The committee formed to oppose Proposition Y, a tax levy to raise funds for the MRH School District, mailed a postcard to residents this week with statements about tax rates and MRH expenditure per student — statements that, according to the school district, “unfortunately contains incorrect information regarding Proposition Y and the Maplewood Richmond Heights School District.”
The school district posted this information below, online, “to ensure our community has the correct facts.” The school district is responsible for words in bold.
- St. Louis County tax rates are a combination of rates. You cannot look at one segment because the whole tax rate calculation is done on an average of four different types of property: Residential, Commercial, Agriculture, and Personal Property. A proper comparison of MRH with other school districts must be based upon this whole tax rate calculation. When this is done, the passage of Prop Y will put MRH eighth among St. Louis County districts and not at the ranking stated on the post card.
- MRH’s expenditures per student fall within the median for mid-county and at $14,253 (2014-15) are well below the neighboring districts of Brentwood ($16,488) and Clayton ($17,870). The figure of $18,934 presented by others is simply incorrect.
- MRH’s tax rate is slightly higher than other districts because MRH has the smallest tax base of any mid-county school district, resulting in the need to have slightly higher rates to generate the same revenue. Because of this difference, other districts can tax at a lower rate to get even higher revenues than MRH. This factor is further complicated by the nearly $10,845,900 in property within the District that is subject to TIFs (tax increment financing), for which the District receives little or no tax monies.
See also, on the MRH Prop Y:
- Council members, MRH board member responds to councilman’s opposition to Prop Y
- Councilman, treasurer of ‘No on Y’ concerned with high property taxes
- MRH School District disputes, corrects ‘No On Y’ postcard statements
- Cerven: Prop Y ballot language “not all of the truth”
- Proposition Y committee: financial report
- City official supports ‘Vote No On Y’
- ‘Vote No On Y’ reports contributions, expenses
- MRH plans $1 million in cuts, if Proposition Y fails
- MRH board, parents discuss Proposition Y in meeting
- MRH board votes to place Proposition Y on ballot
- Maplewood History: Vote Yes On Prop Y
On April 5th, I’m voting YES on Prop Y because I support our school district.
On April 5, I’m voting to Keep MRH Strong!
I’m voting yes, hope you will too.
Keep MRH Strong!
The district seems to say that MRH is totally unique and can not be compared to any other district. The information it dispenses seems to be cherry-picked at best; long on generalities and short on specifics.
For example, it is pointed out that Rockwoods has 10x more employees clearing 6 figures . . . well, they have 15x more students.
Anyway, there should be no dispute over facts. Anyone can look at the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Educations website and see the tax rate for MRH and compare it to any other district in the state. The figure DESE gives is 4.422%. Here’s the link:
https://mcds.dese.mo.gov/guidedinquiry/District%20and%20School%20Information/School%20Finance%20Report.aspx
However, as Prop Y opponents have pointed out, this is not all inclusive. The district seems to imply that this is all too complicated for lay people to understand (so I guess we need to just trust them).
According to County Assessor’s website, though, MRH charges the following rates:
Residential: 5.5869%
Commercial: 5.2036%
Agricultural: 0%
Personal Property: 6.2658%
Don’t take my word for it:
https://revenue.stlouisco.com/Collection/TaxRates.aspx
It is funny how the district points out that the rate cited by Prop Y opponents is wrong, but fails to point out what taxpayers are actually paying.
*****
I don’t think anyone who feels the district needs to budget more wisely wants to deny students all the benefits of locally sourced organic food. Personally, though, I can’t recall ever asking anyone else to pay for feeding my children. Were folks to stop stealing lunch money from their fellow citizens and pay their own way, they might find that $1.00 cucumbers from Aldi or Shop ‘n Save are indistinguishable from $5.00 cucumbers at the Farmer’s Market. If MRH parents want to have gardens at each school, how much would it cost, really, to maintain what has been built?
*****
I do appreciate the improvements the district has made; people I trust tell me the current superintendent is more focused on substance than her predecessor. However, now that the brand has been established and a greater percentage of the students living in the boundaries attend, serious consideration needs to be given to what is actually necessary for students to be successful after graduation., and what is somewhat interesting but which parents would not bother with were they paying for these frills themselves.
Much of the district’s list of things which they would have to cut seems to be either things which ought to be cut, or which parents or the PTO could keep alive with the investment of a few hundred dollars or a bit of time.
Teachers should not be cut and classrooms cannot be as successful as they otherwise could when students have teachers to meet their needs. Once again students need more than grades on their applications to be considered for acceptance and scholarships to colleges like Bradley; I know my son was accepted there among many other colleges. Applications ask for examples of leadership and there are more examples to provide when the service programs are in place, sustainability programs, future business leaders/entrepreneurship programs etc. MRH needs teachers to supervise those activities
The amount requested on the ballot is miss-leading. The 4.7869 does not include the debt service to pay off the HUGE bond issues that were previously approved for the district. The actual amount paid last year to the school district was 5.5869. Those bond issues are not free. The more money the school district gets their hands on, the more they spend. We are making millionaires out of many of the administrative staff. Look at the number of administrative salaries over $100K. Why does someone making $165,000 per year need an assistant that makes nearly that same amount?
Hi Dave.
MRH administrators and principals are paid on a scale that matches every other district in St. Louis. There are 7 people who make $100k plus in MRH, the same as Brentwood. 2 superintendents and 5 principals. Someone likes to keep bringing up Rockwood. They have 70+(!) people who make more than $100k. Not to mention that your statement that the Assistant Superintendent makes almost the same as the Superintendent (there is almost $40k difference).
These educators are playing a vital role in educating and keeping our kids safe, a pretty important part of a healthy community.
Dear Dave,
Your comments indicate that you are not aware of the state law governing ballot language and the economic realities when it comes to salaries for qualified educational professionals. As to the first one, state law defines how an operating tax levy is to be placed on the ballot. The governing statute is essentially a template in which the District merely plugs in the appropriate numbers or information. The Prop. Y ballot language was reviewed and approved by legal counsel for the District and by the St. Louis County Board of Elections before being placed on the ballot. The District cannot put the additional information as to debt service on the ballot or it would be in violation of state law. Furthermore, adding the debt service number to the operating levy figure would actually be misleading, as the two are calculated annually on an entirely different basis. If you have a beef about the ballot language, you must take it up with the state legislature.
As to salaries, below is a chart that is a snapshot comparison of our salaries with those of other districts in St. Louis County/
• Teacher (Baccalaureate degree/Step 1): MRH ranks 13/33
• Teacher (Masters degree/Step 1): MRH ranks 15/33
• Teacher (Doctoral degree/Step 1): MRH ranks 19/24
• Director of Finance/CFO: MRH ranks 20/22
• Assistant Superintendent: MRH ranks 20/33
• Superintendent: MRH ranks 26/33
More complete information on this was sent to all households in the District earlier this month. The District must pay a reasonably competitive wage to hire and retain the excellent educators we have in this District. Throwing out a number and saying it is “too much” without any context of the salaries paid to others in comparable positions in other districts implies that anyone can do the job of these educators, and we might as well pay them minimum wage to save the taxpayers some money. I doubt many would agree with you on that sentiment.
Nelson Mitten
Director and President
MRH School Board
Dave,
Your statement that we are “making millionaires” of the administrative staff is a stretch. These adminstrors are highly educated individuals with years of experience- they deserve to be fairly compensated for their background and expertise. ALL administrators in ALL districts are highly compensated (or at least they should be-in my opinion)- our district is not unlike the rest of the public schools in the country. Your commentary insinuates that our administrators are somehow taking advantage of the taxpayers. They are simply being fairly compensated (and actually making less than many other professionals in other districts). Your commentary is myopic.
Is this a joke? Millionaire administrators? As an educator, I cannot imagine a more preposterous notion. NO ONE is getting rich on your tax dollars. Many of us have forgone better paying jobs to educate kids.
This is true.