The School Bond

I always preface with my background so that no one is confused as to who I am or from where I come. I am single........no kids........a property owner.......a rental owner.......and I believe in having good schools in which children and young adults can learn and grow.

Despite this, my biggest issue with this bond and any bond for that matter is how and who pays for it. Instead of simply charging homeowners on average $150 per year for every property they own(current potential assessment)......there should be more 'direct user' approach to collecting this money. Here is my proposal:

Upon registering your child at school, parents/guardians must annotate with copy of tax record or lease agreement whether they are homeowners or renters. A yearly registration fee should be paid based on these documents and on how many children they have registered in the school district. These fees can be kept in a trust account for future use as deemed necessary. As major repairs or renovations are needed, balancing the bottom line is the admistrator or treasurer's job and if you don't have the money to do it....wait until next year. If an emergency repair is needed, or renovations are still desired to greatly improve the learning and teaching abilities of the students and teachers, respectively, then vote on a bond for the remaining funds needed.

Once approved, homeowners are then assessed a smaller amount. This way, the burden of paying for the majority of the repairs lies on those who use the facilities the most, yet property owners also help with the cost since good schools do lend to increases in local property values.

Additionally, any homeowner who has rental properties should not have to pay per property. Rather, these landlords have the owner occupied property assessed, but can present their lease agreements to the district and have assessments on the rental homes rebated. Remember that if they rent to a family with children, this family has already paid their portion upon registration. If there are no children at a particular rental residence, then neither the landlord, who is already paying the additional assessment for their own residence, nor the renter are charged. We limit double, triple, possibly quintuple jeopardy for landowners with multiple properties, and limit the amount we charge residents for something they are not using.

Now I know there may be stumbling blocks with this proposal, but the counter solution is not to simply charge all the landowners per property whether they have kids or not; those families who rent have just as many, if not more children, than those families that own their home. They should have an equal share of the monetary burden and the taxes on their consumables obviously isn't enough.

Again, not a total usage approach, but one that combines annual property taxes, fees from families directly using the schools, and additional contributions from property owners for the betterment of the schools and community.

While solidifying this plan, the district should break up the current bond vote into three votable options with an expenditure breakdown showing those that are necessary versus those that are simply desired:

1. The full bond monetary amount
2. A half bond monetary amount
3. A quarter bond monetary amount.

It should not be too difficult to determine which school needs the most the soonest. It would seem that voters would be more likely to vote for a smaller bond and accomplish renovations in stages with approval of each stage and an increase at that time.

Although the district claims this will ultimately cost the residents more over the long run, it is no different than buying in bulk. You simply my not want or need everything for the next 10 years right at the present time; and you ultimately are paying more money right now, which truly is when it counts, especially when more bonds and levies will undoubtedly surface again regardless. Also, by the district having this money in hand....or the commitment for this money, misuse or appropriating it to other 'emergency needs' seems more likely to happen.

Again, for now, give us property owners more options than an all or nothing plan. It was rejected last time; why present the same thing again.

Start a committee to change how the money is contributed; it may be an uphill battle, but one that will lead to a more equitable distribution of payment.

I am open for rebuttals.

Cheers,
T