Maplewood Richmond Heights School District is placing two propositions on the ballot in the April 8 election. The following information about the propositions comes from the school district.
A bond sale for buildings and grounds improvements and a tax issue to boost salaries will appear on the April 8, 2025 municipal election ballot, following approval by the MRH Board of Education at a special virtual session on Tuesday.
The measures would provide:
- Approximately $2.2 million to support increases to salaries and benefits
- $15 million to address facility needs and overdue maintenance and to replace the track and field
The ballot measures, explained in this presentation by Superintendent Dr. Bonita Jamison, will be known as Propositions B and E.
PROPOSITION B: Shall the Board of Education of the School District of Maplewood Richmond Heights, St. Louis County, Missouri borrow money in the amount of $15,000,000 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, renovating, improving, furnishing and equipping school sites, buildings and related facilities, including facilities upkeep, safety improvements and track and field renovations, and issue general obligation bonds for the payment thereof? If this proposition is approved, the current debt service levy of the school district is expected to decrease from $1.35 to $0.85 per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation of real and personal property.
PROPOSITION E: Shall the Board of Education of the School District of Maplewood Richmond Heights, St. Louis County, Missouri, be authorized to increase the operating tax levy of the District by $0.50 per $100 of assessed valuation for paying general operating expenses, including salaries and benefits to develop and retain teachers? If this proposition is approved, the total levy of the school district is expected to remain unchanged due to an expected decrease in the debt service levy of the school district that will offset the $0.50 increase to the operating levy of the school district, resulting in the adjusted operating levy of the school district per $100 of assessed valuation to be estimated at $4.0173 for residential real property, $4.4767 for commercial real property, and $5.9658 for personal property.
MRH Administration will now deliver the ballot language to the St. Louis County Board of Elections.
You can find explanations of the funding measures and the current projects list HERE.
The district will hold an information session for the public on February 6 at 1429 S. Big Bend Boulevard:
Come join us on the evening of Thursday, February 6 for an informative discussion on Propositions B & E at the Masonry Institute located at 1429 S. Big Bend Blvd. This in-person event will provide an opportunity for community members to engage with the MRH Board of Education. Don’t miss out on this chance to voice your opinions and ask questions about these important funding measures on the April 8 election ballot!
Just click HERE TO REGISTER.
I drove through the parking lot at 10:15, 1:45 and 2:30 Tuesday. I counted OVER 20 empty spots. Why can’t thew people parking on the street park in the lot that cost the neighborhood 8 residential homes?
Hello Community members. I’m a current member of the MRH Board and have been for the past 11 years. Thanks for your ongoing support of the district and our kids! Prop B & E together will not raise your property tax rate and gives permission for the district adjust the amount of funds towards “operating” (ie. teacher salary) vs. “debt service” (building and maintenance projects).
The track has not been fully replaced in the last 10 years but has undergone multiple recoatings due to normal wear and tear. Recoating is a standard maintenance process to extend the life of a track but does not address deeper structural issues. Over time, tracks require more extensive resurfacing or full replacement as the rubber breaks down and the base shifts. This is the stage we are at now, as the track is showing signs of deterioration beyond what a simple recoating can fix. After speaking to several retired staff members we were able to find that the original coating was a shade of blue that the school district and community were not happy with, but we kept that color for several years until it was time to recoat. A typical track lasts 20-25 years and is recoated 3-4 times during its lifespan. We are currently in line with these standards. Several vendors have advised that while the base of the track remains intact, the surface is deteriorating and will continue to worsen without replacement.
I understand the concerns about student parking, and the district continues to work with the city to improve compliance with parking expectations. However, repurposing the track for parking would present several challenges, including zoning restrictions, safety concerns, and the loss of an important athletic and community resource. The track serves students, athletes, and community members for physical activity and competition.
More information on the propositions are available on the district’s website. Thanks for your engagement.
The bond issue is for $15 million but the funding explanation only lists $8 million in costs. What’s the justification for borrowing an extra $7 million? Also, a breakdown of how the $30 million from 2020 was spent would help reassure voters that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly. Instead they’ve done the opposite by quietly removing the financial statement and audit report history from the school’s website altogether.
Wasn’t the field and track at the high school redone less than 10 years ago? I sort of remember it being dug up.
If this proposition B is approved, the track needs to be paved over and made into student parking. The students can’t seem to get the hang of parking in the pool parking lot as the city and district have requested. Or, put the teachers in the pool parking lot since they may have a better understanding of the instructions than their miss-educated students.
Prop E is a no brain er and should be approved since it won’t cost us anything with the debt levy decrease.
I’d like to know how long ago the track was replaced? It was done in the wrong color blue and had to be redone. And if I remember correctly “we” the tax payers paid for fixing the screwup.
Can anyone explain in lay terms what we’d be getting out of this and how much it would cost? What is a debt service levy? What track and field renovations do they have in mind?