Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Joplin R-8 tax levy remains the same, but wait until next year

The tax levy for the Joplin R-8 School District will remain at $3.66 per $100 assessed valuation following action during the Board of Education meeting Tuesday night- but wait until next year.

While the tax rate is the same, the board changed how the money is distributed, taking 30 cents from the debt service fund and putting it into general revenue, changing the breakdown to $3.05 for general revenue and 61 cents for debt service. CFO Paul Barr explained that the move was designed totally to give the board flexibility next year in case it needs to consider increasing the levy.

Financial adviser Greg Bricker of George K. Baum, the district's loan arranger, painted a grim picture of the district's finances. "Your fund balances are getting down to a point...They're getting low. You don't have a lot of room for error if anything happens."

After that grim statement, it was dialed back a bit, with everyone insisting it was a "bean counter issue."

Superintendent C. J. Huff noted that the district has held the line since 2011. "We could have raised the levy, but we didn't. We have accomplished a lot of things without going back to the taxpayers."

Barr and Bricker insisted the reduction of money on the debt service side of the ledger would not have any real effect on how much of the district's debt gets paid down, but was just a legal move designed to give next year's board the flexibility to make moves to increase the tax levy if needed, but the method that was being used has been a concern to district teachers.

Money will instead be taken from the Classroom Trust Fund, with the entire amount of that fund, more than $2 million being shifted to pay down debt.

Barr said it was simply an accounting move and was revenue neutral and that it would not actually be taking any money from the classroom. He said the name Classroom Trust Fund was misleading. "It's just state aid; it's nothing but state aid.

"It will be the same to the penny."

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a sham to change the legal threshold of when the school district can raise the property tax levy without a vote of the people and I believe its legality is questionable. If it flys, your taxes will definitely be raised and likely never lowered back.

Anonymous said...

I doubt this sits well with the voters who were told the levy increase was to pay for the new school.
What can be done to stop this insane spending spree?

Anonymous said...

So, 1) If it isn't REALLY a Classroom Trust Fund, provided by State Aid, then what is it? Are there other funding sources the teachers have available to them for classroom essentials? and 2) I also question the legality of this "realignment." I guess with state auditors right here, it must be legal. Not to mention the fact that, once upon a time, in "bean counter" land, monies given by the state for a particular "need" had to be accounted for as being used for the specified allotment of funds. That's some serious "new math" going on right there!

Anonymous said...

"Your fund balances are getting down to a point...They're getting low. You don't have a lot of room for error if anything happens."

That sounds like very serious talk from someone with Greg Bricker's background.

Is it time for some due diligence?

Make sure they aren't "borrowing from" or looting the bond sinking funds. Make sure all the bond sinking funds are properly established and fully funded. Ask a CPA (or Greg Bricker) what kinds of things can happen when these details go wrong. The district taxpayers are always on the hook to pay off all financial misadventures (other than theft insured by bonding agents).

PS An additional area of concern ought to be that finance professionals trying to do their job are denigrated by the term "bean counters". Sometimes this phrase is used by those who want to ignore the expert analysis and advice of the trained accounting and finance professionals that are trying to tell them something they do not want to hear.

Anonymous said...

10:37 Agreed, they do not want anyone to question the glossed over version of the state of financial affairs, so they label the expert in a disparaging way in order to divert attention from their financial mismanagement. Could someone please stand up to these delusional tyrants and help us get this community back on track.