We've moved!
DakotaFreePress.com!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Friday, March 30, 2007

New Gym: Fishy Facts, Unfair Funding

Guest commentary from Linda McIntyre, of Winfred's two-person think tank. Previously published MDL, 2007.03.28, p.3.

A few more facts regarding the proposed $5.8M bond issue.

1. While it is claimed that the new gym will cost $5.8M, when the interest over 25 years is included, the actual cost will be almost double that at be approximately $10M to $11M!

2. At the last informational meeting it was asked whether passage of this bond issue would jeopardize another needed opt out in three or so years. The committee stated they couldn’t say and hoped not, but this is now, that is then, and they want a new gym now. They are clearly placing their wants ahead of future academic needs of students.

3. Although the committee’s brochure states an economic impact of $1.5M, that is an estimate that is implied but which they admitted is probably not possible for Madison. When the door-to-door campaign starts and you are handed this brochure and pep talk, be sure to question the presenters and get actual facts. (Note, hardly any of this economic impact, whatever it is, will trickle down to those paying for the gym anyway!)

4. The promoters state a need to build now because construction costs will be higher in a couple of years. But, if the promoters wouldn’t rush into this and would instead collect up-front money as a “down payment,” the savings in interest alone could more than make up for any increased construction costs.

It’s time for those who really want a new gym to put THEIR money where their mouths are. Have a fund raising campaign. Get the promoters and those who will use the gym to contribute. Maybe put a wall in the new gym with donors’ names, a donor tree or donor bricks; there would be a real sense of Madison Pride in that for the donors and their kids. Charge a little more per admission for a couple of years to build up a gym fund; those that use the gym will pay. Have a raffle for a year’s free admission to athletic events. Get the city to kick in some from the second penny sales tax. Now that the community center is paid off early, the city has extra funds set aside for economic improvements which they can legally use for a gym, especially since this gym is touted as an economic benefit to the city, even if not quite as much as the brochure states.

There are a lot of ways other than a tax increase to raise money for this gym. Just think outside the box. Then come back to the taxpayers after most of the funding is raised by those who will benefit from the gym.

The fact is that this new gym will cost many taxpayers a huge amount in increased taxes, and others hardly a dime. And it will neither improve any student’s academic skills nor raise any teacher’s salary, which it would seem should be the most important use of our hard-earned tax dollars.

It is important that every voter in the district who values academics gets out to vote. The absentee ballots are in, so either vote in person or absentee. It’s your education dollars. It’s up to you how you want those dollars spent.

3 comments:

  1. I agree that it would be nice if the City of Madison could use the second penny sales tax for a portion of the gym, but that didn't happen. There is probably a larger burden on those that have more property such as commercial buildings, rental property and ag land, but shouldn't those who have the wealth be willing to share it. Farmers receive thousands each year in Federal subsidies, Industry receives tax abatements for locating here and apartment owners are creating wealth on the backs of their renters. The average family will pay less than $100 a year and elderly have the tax freeze. Linda needs to sell facts, not fear. Her efforts are actually helping the Bulldog Pride group get what Madison now needs, a new facility for events.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you want the burden to fall more proportionally on the wealthy, then help me promote replacing the property and sales taxes with an income tax. If you share my beef with corporate subsidies, write Thune, Johnson, Herseth-Sandlin, Russ Olson, Gassman, and Sutton and tell them to let the free market rule. Sure, I share your beef with the federal government for redistributing wealth from my pocket to big corporate farms through subsidies and the local and state government redistributing my sales and property tax dollars to businesses who aren't willing to become part of the South Dakota economy without handouts. But you won't get back at those corporate fat cats by imposing yet another tax increase that impacts all property owners, squeezes low- and middle-income families' budgets more, and dims the prospect for the school district to win any future opt-outs for real eductional needs.

    (By the way, Anonymous, the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database is a great resource for finding out just how much federal money your farm neighbors get, and for what purpose. From 1995 to 2005, Lake County farmers received $100,355,000 in federal farm subsidies, an average of $9.1 million annually. Top recipients:
    Gracevale Hutterian Brethren, Inc., Winfred: $2,347,667
    Duane S. Hyland, Ramona: $1,065,659
    Terwilliger & Sons, Winfred: $1,002,762. You can search every farmer by name and ZIP and get breakdowns by crop and subsidy category: conservation, disaster, and commodity. As you peruse the numbers, keep in mind that, according to the SD Dept. of Revenue and Regulation, gross sales last year in Lake County totaled $805 million. Subsidy payments vary significantly from year to year, but the average payout equals 1.1% of the gross sales in the county.)

    In the meantime, Anonymous, we have to deal with our current regressive tax system, and I don't see where Linda has made any non-factual statement about the tax burdens this bond issue will create.

    Some simple numbers: My family will pay $104 extra every year for the gym. Charlie Johnson will pay $1500 a year for the gym. Athletic supporter Darin Namken will pay $0 more per year (according to sources who have gone to the courthouse to look at the property tax rolls -- I welcome corrections, if they are in order!).

    "Average" family? I'd like to see the data you used to figure out what constitutes the "average" family. Maybe my family is average: we had $35,714 in total income (a few thousand below the county median income), $12,827 taxable after medical expenses (new baby!) and other deductions. We built about the cheapest house we could: 1232 square feet, no fancy wingdings, unfinsihed basement, cnstruction bid just shy of $100K. (We bid smaller house plans, but the cost savings were minimal, and we'd already spent the past five years living in a 480 sq.ft. house.) Our property valuation jumps this year at least 10% (that's without the bond issue); we'll be lucky if our income goes up 2%.

    Sure, the McMansion owners on Lake Madison (at least those in the district) and big farmers will pay a bigger tax burden than I. But for small householders, even a hundred dollars is a big burden that we can't let go of lightly, especially when we're being asked to spend it on someone else's fantasy sports arena, not a true educational need.

    The athletic supporters, yourself included, Anonymous, have made very loose use of that word "need." I would suggest that "need," with respect to the proper functions of a school district, encompasses competitive teacher salaries, classrooms (which we didn't build enough of on the new elementary and now have to pay more for), and educational materials. Extracurriculars -- sports, band contests, even my beloved interp, debate, and theater -- all serve valuable purposes, but in a real budget crunch, could all be labeled as extras that the school does not have to offer... just like in Europe, where the schools focus on education and extracurricular activities run through private clubs.

    On the city kicking in money: if Mayor Hexom et al feel they can't reprioritize their expenditures to fund a new facility that the athletic supporters claim will directly benefit the city, then
    why should property owners fund a facility that will only indirectly benefit the majority of them?

    So, to review:
    --Corporate subsidies are a red herring;
    --Anonymous needs to quantify "average family";
    --Linda's not lying (and not helping the athletic supporters -- dream on!);
    --A gym bigger than SF Lincoln's is not a "need";
    --The city is setting a good example by not directing public funds toward this project.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Commenting late on this but have been gone. The tax freeze for the elderly sounds great. BUT their valuation is frozen only,NOT their taxes. They would have also been assessed an extra amount for this bond issue.

    That same invalid argument was used during the first opt out. Guess this poster forgot.

    Example: If you have your home's valuation frozen at $50,000, you will pay your normal taxes yearly on that $50,000 but the valuation won't rise. But a new bond issue would have an assessment against it with resultant taxes just like any ohter property owner based on the valuation of $50,000.

    Anonymous needs to get his facts straight.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.