LJWorld.com

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

School Board:
Please give us money. We never ask for less money, only more. We must represent the poor feeds off the taxpayers. Think of the kiddies, and our second homes.

They sound like the United Way more than a school district.
Who represents the taxpayers?

Informed (Anonymous) says…

Vote “NO”.

Vote early.

Vote often.

And tell your friends to vote “NO”.

toefungus (Anonymous) says…

School Board:
Please give us money. We never ask for less money, only more. We must represent the poor feeds off the taxpayers. Think of the kiddies, and our second homes.

They sound like the United Way more than a school district.
Who represents the taxpayers?

BTW, it is not the educators and leaders that result in kids that out perform Johnson County. It is the households. Give credit where it is due. If spending more money for teachers and leadership are the reason for this increase, then the results should resemble Johnson County.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Why not impact fees or excise taxes? Local real estate developers have had a great time laughing all of the way to the bank on the backs of taxpayers. This is the root of the problem.
USD 497 is not the problem.

I am curious as to how many feel about the city and county spending tax dollars that continue to raise taxes instead of reducing our personal property taxes to average cost of living increase of 4%? Keeping user fees in check? Due irresponsible decisions of the past 25 years it may be time to put all tax dollar projects to a public vote once a year. It is my conclusion that taxpayers are as qualified as most any commissioner when making fiscally responsible decisions. This process would remove a certain amount of corruption.

Our city's current budget crunch could easily be tied directly to infrastructure expenses needed to serve new housing developments. The community is way over extended in this regard.

If residential growth paid for itself and was financially positive, we would not be in a budget crunch. But with increased numbers of houses you have increased demand on services, and historically the funding of revenues generated by single-family housing does not pay for the services, they require from a municipality.

“We want. to make sure we tie the fees as closely as possible to when the demand is being generated. Water and sewer fees would be collected when the subdivision is constructed. Services more related to occupancy and homes being constructed would be collected later.
Schools,parks etc etc. But space must be set aside for both.

While developers pay for onsite water, sewer and road infrastructure, Scruggs said it is costly to pay for offsite upgrades needed, such as enlarging lift stations and raising water towers.

New water and sewer lines come from the general fund revenue paid by each taxpayer in the city. Someone on the old east sides of town are paying for subsidizing the growth in demand caused by the development in the south,west and northwest part of town. What's up with that??

The south west and northwest parts of town is where the greatest residential growth is being seen. There has been so much growth in recent years that the city thinks it needs a new sewage treatment plant, needs to extend 31st street,thinks it needs more light industrial property which is caused by artificial economic growth aka bedroom community.

Impact fees and excise taxes are legal. Either of these would probably have provided the community with extra revenue instead of being in the hole.

In order for the city to have orderly growth, developers need to be responsible for a certain amount of the infrastructure. Most builders understand impact fees or excise taxes are for a purpose that improves their big profit making developments.

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Considering all of the very large tax increasing projects on the taxpayers table I can understand why taxpayers are apprehensive. Cost of living cannot necessarily be tied to USD 497. USD 497 expenses are a direct result of fiscally irresponsible growth.

Kookamooka (Anonymous) says…

Vote Yes

hawkperchedatriverfront (Anonymous) says…

How much will the taxes go up on the Delaware Commons emtyp units? Minder is a puppet for the district and the tough questions submitted were not presented so they could not be answered. In other words, the J/W supports the bond issue and we are to sit downand shut up. I predict this bond issue will pass and the city will be next at the sagging teat. Will breast pumps be issued next?

Vote no and pray!

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Good point toefungus, Lawrence is an educated community it stands to reason children from educated parents will do better academically. But the school board wants to take credit for teaching in an educated community. Funny!!

Eride (Anonymous) says…

Education is important BUT continually raising taxes because the school system is inefficient and mismanaging resources needs to stop.

ECM (Anonymous) says…

“Approximately 83% of the general fund budget goes to pay for salaries and benefits.”

Funny, he doesn't specify that the 83% is for class room teachers salaries. Wonder if those funds would also benefit the Weisman and others not in the classroom?

commuter (Anonymous) says…

I love how Minder talks about leaderships and development. Based on my personla experience and personal knowledge of the admin. Most of the couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag while standing one inch away from the opening. Tom Btacciano is a prime example.

texburgh (Anonymous) says…

Saying that 83% of the budget goes to salaries does not answer the question. The question is: Will the money be used for teacher salaries to make Lawrence more competitive with Johnson County? The answer to the question should be simple. And dancing around it because you are negotiating is just that - dancing.

Minder could have said, “The board intends to commit 100% of the funds generated through this tax increase to teacher compensation.” He did not. He implied that 83% will be used for all employee salaries.

I don't believe the teachers union would be upset if the board announced publicly their intention to devote 100% to teacher compensation and let the negotiators decided how much goes to salaries and how much to benefits.

I believe Minder's comments show that the board intends to go into negotiations and work for the lowest salary increase they can get the teachers to accept.

And I think the people of Lawrence would support a proposal that gives 100% to teachers and principals - the people that work face to face with our children every day. These are tough times. Central office administrators can tighten their belts so that Lawrence will be able to attract and keep the best teachers.

So I ask again, What will you do with the money? And please be specific.