Archive for Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Residents uneasy about tax increase
Voters voice concern at forum about school district raising local-option budget
March 26, 2008
Advertisement
Local residents skeptical of LOB
State and district officials talk about the local option budget today, which could raise property taxes for Lawrence residents. Enlarge video
Advocates Tuesday voiced concern for senior citizens about next Tuesday's school district election seeking authority to raise $679,000.
"I think teachers need a raise just like everybody else, but, like I said, anybody that has a bill to pay deserves a raise," said retiree Scott Henderson. "People that have low-paying jobs aren't going to get a raise, but they're going to have to pay more in taxes."
About 30 people attended a Lawrence Chamber of Commerce forum at Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt., to discuss the election. The school board is seeking a 1 percent increase in its local-option budget, which is funded by local property taxes.
Board members have said it likely would add about $14 a year to the taxes on a home valued at $200,000. They have also said the extra funding is needed to help pay for employee raises and other programs, possibly the WRAP program that places Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center clinical social workers in some schools.
Lawrence schools Superintendent Randy Weseman said school districts are faced with pressure through federal and state mandates, such as for special education, which can increase costs. Also, the entire community has expectations about student performance and certain activities and classes schools should offer, he said.
"I can fill several rooms with people who are struggling, but at the same time, I'm also providing a lot of resources for those people who are struggling - their children, to try to break the cycle," Weseman said.
He said if voters grant the board authority for the LOB increase Tuesday, it does not guarantee a net tax increase because it is possible he could recommend that other district mill levies, such as for capital or building projects, be decreased to offset the increase.
Polls will be open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday for Lawrence school district voters.
Jim Mullins, a Lawrence resident who works for Americans for Prosperity, said local districts and taxpayers are struggling with funding issues because state legislators need to consolidate more of the state's school districts.
Cletis Converse, a Hallmark Cards retiree, said she was concerned with facing increases in taxes and utility costs on her fixed income.
"It's hard for us to make ends meet, really," she said.
6News reporter Lindsey Slater contributed to this report.
More like this
- Raises at stake in LOB election 18 comments / March 30, 2008
- Tax vote too close to call 37 comments / April 1, 2008
- Provisional ballots confirm passage of local option budget 1 comment / April 5, 2008
- District makes case for raising taxes 75 comments / March 17, 2008
- Some questions about special election 13 comments / March 30, 2008
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: Dillons, Hyvee, And Checkers — I'Ve Shopped And Compared. See The Results. November 8, 2009 · 212 comments
- Blog: Being A Stripper: 10 Things I'Ve Learned So Far November 10, 2009 · 82 comments
- Blog: Song Titles And Lyrics: Nonsensical Non Word Songs! November 9, 2009 · 114 comments
- Parental duties November 10, 2009 · 66 comments
- Thanks to Moore November 10, 2009 · 67 comments
- On the street: Did you watch 'Sesame Street' when you were a child? November 10, 2009 · 61 comments
- Attorney for man who says he shot George Tiller won't present 'necessity' defense November 10, 2009 · 27 comments
- Pressing need November 11, 2009 · 2 comments
- Patience November 9, 2009 · 8 comments
- <strong>FINAL:</strong> KU gives highlight-reel performance in 103-45 exhibition win over Pitt. State November 10, 2009 · 8 comments
- First blast on section of Kansas Turnpike river bridge scheduled for early Sunday afternoon November 10, 2009
- 'White Owl' held in jail in connection with protective order case November 9, 2009
- Business development taking shape November 10, 2009
- <strong>FINAL:</strong> KU gives highlight-reel performance in 103-45 exhibition win over Pitt. State November 10, 2009
- Food Inc. documentary to be shown at KU November 10, 2009
- New, legal, drug has law enforcement concerned — and it's already on a Lawrence store's shelves November 4, 2009
- Cats are independent but trainable November 10, 2009
- Foodies will find delights along state’s path May 3, 2009
- Douglas County's Medical Reserve Corps shows its worth during H1N1 pandemic November 10, 2009
- Season's greetings: Photographer’s book explores Kansas nature November 10, 2009
26 March 2008
at 6:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“Weseman said. … He said if voters grant the board authority for the LOB increase Tuesday, it does not guarantee a net tax increase because it is possible he could recommend that other district mill levies, such as for capital or building projects, be decreased to offset the increase.”
Yeah, right. We weren't born yesterday.
Vote _NO_ on Tuesday's poorly-timed tax increase.
26 March 2008
at 7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jmadison (Anonymous) says…
The school board has an open checkbook funded by the taxpayers of Lawrence. The sky is the limit for their spending proposals.
26 March 2008
at 7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawkbarrister (Anonymous) says…
Voting against a tax increase for education is penny-wise and pound foolish.
If you can read this, thank an underpaid teacher.
26 March 2008
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Vote “NO”.
Vote early.
Vote often.
And tell your friends to vote “NO”.
26 March 2008
at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Tax Increase Projects On the Table that likely will not pay back anytime soon if ever:
*$133 million sewage treatment plant = 9% increase annually in rates for 25 years ( All of us are currently paying for one why must any of us pay for two?) Developers should pay!
* County Fairgrounds expansion( millions)
* $61 million North Lawrence Project… developers should pay!
* 31st Street Expansion(millions) …developers should pay
* More housing projects: 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.
*$200 million bypass
*LeCompton/K10 industrial park
Tax dollar items which follow most of these projects:
More:
* water and sewer lines
* streets and repairs
*houses
*public schools
* fire stations
* law enforcement manpower
*sidewalks
* snow removal
* bike trails and cross walks
* Traffic signals
* Traffic calming
* developers requesting more tax dollar assistance(new infrastructure) for their
warehouses and retail strip malls.
*In general increases the cost of community services to all taxpayers.
Are taxpayers being nickel dimed on projects that primarily
increase the wealth of the real estate developers?
Northwest Lawrence schools are busting out at the seams
because of more housing that does not pay for itself. If developers are allowed to continue raping taxpayers then they must provide/DONATE land to UDS 497. Pay for the school as well?
26 March 2008
at 8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
I am so sick of the “underpaid teacher crap”. Teachers make more money that other professionals and they only work 9 mos out of each year so gimme a freakin break If you can read this you probably learned how from you parents.
26 March 2008
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
Oh I voted early and I voted NO!!
26 March 2008
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Vote No.
26 March 2008
at 8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“Voting against a tax increase for education is penny-wise and pound foolish.”
I will NOT pay more taxes, period. And you're a complete idiot for making such an ignorant statement. Prices have gone up on everything, yet you think making people poorer is a good idea? People do not have the extra money to spend, jerk, so give a tip to a teacher, I think I'll provide for my family FIRST.
26 March 2008
at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Message to school district:
Live within your budget. Adjust, realign, prioritize. The rest of us do it daily. What part of this do you have trouble comprehending? Perhaps the school system failed you while you were going through it.
26 March 2008
at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
I say no, no, no.
26 March 2008
at 8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
c_dubya (Anonymous) says…
A country looking at recession should be cutting taxes, not raising them. This is the worst possible time for something like this. My Mother was a teacher for 30 years so I know they deserve better pay but the timing is so horrible there is no way this should pass.
26 March 2008
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneet (Anonymous) says…
I would consider it if the school district used the funds I've already voted for them wisely but they don't. Tell me why both Varsity and Jr. Varsity coaches get out of school two days this week to attend a tournament in which only the Varsity team is entered? Someone has to pay for subs to come in and teach those classes; guess who. Is that a good use of school funds? I think not. Did we really need to build the tower outside the LHS gym? No, but the district had money left over from construction that was burning a hole in their pocket. I'm voting no this time.
26 March 2008
at 8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Vote NO.
Tell everyone.
26 March 2008
at 8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Luxor (Anonymous) says…
Vote NO. They can cut the athletics budge!
26 March 2008
at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
OnlyTheOne (Anonymous) says…
“I can fill several rooms with people who are struggling, but at the same time, I'm also providing a lot of resources for those people who are struggling - their children, to try to break the cycle,” Weseman said.
Whoa
WHoa
WHOA!
What's wrong with this comment? Who's providing what?!
26 March 2008
at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
For the first time ever, I'm going to vote no on a school issue.
26 March 2008
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
toefungus (Anonymous) says…
Vote NO. This school district thinks taxpayers are chumps and treats them that way. The schools threaten a tax increase almost every year. Property taxes were reduced years ago as the state tried to equalize spending across the state, but over time, they have rocketed back up. Instead of the district educating our future leaders on how to bring business to Lawrence, it is educating them how to hold their hand out.
26 March 2008
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Actually public schools are a better bang for the buck than any new housing development. But when so many other tax/user fee increasing projects are on the table it makes one wonder what in world is going through the minds of our city and county governments.
The excess $2.6 million needs to be put into the buildings. NW Lawrence needs another elementary school because city government and developers approved more residential which becomes a tax load. Developers need to donate the land.
Rather than spend tax dollars on new infrastructure that only creates new maintenance liability till the end of time
why not spend it on long ignored maintenance of older existing resources in downtown,Old East Lawrence,Old west Lawrence,Brookcreek,Barker,Oread,Rosedale etc etc. Taxpayers have been funding maintenace costs in these areas for 50-100 years yet their money goes for new development… whats up? There is money for new stuff but not for existing resources? Where is the dollars and sense logic behind this nonsense?
Why not take care of existing resources instead expanding maintenance debt on new stuff. If the city is so broke where is the logic behind expanding the city limits, installing new water and sewer lines and all of the STUFF listed above? All of this new stuff is expanding the cost to USD 497. Why is it common sense cannot prevail?
26 March 2008
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
No, Bowhunter99, I have no children in the Lawrence school district. Never have. Never will. Yet, I pay taxes to the district. I don't have (too much of) an issue paying those taxes for something I will never use. But I do have an issue with a district that seems to spend irresponsibly and then ask for more.
I work hard for my money. That's right; work. No “free money” for me.
26 March 2008
at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldvet (Anonymous) says…
jayhawkbarrister (Anonymous) says:
“Voting against a tax increase for education is penny-wise and pound foolish.
If you can read this, thank an underpaid teacher.”
If you are reading it in English (as opposed to German, Japanese or Farsi), thank a soldier or veteran…
26 March 2008
at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
If your house is worth $ 150,000. You will pay about $10.50 per year. That is not enough to buy a pint of Jack Daniels.
You might want to call this a Jim Beam tax hike.
It is not enough to buy a Trio special at Applebees.
It is not enough to buy a shirt at JC Penney.
It is not enough to fill a quarter of a tank of gas in my car.
It is not enough to buy a pack of 3 pairs of socks most stores.
It will no longer pay for 3 gallons of milk unless I shop around.
etc., etc., etc.
A lot of people are making this tax sound like the worst thing that has ever happened. It isn't.
Voting Republican in the last election is probably the worst thing that ever happened.
26 March 2008
at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cato_the_elder (Anonymous) says…
Oldvet, excellent post.
26 March 2008
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldvet (Anonymous) says…
So, if this increase is so little, then why can't the district make other cuts to give the teachers a raise… at my house, when we can't afford something we would like to have, we either look for something we are spending on that we can do without or we simply do without the new thing… time for the district to exercise fiscal responsibility and management…
26 March 2008
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
No, jayhawklawrence, you seem to be missing the point. The reason so many people are planning to vote “NO” is not because of the actual amount of increase they will see on their tax bill. The reason people oppose this increase is because it is just that: an increase. An increase to an already inflated tax bill. An increase by a school district that seemingly refuses to manage its own budget in a time when the rest of us are having to do just that.
I've given this personal example before, but will post it again. I'll type slowly so that you can understand.
My company has announced that there will be no raises this year. No merit raises and no cost of living adjustments. Unfortunately, my expenses have seen increases… The cost of natural gas has gone up. The cost of gas for my car has gone up. The cost of electricity has gone up. The cost of food has gone up. My salary has not gone up. Are you starting to see a pattern here?
Thankfully I have a salary that I can live with. I have made adjustments to my personal budget to make sure that my expenses do not exceed my income. That was a skill I was taught in school. It is apparently a skill that has been missed by many within the school district.
It's not about one less bottle of Jim Beam or the Trio special at (CR)Applebee's.
26 March 2008
at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
No NO NO!
26 March 2008
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“If your house is worth $ 150,000. You will pay about $10.50 per year. That is not enough to buy a pint of Jack Daniels.”
This is so stupid, so very, very stupid. You have no point whatsoever. This isn't so much $10 or $15, it is that people don't have any more to spend, we are taxed and spent enough. Go pay for it yourself, and quit your crying.
26 March 2008
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
hail2oldku (Anonymous) says…
oldvet (Anonymous) says:
So, if this increase is so little, then why can't the district make other cuts to give the teachers a raise: at my house, when we can't afford something we would like to have, we either look for something we are spending on that we can do without or we simply do without the new thing: time for the district to exercise fiscal responsibility and management:
Excellent post again oldvet.
Bowhunter - I am opposed and I have two kids currently in the district. Both kids participate in fine arts programs and athletics - there is an additional $50/activity that I willingly pay even though they continue to remove programs from the schools for my kids to participate. For the life of me I can't understand why smaller school districts in the area can offer more programs, better pay, more activities comparable or lower taxes and not have to charge their patrons to participate in those programs and activities or charge a textbook rental fee for books that have already been paid for with the taxes they collected previously.
26 March 2008
at 10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
LogicMan (Anonymous) says…
“It will no longer pay for 3 gallons of milk”
So … our kids should go without milk so that already well-paid professionals can get an even bigger raise?
26 March 2008
at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneet (Anonymous) says…
I don't know why we need school buildings at all in this town, the students are hardly ever in them, i.e. the Friday before spring break, not to mention the Friday before the Friday before spring break, every Wednesday afternoon, and they will also be out of school Monday the 7th. According to the district this is all for the students' benefit. If we use that logic our kids would be better off if they never went to school.
26 March 2008
at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Where on earth did you get that from, Bowhunter99? Smoking crack in the middle of the week??????
26 March 2008
at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jayhawklawrence (Anonymous) says…
We are always complaining about a lack of leadership in Lawrence.
Well, our leaders are saying we need another 10-14 dollars a year for education and this turns into a rock throwing contest.
Obviously, there are a lot of financially stressed and angry people in this town right now. Maybe we should be talking more about job creation and increasing local revenue in alternative ways besides taxes.
Maybe the timing is wrong for a tax increase.
26 March 2008
at 11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“If your house is worth $ 150,000. You will pay about $10.50 per year. That is not enough to buy a pint of Jack Daniels.”
How many times has this happened in the last 15 years X $10.50?
How many other tax increases will be leveled at taxpayers in the very near future?
Does anyone truly make money on a house sale after a variety of taxes/user fees,insurance,maintenance for 30 years?
There is a new tax on your water bill aka higher rates….and large increase annually for the next 25 years so I read for the sewage treatment plant.
After spending millions on the $133 million sewage treatment plant on the south Wakarusa the LeCompton/K10 Industrial site property owner(Schwada I believe) is trying to hijack that plan and have it moved close to his project?? What's up with this? Is this what the new $360,000 study is all about? If this happens it will the fault of the city commission and planning commission for caving to a special interest.
The developers as well as the city and county commissioners are working against public education it appears.
26 March 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
smgkag (Anonymous) says…
I would like to see an accounting of exactly what the “other programs” are that could lose funding without this mill levy increase.
26 March 2008
at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
consumer1 (Anonymous) says…
Accountability, that is what I want, an itemized accounting of the millions already collected and spent. how much do want to bet, Randy and staff have the latest equipement/ office furniture and auto allowance? The school board needs to live within its rescourses !!! End of story vote NO, but we all no the brainwashed temporary voters up on the hill will run down to dictate how our taxes are spent. Just like they did in the last election.
26 March 2008
at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
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 tax increases cannot necessarily be tied to USD 497. USD 497 expenses are a direct result of fiscally irresponsible growth. Some things are not paying back to the community such as wayyyyyyy to much housing and over stock in retail.
Lawrence needs new planning commissioners,new city and county commissioners and a real live economic growth staff(not the chamber of commerce).
26 March 2008
at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says:
“I bet a lot of these folks that complain abotu the tax increase now that their kids are out of school are the SAME ones lining up at the local library to fill out a tax return w/ $0 as income in order to get $600 tax credit back from the government:.”
“that's right:. Free money? we'll take it even though we didn't earn it: but pay? oh no.. that's horrendous for us.”
Well, there's someone who's well-informed.
First of all, the tax rebate is not “free money,” it's an early refund of a credit to be applied towards your tax bill for the 2008 tax year.
Second, people with $0 as income won't be getting the credit.
******************************
merrill (Anonymous) says:
“How many times has this happened in the last 15 years X $10.50?”
Much as I find myself shocked at agreeing with merrill, that is a very good point. The fact that this is such a small amount is not the point. People don't scream bloody murder when the price of gas goes up 3 cents per gallon - it's not like that's going to have such a huge financial impact on their daily lives. But when it goes up 3 cents every single week, that's a slightly different story.
26 March 2008
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Then on the other hand if our elected officials did not have what appears to big time irresponsible spending of our tax dollars this likely would not be a problem for taxpayers. Anybody that works hard and is competent deserves a pay increase.
However the people that have been running this town for so long have an established pattern of creating tax/user fee increases because of their irresponsible spending choices which caters to a small number of special interests.
If generation of tax revenue is truly the goal then downtown is the obvious choice of a central retail business district made up of department stores and all else that currently exists.
Why? Because downtown is the magnet to tourists and so many others. The more fun tourist activity downtown the more money Lawrence,Kansas puts in the tax revenue cookie jar. Lawrence needs new thinkers as commissioners.
27 March 2008
at 2:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
storm (Anonymous) says…
Remove why-bother or worthless Wednesdays. When our littlest students aren't left alone for five hours or more every Wednesday due to early dismissal, then we can raises.
27 March 2008
at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Barclay (Anonymous) says…
Gary Lewis, principal at the Virtual School was quoted in LJW last fall saying, “Competition is good for everyone.” If District 497 has been less than judicious in spending taxpayer's $ while delivering their educational product, why not introduce true competition? Give every parent a voucher based on a current cost/student and let a parent invest that $ (their $) in the public or private school of their choice. Competition does have a way of forcing businesses to improve the quality of their product and services- particularly if you want customers coming through your doors.