The Maplewood Richmond Heights School District has worked since 2012 on plans to address the surprising student population growth, especially at the Early Childhood Center (ECC). The school board Thursday approved a measure to address the needs at the lower levels.
The board voted unanimously to put a bond issue on the April ballot for a new preschool.
The MRH School District will ask voters in April to approve Proposition K, a $6.1 million bond to buy property and build a new preschool. The cost to home owners would be approximately 15 cents per $100 of valuation.
The new preschool would have eight to ten classrooms; the present ECC has six. Also, Parents Day Out, a part of Parents as Teachers, would have a space in the new building. The education would still be a Reggio Emilia type of education.
See also: MRH communications director responds to bond questions, MRH Prop K: cost to home owners
Kindergarten would move into the existing preschool space, and would be renovated to be appropriate for that age group.
Finally, second grade would move to the present ECC building, which would would open up six classrooms at the elementary school, so the modular unit could be removed.
“The enrollment increased a whole lot more than what we anticipated in 2012, so there was a sense of urgency,” Hall told 40 South News Thursday in her office. “Our short term solution was the modular unit at the elementary school, but we still have a need at the ECC.”
They want to eliminate the waiting list for the preschool, which is at least 30 students each year. “Currently kids on the waiting list are going elsewhere or staying home,” Hall said.
See also: Time in hallways, bathrooms examined at MRH Elementary,Homes ‘sold immediately’ in 2014 in MRH district: broker
MRH school board president, Maria Langston said they’ve been looking at property.
“Our hope is to be in a space that is relatively close to the current ECC, but we can’t say for certain now where that will be,” she said. “We feel confident we have enough in the bond to buy the property.” Land acquisition, site development and related costs are $1.75 of the planned expense.
She said it’s important to note that the last school bond passed was in 2010.
“We told the community we would wait five years. We’re proud we’ve been able to keep that promise, given the accelerated growth.”
This is what I found on the St Louis County Real Estate Information page. It looks like the Maplewood Richmond Height School District owns 23 different properties. Of those 23 properties 11 have been purchased since the last SCHOOL TAX INCREASE. This come to a TOTAL COST to Maplewood Richmond Heights Tax Payers of $1,052,500.00. I know that there was also MAJOR construction to the Building of the Early Childhood Center that was just completed in the past year and a half.
I don’t recall what the tax increase was based on in 2010, I DO KNOW my Accessed Value didn’t go up but MY Real Estate Tax went UP $239.64 in 2010.
Page 1 of 1
Date Purchased Priced Paid Real Estate # Address
1- 2-06-2010 $110,000.00 21J510080 2605 S Big Bend Blvd.
2 ?? ?? 20J311660 2007 Alameda Ave
3- 10-30-2012 $ 5,000.00 21J140353 2813 Burgess Ave
4- 7-28-2010 $ 52,500.00 21J510431 2549 Florent Ave
5- ?? ?? 21J512543 2551 Florent Ave
6- 8-03-2006 ?? 21J512554 2553 Florent Ave
7- ?? ?? 21J510299 2555 Florent Ave
8- 8-13-2010 $107,500.00 21J510321 2556 Florent Ave
9- 10-12-2010 $175,000.00 21J510277 2562 Florent Ave
10- 10-12-2010 $175,000.00 21J510178 2564 Florent Ave
11- 12-3-2001 ?? 21J510233 2565 Florent Ave
12- 4-06-2011 $ 80,000.00 21J510442 2544 Gerhard Ave
13- 3-23-2011 $125,000.00 21J510387 2548 Gerhard Ave
14- 6-11-2010 $ 72,500.00 21J510332 2552 Gerhard Ave
15-12-03-2010 $150,000.00 21J510266 2554 Gerhard Ave
16- ?? ?? 20J311642 7327 Glades Ave
17- ?? ?? 21J421056 2511 Oakland Ave
18- ?? ?? 21J420396 2555 Oakland Ave
19- ?? ?? 21J420341 2556 Oakland Ave
20-Early Childhood ?? 21J140409 2556 Oakland Ave
21- ?? ?? 20J311651 1800 Princeton Pl
22- 7-02-2010 $100,000.00 20J311682 2014 Princeton Pl
23-High School ?? 21J231415 7539 Manchester Rd
TOTAL-2010-2015 $1,052,500.00
Been nice if this had posted the way I typed it, with the spaces between the Date Purchased, Priced Paid, Real Estate #, Address. Sorry, that’s harder to follow
There is additional information on a newer 40 South news article here: https://40southnews.com/mrh-communications-director-responds-to-bond-questions/#more-14347
I am lucky to have a job but have not had a raise in several years. The last raise I got, Obama took 2% of it for OASDI. My insurance(s) has been raised even though I have never filed a claim. Utilities have gone up even though I use them less & less. Groceries have gone way up so I’m eating less & less (certainly can’t afford organic & healthier). We are just penny’s above qualifying for being broke. Now is not the time to ask for more money from homeowners, $300.00 a year is a month’s bill for us that doesn’t get paid. I’m sorry but for us, this is a big NO.
I assume this $.15 on the $100 is a one time tax and not an ongoing yearly tax. Is that correct?
“Our hope is to be in a space that is relatively close to the current ECC, but we can’t say for certain now where that will be,” she said. “We feel confident we have enough in the bond to buy the property.”
Is the reason she can’t say for certain because they don’t know where the school building will be placed or is it because there is a potential ongoing deal? It seems early to come to the public and ask for money if there is not a specific site picked.
Joe, .15 for property tan on a $200,000 valued home tranlates to $300.00 in additional property tax EVERY Year. Yo’ur right, too early to go to the voters until they have their facts, figures and location together.
Thanks, I must have been a little naive to think it would all add up in just one year. When I actually looked a little closer at some ballpark figures, it would take about 5 years to pay off the building. So with a tax of $300 per year, that translates to an additional $1,500 total per household to build a Pre-K spot.
I can see both sides of the issue…. If I was a parent who plans on using the Pre-K to allow myself to work instead of hiring a sitter or sending my child to daycare or staying at home and not making money, then this $1500 would be a very good investment that would quickly pay for itself. If there is money left after bills etc. some people may re-invest this money into their homes which adds value to other homes around it or use it to make purchases in the local economy. Additionally, education/schools are a big part of why people move to districts. Long term, keeping a strong school district will help keep property values from decreasing.
On the other hand…. $1500 is a lot of money to ask from people who will never use the spot. While it will bring value to the community that non-users would see, it might be a stretch to ask for $1500. Education is very important, but we are still talking about Pre-K. It is definitely arguable that the community should not be responsible for providing education prior to kindergarten (a separate discussion, but one the school district should address if they want this building).
If this vote does not pass, then the school district needs to take a serious look at what value Pre-K brings to the school district as well as the harm. One of the options should be cutting the Pre-K program. By doing so, the MRH school district could still move forward with their plan of having K, 1st, and 2nd grades in the ECC. It would keep classroom size down along with meeting their other goals. Is pre-K worth keeping at the cost of jeopardizing the quality of education in every year through elementary school?
Turns out you need to use the assessed value not appraised value … https://40southnews.com/mrh-communications-director-responds-to-bond-questions/. . So instead of paying more for a shorter time, you will pay less over a longer time.
Yes, the way that works out is like this: if your appraised value is $200,000, you are taxed on 19% of that (by Missouri law). 19% of $200,000 is $38,000–that figure, 38K, is your assessed value.
Since they’re estimating an increase of 15 cents per 100 dollars of assessed value to pay the bond, you’re going to pay 15 cents more for every 100 dollars of assessed value, in this case then, 15 cents more 380 times. That is, $.15 x 380=$57.
So your tax will go up, give or take, $57 a year for the life of the bond, if you own a $200,000 home. For a $100,000 home, obviously, your tax will go up roughly $29 a year.
You should notice that the 15 cents is an estimate. If the voters approve the bond issue, they’re authorizing a total amount for the bond–in this case, $6 million, or whatever it is. The actual increase in tax-levy could be different, depending on the interest rates at the time the bonds are sold, along with some other details. So it could vary by a little bit–maybe the increase would be 14 cents, maybe 16 cents. Probably the actual increase won’t differ much from 15 cents!
So, am I correct in figuring the bond would increase the tax by $150 per $100,000 valuation? And this just after
passing a bond issue a few months ago for the new firehouse!
Agree, just passed the bond for the new firehouse & now this????? NO. Big fat No. We can not afford to keep paying for new this & that. The timing is not good.
It’s important to remember that the Firehouse was a Maplewood city proposal, and this development is a Maplewood-RichmondHeights School District proposal. They are not ‘connected’ in any way, other than the votes being 6 months apart. Unfortunately, we are a growing community with structures that are outdated. We can choose to ignore the realities or we can address them.
I think we should have a healthy debate whether the school district needs the money, what reasons the district needs the space, what value a good school district adds to a community and housing prices, etc…
But that apartment building next to the ECC and knock it down!
You do realize people live there, don’t you? I presume you are perfectly okay with tearing down the houses on Ellis to build a McDonalds as well? What would be the difference in these scenarios other than the fact that the ECC is an educational institution?
Hopefully the ECC can find a solution directly on Manchester close to the current building that doesn’t result in the loss of more residential properties.
There is good information explaining Prop K on the MRH district website. (http://mrhschools.net/news/proposition-k/general-information) All our students, current and future, and all our amazing MRH teachers need the community’s support on this. Does anyone know how parents can get involved to help this pass? To Ian’s point, our family moved into the district solely because of the schools. We really have something special here.
Laine Schenkelberg (ECC PTO) just let me know that PTO officers are meeting with school administration next week to determine how best to spread the word in this important effort. Thanks, Laine!
I look forward to hearing more about the proposition. The current Early Childhood Center is wonderful, and a real draw for families looking to move into Maplewood. We need to keep up that momentum.
Comments are closed.