent on the local operating tax levy. 75.6% of the District’s expenditures is for salaries and benefits leaving 24.4% for operation and maintenance of facilities and programs. To further reduce spending means cutting teaching positions, which also means closing a couple elementary schools. (3) Essentially each year, the District is hit with unfunded mandates from the State and the Federal governments, which erodes the local operating tax levy. For example, the State At Risk Program is funded at 86% versus the required 100%, the State Gifted Program is funded at 63% versus the required 75%, State Transportation is funded at 56% versus the required 75%, and the State Map Testing is funded at $1.80 per student but the cost is $8.00. The Federal Special Education Program was to be funded at the rates of 40% federal, 26% state, and 34% local. It has never been fully funded by the Federal government. In 2005, it was funded at the rates of 19.8% Federal, 28% State, and 52.2% local. The Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program has resulted in slight funding increases in the Title Programs but other programs have been cut essentially leaving the District with more requirements but less Federal funding.
Some have asked about casino/gaming funds for education. The simple answer for the City of St. Charles School District is that the only casino/gaming funds the District receives is property taxes like all other local tax payers pay. The casino tax goes to the State’s General Fund. The General Fund is used to fund the State Foundation Formula. The City of St. Charles School District is receiving the same amount under Foundation Formula it received in 1993 (pre-casino funding).
What are the Districts choices? (1) Close a couple elementary schools, reduce the number of teaching and support positions, change attendance boundaries for all schools, and consider other organizational changes or (2) ask the local tax payers for a debt tax levy to operating tax levy transfer (Proposition A) and an operating tax levy increase (Proposition B). Proposition B is needed in addition to Proposition A to keep all schools open, to retain existing attendance boundaries, to retain the same number of teachers, and to keep teacher salaries competitive.
What are the benefits of Proposition A and B passing? Keeping all the existing schools open, keeping the attendance areas for each school the same, retaining the teaching staff at the same level, making salaries for teachers competitive to ensure the best teachers are obtained and retained, and nearly 6,000 children in our community being provided an outstanding education. Who benefits? (1) Nearly 6,000 children now and additional children over the years to come and (2) the community in general by maintaining a quality community and to sustain property values. I believe the passing of Propositions A and B is a small investment with big results for our community. I believe this to the point that I am willing to increase my own taxes.
Dennis J. Hahn
School Board Member
City of St. Charles School District
An Open Letter to the Tax Payers In St Charles R6 School District:
The district administrators for the St Charles R-6 school district have declared a financial crisis. The school board has agreed. If the tax payers do not approve a 28-cent tax levy transfer and a 50-cent tax increase the school board intends to implement a major restructuring of our school system. The following is the basic plan.
One or two of our grade schools will be closed. Blackhurst and Lincoln are the primary targets. Benton is another possibility. All grade schools would be changed to grades K through 4. They are presently K through 5. Jefferson Middle School will be changed to grades 5 and 6. Hardin Middle School will be changed to grades 7 & 8. The middle schools are presently grade 6 through 8. The boundaries for all grade schools will be redrawn to balance school size and hundreds of children will be forced to change school. Additionally, hundreds of children who presently walk to their neighborhood grade school or middle school will need to be bused to their ‘new’ grade 5-6 or 7-8 school. Plus, class size will be increased by 4 to 5 students per teacher. Additionally, the 85 minutes seminar period at both high schools would be eliminated. The seminar is scheduled every other day. It would be replaced with an ‘academic lab’ held once a week for 45 minutes.
However, the financial projections presented by the district administration fail to confirm the ‘crisis’. There is no need for the 50-cent tax increase, which would increase real estate taxes by approximately $142 for a home assessed at $150,000. The so-called crisis can be eliminated with only the 28-cent tax levy transfer.
Here is the primary financial information. I have quoted the figures verbatim from the school administrative office. These financial projections assume that no schools are closed, the middle schools are not reconfigured, and the high school seminar period remains the same. In short, we continue to operate under the present status quo.
We started the 2005/06 school year with a reserve fund of $6,001,968. The operating expenses for this school year are estimated at $51,872,776. The estimated revenue is $51,871,261. The revenue is derived from real estate taxes and personal property taxes from the residents that live in the R-6 school district. These taxes account for about 65% of the school district’s operating budget. Additionally, money is received from the state, which accounts for the remaining 35%. We will end the school year with a reserve of $6,000,453, which is essentially where we started.
The financial picture for the next school year (2006/07) is not as good. The district administration has estimated revenue at $53,268,493, which is a 2.7% increase. Operating expenses are estimated at $54,063,754, an increase of 4.3%. Expenses have exceeded revenue by $795,261. The reserve fund has been reduced to $5,205,192. The reserve fund will continue to decrease until it is depleted during the 2009-10 school year. The financial projection indicates a negative balance of $532,461 at the end of the 2009-10 school year. Obviously, actions must be taken to stop this from occurring.
The action necessary is the 28-cent tax levy transfer. This will generate an additional $2,300,000 per year, if approved. Therefore, without closing or reconfiguring any schools or eliminating seminar, the district will have $7,505,192 in reserve at the end of the 2006-07 school year if the 28-cent tax levy transfer is approved. This represents the original reserve fund of $5,205,192 plus the additional $2,300,000 from the 28-cent tax levy transfer.
The reserve fund will continue to increase and reach a high of $8,941,088 at the end of the 2008-09 school year. The reserve fund will decrease by $273,549 during the 2009-10 school year and close at $8,667,539. These are some of the highest balances that the district has had in the last 10 years.
The state of Missouri requires that all school districts maintain a minimum of 3% of their operating budget in reserve at all time. Based on our districts operating budget, we need to maintain a balance of approximately $1,600,000 to meet this requirement. The reserve fund will exceed the 3% minimum requirement and provide adequate cash flow at all times through the 2009-10 school year if the 28-cent tax transfer is approved.
There is no state-mandated minimum reserve problem. There is no cash flow problem. There is no financial problem that the 28-cent tax levy transfer will not solve. In the future we may want to consider a tax increase for specific purposes. But we do not need a tax increase to keep our schools open and operating as they are today.
UPDATE: The school district has released updated financial information for this year (2005-06). The opening financial position on July 1, 2005 was $6,685,302. This is $683,334 higher than originally announced. Additionally, revenue will exceed expenses this year by $223,605. Originally, a slight decrease of $1,515 was projected. So here’s the bottom line. When the school year ends on June 30, 2006 the district projects a surplus of $6,908,907. This is more than $900,000 higher than the figures provided to the public.
Gary Shelton
R6 School Board Candidate
Number 5 on the ballot
First Capitol News and others,
I am writing in regard to the Frenchtown 353 Redevelopment plan and the CPR organization.
The proposal is to renovate Second Street from French Street to Tecumseh, but what about the rest of Frenchtown. Several property owners in the area have asked why not redevelop from Morgan Street to Tecumseh. Perhaps we should start at Decatur Street. Several of these properties need renovation or a change of use to properly implement a total neighborhood plan. Imposing fines and citing code violations should be a last means to motivate a property owner. Most of these properties are not economically feasible for major renovation because of the present economic base of the area. It would take a complete effort of all properties together to attract new businesses and residences. What is the reason for the present vacancies?? There has to be a total neighborhood attraction to attract and sustain new businesses. In the past, a sole proprietor could succeed due to the affordable rents and the presence of other compatible businesses. The present costs of properties, plus improvements vs. shopper traffic, do not make it feasible for the small business to exist.
The present suggested developer and his plan is the best that we have seen so far, but we have not solicited other developers to look at this area. It was explained to me that Mr. Griffey is a builder and has no experience at renovation work. This may be the reason that the rest of Second Street is left out of the present proposal. There are many developers that have experience at redeveloping an entire neighborhood, incorporating the old with the new.
We have hopes that the new construction will bring in the needed economic base. South Main has it’s shops and historic value as an attraction. North Main has offices by day and food and entertainment by night. Frenchtown will need it’s own attractions to fill the retail vacancies. The east side of Second Street from French to Tecumseh is the main area in Frenchtown that has public exposure to the Katy Trail and views of the Missouri River. Building on this site would provide beautiful condos only for a few and would rob Frenchtown of a valuable asset.
I have owned several businesses and properties in Frenchtown since 1979 and presently own the McKinley School Building. It would be great to see Frenchtown come alive and have it’s own prosperous identity. Let’s not settle for something short of revitalizing the entire area.
Ed Baumgarth
Tony:
The following letter was published in one of your competitors’ papers on Wednesday, March 22. Unfortunately, several sections of the original text were removed, and a grammatical error inserted, which somewhat diminished the impact for which I was hoping and reflected poorly on our police chief. This was not my intent. Would like you to publish it in the FCN as it was initially written, to clear up any misconception. Thanks.
Gene Jones
Dear First Capitol News
Now that the city is back in the good graces of Tom Mayer, courtesy of 57 big ones, perhaps we should look in our crystal ball and see what awaits us down the road. The recall election for Dottie Greer is fast approaching; the public relations steamroller is at full speed, the Tuesday night massacres by the Citizen’s Disembowelment and Do the Right Thing Committees are peaking, the spin doctors are attempting to put the fraudulent signatures in a better light, etc., etc.
Let’s (reluctantly) assume for a moment that the recall effort is successful. If there was this much hype for Dottie’s recall, can you imagine the tidal wave that will be brought to bear on the campaign of the candidate chosen for her replacement? Assume also that the mayor’s candidate wins and becomes the sixth pro-mayor vote on the city council; think of the possibilities!
We could bring our “Top Cop” back out of “retirement” to be the Assistant Police Chief (a position created by the new council). This would put him in excellent position to step into the chief’s shoes should Chief Swope make a substantial mistake in the conduct of his job (you know, like Dottie Greer did). After all, he was the one that reported the fraud in the recall petitions, and oh yes, he was the one who fired Mr. Mayer (I’m sorry, retired him). It was also Chief Swope whose storm troopers scared Mr. Hughes out of his wits by doing their job on the recall signature investigation.
We could go back to the pre-April 2004 days of the “rubber stamp, spend-it-like-you-had-it-because-the-mayor-wants-it” city council. In fact, I think we’ve already started, with Mr. Hoepfner’s magnanimous $150,000 proposal for the mayor’s salary beginning in 2007. You all remember Mr. Hoepfner, “Battling Bob, Champion of the Underdog, Friend of the Working Man”? Even though he wears a different hat now?
But these and similar atrocities don’t have to happen; Seventh Ward voters have a golden opportunity to prevent them by retaining their elected representative to maintain a balance of power in the council. The present evenness between factions prevents either side (I dislike that term, but it’s a fact of life) from riding roughshod over the other, and the council has shown that they can vote together when the situation deserves it. I hope the voters realize that the steam roller, spin doctors, and wild-eyed young attorneys can’t follow you into the voting booth, and April 4 is your chance to do the right thing.
And Tim: Watch your back.
Gene Jones
St. Charles
An open letter to the people of Ward 7
Tuesday April 4, you people of Ward 7 have an important job to do. You hold the fate of St. Charles in your hands. I urge you to vote to keep Dottie Greer on the Council by voting NO on recall. I can’t do that. I don’t live in Ward 7. I live next door in Ward 10. This is not just a ward issue. This affects all of us. This recall is not about Dottie Greer. It is not about cell phone towers or fireworks. It is about power. Presently the City Council is evenly divided. Neither faction has the upper hand. The removal of Dottie Greer would tip the balance of power in favor of the major developers in the metro area. These developers, through the groups they have organized have been trying to gain control of our City for several years. Don’t let them do it.
For some time now these developers have been trying desperately to change the composition of our City Council so they can have a City government that will do their bidding; so they can have a free hand in the control of our government; so they can get sweetheart deals from City hall; so they can build homes and subdivisions outside our boundaries to standards less than our City standards and then expect to bring them into our confines; so they can devise grandiose projects for our City which we don’t need, don’t want, and can’t afford.
Right now we have a city Council that makes these developers toe the line, a Council that forces them to adhere to City standards, and a council that rejects their efforts if they don’t. Let’s keep it that way. Let’s keep Pearl Ridge from happening again.
There is another reason for keeping Dottie Greer on the Council. Dottie Greer has been a conscientious, dedicated, hardworking Councilperson for her ward and for the City. One who speaks out for what is right. She does not deserve the treatment to which she has been subjected lately.
Pay close attention to the wording on the ballot. The Ballot will say, “Shall Dorothy ‘Dottie’ Greer, be removed from office?” To KEEP Dottie Greer on the Council, you must mark the NO block on the ballot.
So help us all out and help our City. Vote April 4 to keep Dottie Greer on the Council by voting NO on recall.
Glenn Dashner, St. Charles
Re: R. L. Greer, ‘City Issues
March 11-24 issue
As organizer of CPR, Citizens Promoting Redevelopment, I can only agree with R.L.Greer’s proposal that the redevelopment area start at Morgan Street and go North to Tecumseh along Second street. I own property on Second Street and it would please me tremendously for the City to declare the entire street a redevelopment area and address the issue of the many blighted buildings that individual developers and owners fail to develop or maintain. Maybe they could go after the absentee landlords and the code violators too. Perhaps they can also target those who are waiting for a windfall for their property while the structure on it falls down. In these parts we call it “demolition by neglect.” Many of the buildings could be brought back to their original design and usefulness if greedy, uninterested, code violating owners were subject to stricter fines and the City had the power to take the derelict buildings from these people through some type of legal proceeding. There are many folks who have put their hearts,souls and every penny they have into the buildings they own in the Frenchtown neighborhood and on Second Street. A little help from an honest developer and the City could do wonders for the original ‘New Town’. For now, we are happy that there is even a plan for redevelopment on Second Street from French St. to Tecumseh St..
Maureen Bouxsein
