UPDATE: Will the Harrisburg School Bond election results give us some insight on the SF election

by

UPDATE: The Bond election passed with almost 85% approval (no surprises there) and like the SFSD election a low voter turnout, about 10%. I still wonder how these elections would have turned out if held with the Mid-Terms.

I think it will be very interesting to see the results of the Harrisburg School Bond tonight.

There are many differences. Harrisburg is taking out $40 million (not $190) and they are having NO tax increase attached to it (their levee is already higher than SF).

Another factor is that Harrisburg and other surrounding towns like Brandon and Tea tend to be a little more fiscally conservative when voting.

I still think it will pass, I’m even willing to say by 75%. But what if it is 85% or higher? Does that tell us that Sioux Falls 85% passage is believable? What if it is a lot lower? Or doesn’t pass (60%)?

The voter turnout will also be another factor.

While the results certainly can’t be compared 100% to the SF School Bond election, there will be some areas we can review and do some comparisons.

I also find it curious that the SFSD told voters they had to have the election in September because their budget HAD to be submitted to the state by September 30. So how is it that Harrisburg can have their election after that magical date in the middle of October and still be able to submit it to the state? Oh, that’s right, because the budget can be amended and submitted to the state later. Both Sioux Falls and Harrisburg school districts could have had their bond elections with the mid-term in November. It would have saved taxpayers money by holding it with the midterms. There would have been a larger voter turnout AND it would have been tabulated by a machine by an un-bias county auditor instead of having finance administrators count the votes by hand.

The results will be interesting.

Posted in: Elections, Harrisburg School District, SF School District, Sioux Falls

Even with record building permits, why can’t the school district trust capital outlay to fund new school construction?

by

First, the puzzling news today that the school district doesn’t have a Plan ‘B’ if the bond fails. I would think if it fails on September 18, they would quickly go back to the drawing board and present another bond to be on the ballot in November. Makes you wonder if they are just assuming they have it in the bag. Things that make you go ‘Hmm.’

But what is even more puzzling to me is that they don’t want to pay for these schools through the capital outlay by raising levees when we have had close to a decade of record building permits. With all this new commercial tax revenue coming in (and housing prices going through the roof) you would think it would be a cake walk to just borrow half now and pay down the rest through the levees?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Posted in: School Funding, SF School District, Sioux Falls, Taxes

Should the Sioux Falls School District have an independent audit before they borrow money?

by

A SouthDaCola foot soldier informed me today that my letter made the dead tree version of our local paper (but I can’t find it online) so I have it below. But he told me that after working for the SFSD that their is incredible administrative waste and there should be an audit.

I wonder when the last time the School District was externally audited?

My letter;

We have NO choice but to build new schools. But if we borrow the entire $190 million we will pay up to $110 million in interest over the life of the loan. That is $110 Million to bond investors, NOT education.

The school district has presented NO plan on early payoff and no fiscal plan on staffing the new schools. They also have NO plan to end open enrollment which has created segregation, NO plan for redistricting until after the new facilities are built and NO idea where the new schools will be located.

Some members of the Envision task force that organized this bond vote have significant conflicts of interest in financial and technical contracts with the District.

The District has already spent thousands on a push poll survey postcard and Ignite Newsletter. It is a possible violation of state campaign rules using tax dollars to promote a bond issue.

The 13 precinct vote centers election mostly in the southern part of the district is also troublesome. The election should be held with the general in November. Not only would it make it more convenient, cost less, have a higher voter turnout and use all the precincts it would also be electronically documented. The E-Poll books being used for the vote center special election failed during the statewide primaries. If not working properly there could be repeat votes and NO way of tracking them since we are hand tabulating the vote.

There is a better way.

I suggest we borrow only $100 million and pay for the future facilities through the capital outlay over time. The District’s finance department said they couldn’t ‘trust’ Pierre regulating levees. The Sioux Falls School district spends thousands lobbying our State Legislature. They need to do a better job. Either plan will raise our taxes, but I believe this alternative plan will put more of our tax dollars towards the projects and less to bond investors. VOTE NO on September 18 and tell the school district to go back to the drawing board with a fiscally responsible plan.

Posted in: School Funding, SF School District, Sioux Falls, Taxes

Sioux Falls School Bond; Is it $2 a month or early payoff?

by

The more I think about the recent comments from the school district’s bond counsel about the $110 million in interest ‘scare tactic’, the more it just doesn’t add up.

On one hand they say you will pay $2 a month for $185K home valuation for the life of the loan (25 years at 4%) but on the other hand they say the $110 in interest isn’t fair because they will ‘pay it off early’.

You can’t have both!

If the loan goes the full 25 years, the $2 a month is true, and also is the $110 million in interest. If they pay it off early, they only have one way to do that, change the tax levee to bring in more money. This is the ONLY way they would pay the loan off early is if they increase taxes, which would change the $2 a month argument.

Let’s face it, this is a ‘bait and switch’. They know they will have to try to pay off these bonds ASAP so they can borrow more down the road, and the only way they will be able to do that is increasing our property taxes.

So please tell us, is it $2 a month for 25 years or early payoff for tax increases later? Still waiting for the school district to apply transparency to this process not just talk about it.

Posted in: SF School District, Sioux Falls, Taxes

The ‘Spin’ continues from the school district

by

I often chuckle when people in government start comparing your personal finances to government finances. They are different. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter what you spend personally because it is your money. When government spends money, it is OUR money collectively and we have the RIGHT to know.

While the School District has finally admitted what principal and interest will cost if the loan goes to full maturity, they still are playing games with that figure;

“There’s a $110 million of interest on that over time, unless we pay it off early like we did in 1997,” Morrison said. “But it’s kind of the way you think about it. We’re only going to get $190 million in bond proceeds that we have to spend on the project.”

It is a proposed 25 year loan, so that would be $110 million over the term of the loan, that is what needs to be told to taxpayers. We have NO idea if they will pay it off early because they have NOT presented a plan to pay it off early and have NO idea how they would. Comparing it to the 1997 bond is unfair, that loan was $30 million, this bond is over 6x more. It needs to be stated to taxpayers, ‘If the loan goes to full maturity it COULD cost the taxpayers $110 million in interest and principal.’ That is the only FACT here, because they have no idea if it will be paid off early. If they have a plan or scenario, please show us, otherwise stick to the facts.

Grimmond called the $300 million number a “scare-tactic” by naysayers, and compared the process to how home buyers talk about buying a new home with their friends and family.

It is NOT a scare-tactic, it is a FACT.

“Nobody goes out there and says, ‘I bought a $200,000 house, but in interest it’s going to cost me $400,000 over 40 years,'” Grimmond said. “…They don’t look at that final number. Should they? Maybe.

“But if you ask the naysayers, ‘How much are you paying on your house with principal and interest included in it?’ I know they don’t know that number. It would be like crickets going off, but they want to hold the school district to that same standard.”

Like I said above, it is up to me if I want to know what that number is, it’s my personal expenditure, but this is public money and the taxpayers have the right to know what that payoff amount would be if it went to maturity. It’s similar to how Federal Law was changed a few years ago that requires credit card companies to show on your statement what it will cost you if you make the minimum payment. Taxpayers have a right to know what that will be if the school district makes the minimum payment on the bonds, that is $110 million. And while that is NOT a scare-tactic, it certainly is a scary number, and that is why they are trying really hard to hoodwink us into thinking they would pay it off early. The only way they will be able to pay it off early is if they increase our taxes, which brings us to their other snow job;

“As the value of a home goes up, your taxes go up proportionately,” Morrison said. “Let’s say your home went up 10 percent over the next 10 years. Then yes, that $2 will be $2.20, but you’re enjoying the value of your home that just went up $20,000, too. But it’s the same thing. It’s that time value of money. That $2 won’t go the same distance in 10 years.”

Than why do you continue to tell people if they own a $185K house they will be paying $2 a month through the life of the bonds? Your home value WILL go up and LEVEES will go up, that means the $2 a month WILL go up. In other words my $185K house won’t be a $185K next year, so I will be paying more that $2 a month, and that of course will continue to go up.

While I appreciate the school district addressing these issues, it doesn’t change the fact that they are facts, and facts seem to be getting in the way of their propaganda.

Posted in: SF City Council, Sioux Falls, Taxes