On Tuesday, Maplewood and Richmond Heights voters will decide Proposition K, a bond issue to fund a proposed new Maplewood Richmond Heights building on the grounds of the current Early Childhood Center to house eight to ten new preschool classrooms and also the Parents as Teachers program.
A tax increase of $0.15 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation; from $1.20 to $1.35 per one hundred dollars assessed valuation of real and personal property would result if the proposition passes. It equals approximately a $28.50 tax change per year for each $100,000 of valuation.
The new building would sit on what is now the ECC parking lot, and approximately an acre of Brentwood Volvo, to the west, would become the school’s new parking lot.
The school district has become a “destination” district, superintendent Karen Hall has said, drawing an unexpected number of families with children of preschool and elementary school age.
Daniel O’Sullivan and incumbents Wesley Rob and Ralph Posley are in a best-two-of-three race for the MRH Board of Education.
For Maplewood City Council, Karen Wood (Ward 1), Tim Dunn (Ward 2) and Barry Greenberg (Ward 3) will run unopposed.
See also:
- Proposed new MRH preschool building unveiled, objections answered in meeting
- MRH Prop K: cost to home owners
- MRH faces problems of being a ‘destination district’
- Modular classrooms help MRH cope with growth
Happily voted YES on Prop K this morning! I’ve been incredibly impressed by the diligent planning our school board and the long range planning committee have put into solving our overcrowding issue. The plans presented for the new building are not only beautiful, but they’re mindful of residents and fiscally responsible.
I agree, Laine. The plan was smart, because it will solve the overcrowding as well as the parking problems at the ECC. Win, win!
Yeah just waht we need to sped more of our tax dollars on PARKING. The School District has spent over $1,000,000.00 on parking since the last school district tax was passed.
MRH School District on January 26, 2015 at 4:22 pm said:
The majority of these properties were purchased after the community approved the bond issue, Proposition Y, in April 2010 to address safety and traffic concerns by expanding the parking areas at the Middle/High School campus. Other noted addresses represent the actual campus, or property purchased to house expanding student programs (such as Student Success Center, New Vision, Joe’s Place, etc).
1 – 2605 S Big Bend Blvd. (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
2 – 2007 Alameda Ave (the Elementary campus parking lot)
3 – 2813 Burgess Ave (adjacent to ECC campus)
4- 2549 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
5- 2551 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
6- 2553 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
7- 2555 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
8- 2556 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
9- 2562 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
10- 2564 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
11- 2565 Florent Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
12- 2544 Gerhard Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
13- 2548 Gerhard Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
14- 62552 Gerhard Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
15-2554 Gerhard Ave (MS/HS parking lot, purchased with 2010 bond issue)
16- 7327 Glades Ave (Elementary campus, student’s field area)
17- 2511 Oakland Ave (Joe’s Place)
18- 2555 Oakland Ave (MRH Student Success Center/classrooms)
19- 2556 Oakland Ave (MRH New Vision Center/classrooms)
20- 2556 Oakland Ave (duplicate of #19)
21- 1800 Princeton Pl (the Elementary campus)
22- 2014 Princeton Pl (the Elementary campus)
23- 7539 Manchester Rd (the MS/HS and Central Office campus)
WHAT A JOKE!!!
You are rehashing arguments you’ve made in other posts. As with any endeavor, there’s a cost of doing business. You talk about money spent but little about what the district’s actually done for you.
People who don’t have kids enrolled in schools are benefiting from the lift the improved schools give to our community. There are people who want to talk about the cost of education without being honest about how they’re also benefiting. When I moved to the area 15 years ago, people looked down on the district and avoided Maplewood. Now, houses are snapped up when they go on the market. Our property is worth more. The improved schools have made all the difference.
That said, I hope you voted. You clearly have a strong opinion.
No, worry I voted bright and early, Thank You.
You call it rehashing , I call it stating a fact. Another fact, each piece of property bought by the school district it is taking off the Real Estate tax rolls, since the district pays no taxes on the property they own.
A school district can never have enough parking lots to increase the value of the home owners property in its district. Black top does wonders at increasing the education of the students.
Harold – presumably you walk everywhere and don’t own a car? Do you never avail yourself of parking lots? The high school was built in a time when families had less cars. Anyone who saw the parking situation at the high school before they created this lot would know that it was absolutely necessary. And the new bond was not for parking. The Volvo lot had to be purchased either way, as there was no room for a new building on the existing ECC space. They were just smart about how they configured the new preschool to solve an existing problem. I can’t imagine that most if not all of the homeowners surrounding the ECC will be very happy by moving the parking lot and turning Burgess into a two-way street. It is a win-win for the district and the neighborhood.
Jane, you are the one that mentioned Parking at the EEC. I just carried the ball farther to show the district spent over $1,000,000.00 on parking lots. You presume wrong as I own 2 vehicles.
Having a place for my kids to park would be a major determination on picking a School District (NOT). The parking problem at the EEC was self created. There was never a parking problem until the construction.
Parking is NOT an ENTITLEMENT but a PRIVILEGE, especially FREE parking. Here’s an ideal, how about charging teachers and students that want a parking spot on School property. It would bring money into the DISTRICT, this would benefit the district and tax payers. WIN WIN
There is already a major parking problem at the ECC! This is not just about “entitlements”; it is about safety. I encourage you to drive to the ECC at either 8 or 3 and observe the situation first hand. Moreover, the traffic/parking problem adversely affects the lives of the neighbors surrounding the ECC. Honestly, I’m not sure what you are arguing anymore. You criticized the parking issue, as if you would agree with the increase if it were spent on more “worthy”, education based endeavors. Yet they are indeed spending the money on a project that will directly impact the learning environment of students. Solving the parking/traffic/safety issues at the same time was just smart and reflects the ingenuity of the administrators and board. It seems you are just against an increase for any stated reason. Full stop. But all this is academic at this point. More people agreed with the district and voted “yes.”
Assessments are reportedly up an average of 4% across the county, which I would not consider a huge increase. Even with this small bump, my 2015 assessed value and property taxes are still way lower than it was in 2011. Furthermore, the Hancock Amendment limits the amount of additional revenue that schools may receive due to increased assessments. I believe it’s limited to 5% or the CPI, whichever is lower, and I believe the CPI has been pretty steady for the past few years.
Please vote today! Let your voice be heard at the polls. No matter your opinion, please be part of the process.
With the county assessor raising the value of the land, The School District is already going to get a HUGE INCREASE in the taxes we already are going to have to pay. The SCHOOL DISTRICT is NOT going to need the money that prop K. PLEASE VOTE NO NO NO NO NO11111
Comments are closed.