I have heard Superintendent Maher say several times that he would like the community to vote on a new school bond opt-out, but it seems the school board has a different perspective, at least two of them do.
When asked in a candidate forum tonight, the two incumbents and the 3rd candidate didn’t see it necessary to vote on it. This is troublesome. I have a feeling the bond is going to be well over $100 million, and if they won’t allow the public to vote on it, it will set a very bad precedent. We already allowed a $117 million dollar bond pass on the Denty in a non-legally binding advisory vote, essentially allowing the city council approve the bond.
What they said;
Todd Thoelke said he thinks the school board passing opt outs on their own creates opportunities. He feels the school board members are responsible enough to pass them without a vote.
Kate Parker also doesn’t think a public vote is necessary because the school district holds open houses and has public input at school board meetings.
Peter Pischke agreed with Todd Thoelke
Sorry folks, an opinion by a handful of people at an open house isn’t enough reason to raise taxes over $100 million dollars on thousands of hardworking and retired Sioux Falls residents. We must have a public vote on the new school opt-out.
I forgot to mention that Todd and Kate seemed offended the question was even asked, like they have such great judgment there is no need for the voters to get involved.
They know that if the opt-out is extravagant it will fail, and it will fail big time. They also need a 60% passage from voters. They know that is a huge hurdle.
What I never can understand is while property values continue to rise in SF and more properties are coming on the tax rolls, why do we have to continue to increase the tax rate? Shouldn’t this natural growth be enough to fund government?
I loved when they were asked about term limits….
Right?!
Isn’t it funny that peeps that make $75 a meeting think it is well within their power to raise our taxes by millions of dollars without voter input.
Just think of all those median priced homes in this town, that have seen a dramatic increase in value over the past year, which means a windfall for the School Board through additional property tax revenues next year. Yet, no one is talking about this….. And why isn’t the media asking about it?
Hi guys,
My problem with the question was that it didn’t specify what opt-out it was talking about. Without the context it was difficult for me to understand the question.
I do want the public to vote on anything and everything that would cost the tax payers money.
My head was thinking about the building over capacity issue and that we will probably have to have a new bond issue.
The 2 problems with funding Sioux Falls schools:
1. The Sales tax is almost entirely given to pay for teachers’ salaries.
2. The funding formula is weighted to advantage smaller school districts with lower populations of students. So it tends to always leaving our school district a tad short on funds.
For the record: I did not support the increase on property taxes last year, and I do not now.
If possible, Ideally I would love for us to reduce the property tax.
This is what BallotPedia says about the state requirements for school bond and tax issues: https://ballotpedia.org/School_bond_and_tax_elections_in_South_Dakota
And here’s a link to the one-page statistical profile of the Sioux Falls School District, including the value of taxable property in the district: http://doe.sd.gov/ofm/documents/2017/SiouxFalls.pdf
Are you talking about selling bonds to build new schools ? Or a proposal to opt-out of the restrictions of the state mandated max tax levy ? If you are talking about construction of new schools, my understanding is that a vote [requiring a supermajority of those casting ballots for approval] is necessary if the district issues and sells bonds for construction.
If the construction is financed from the Capital Outlay fund, no vote is required.
MW and GFG thanks for clarifying that. I was so confused as to why Maher has been telling people there would be a vote, and the incumbents were telling us another thing (about opt outs) we will see how this all comes down.