Former St. Joseph School District Superintendent Dan Colgan is a glass-half-full type of guy. No doubt about it.
“I’m an optimist,” Dr. Colgan said.
Perhaps he was a bit too optimistic this time.
In 2004, when the district successfully convinced voters to pass a 63 cent per $100 of assessed valuation property tax increase, Dr. Colgan told the public it was likely that the district wouldn’t have to ask voters to renew the tax in 2009, when the five-year tax sunsets.
His reasoning was that he thought the Missouri school districts suing the state for more money would win. In addition, he was confident the economy would turn around.
“In five years, I feel we will not need the additional levy,” Dr. Colgan said in a March 7, 2004, News-Press story.
But the school districts lost the lawsuit. And obviously, the economy is less than stellar.
Today, the school district, now led by Superintendent Melody Smith, plans to go to voters in April 2009 and ask to renew the tax, which helps fund staff salaries, utility bill payments and other costs in the operating budget. Also in April, the district plans to ask for a tax increase that would fund a plan to open and close schools.
Will voters view the chain of events as empty promises or as unfortunate, unforeseen events?
“I worry desperately that people will not remember why we were hoping a sunset would make sense. The reasonable people that I know, and that’s the majority of the people in St. Joseph, when they think back to our trying so desperately to win the lawsuit to bring more dollars to St. Joseph, I think they know why we were so hopeful that we wouldn’t need the 63 cents again in five years,” Dr. Colgan said.
Now, he said, with the lost suit and bad economy, the district needs to maintain its tax revenue stream to keep what it has.
“The bottom line is that if our taxpayers choose not to maintain this tax levy, within five years, our school district will be a total wreck. And we will be back to the same position we were in when I began as superintendent almost 17 years ago,” Dr. Colgan said. “There was less than $400,000 in the bank. We were totally broke and had large class sizes.”
That wouldn’t be the potential case if the districts had won the suit, he said.
“Had we won the lawsuit, this administration would not be asking the public to support a continuation of the levy,” he said.
Steve Huff, the district’s assistant to the superintendent and spokesman, said that without the renewal of the tax, the district will be in a tough spot.
The down economy has brought skyrocketing gas and food costs. The change a few years ago in the state school funding formula didn’t really change the amount of state funds flowing into the district.
“That 63 cents brings a big chunk of money,” Mr. Huff said. “It allows us to continue to turn on the lights and pay the salaries and do all those things.”
Nancy Hull can be reached
at nancyhull@npgco.com.
NO...NO...NO..I will vote NO on ANY and ALL future taxes this city and school district want to put on us...They say that they are hurting because of how much food and general costs have risen..what about us?..how are we supposed to put clothes on our childrens backs with back packs full of school supplies when school starts every year when gas is high and heating/cooling bills are jumping way up this year..I dont know about eveybody else but I'd rather provide the everyday essentials to my children then give Melody Smith another salary raise...just my opinion
Posted by heritage on September 1, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)if this superintendent were more willing to compromise on her " vision", and had not allowed the purchase of new property to become an "us"/them" ....."my or the highway" situation i would be more willing to vote for the renewal of this levy. at this point i will have to have a firm commitment not to proceed with the grand scheme and back off completely on the monumental expense for new schools. then, and only then, will i vote to support the renewal of this vital tax. maybe the voters should use the same strong arm tactics advocated by Dr.
Posted by wr49tm on September 1, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)Smith and convince her that fiscal responsibility applies to all.
heritage: Yes! Yes! Yes! You are so right....
Posted by apmastrangelo on September 1, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)By now this pictures should be looking familiar to every resident.
This is not about compromising the education of our youth but rather how the school district like any government agency must be expected to live and budget within its means.
There clearly are options available and choices to be made and the district best understand a policy of always "returning to the well" for more money is not going to be accepted given the current economic climate.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them.
Rules: We don't allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Epithets, abusive language and obscene comments will not be tolerated... nor will defamation. Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatent cutting and pasting is not acceptable.Robust, even heated debate we like. Straying off-topic or flaming, we don't. Please read our user agreement.
Requires free stjoenews.net registration.