Special Election: ICCSD Revenue Purpose Statement, part 2
Voters in the Iowa City Community School District approved the revised revenue purpose statement (RPS) yesterday, 56 percent to 44 percent. Only two precincts — Coralville and Hills — had more “no” than “yes” votes.
Turnout was abysmal — 8.08 percent — which was kind of surprising since the issue was so divisive. School-related elections do not normally garner the interest that general elections do, but I expected more than 6,079 to cast a ballot. I did so after noon and the ballot workers actually thanked me a couple times for stopping by. (I need to consider becoming an election worker.)
So what now? The school board can get busy on building new schools, right? Not quite. The district is waiting for an enrollment forecast and capacity study before it starts moving forward. (Is it just me, or has the school district done this about five times recently? It seems like the board and district superintendent are always shelling out money for enrollment forecasts.) Nonetheless, the district is going to borrow the money anyway. Yoink! Thank you very much.
Despite what I wrote two days ago about infrastructure foresight, borrowing $100 million against future property tax funding seems pretty nearsighted. So everybody wants new schools but nobody wants their property taxes to increase to pay for them. Solution: borrow the money we expect from property taxes in the future, build the schools now, and pay back the loans. I am still fuzzy on this kind of financialese, but it seems to me that the district and its constituents are paying more no matter what; the money we set aside for education will also be given to a bank to pay interest. It is definitely not the best way to finance schools but that is something being discussed at the Capitol in Des Moines. Of course, how are we going to fund education in the near future when we already borrowed those funds and will repay the loan with the taxes we collect? It will be interesting to see how that pans out.
Turnout was abysmal — 8.08 percent — which was kind of surprising since the issue was so divisive. School-related elections do not normally garner the interest that general elections do, but I expected more than 6,079 to cast a ballot. I did so after noon and the ballot workers actually thanked me a couple times for stopping by. (I need to consider becoming an election worker.)
So what now? The school board can get busy on building new schools, right? Not quite. The district is waiting for an enrollment forecast and capacity study before it starts moving forward. (Is it just me, or has the school district done this about five times recently? It seems like the board and district superintendent are always shelling out money for enrollment forecasts.) Nonetheless, the district is going to borrow the money anyway. Yoink! Thank you very much.
Despite what I wrote two days ago about infrastructure foresight, borrowing $100 million against future property tax funding seems pretty nearsighted. So everybody wants new schools but nobody wants their property taxes to increase to pay for them. Solution: borrow the money we expect from property taxes in the future, build the schools now, and pay back the loans. I am still fuzzy on this kind of financialese, but it seems to me that the district and its constituents are paying more no matter what; the money we set aside for education will also be given to a bank to pay interest. It is definitely not the best way to finance schools but that is something being discussed at the Capitol in Des Moines. Of course, how are we going to fund education in the near future when we already borrowed those funds and will repay the loan with the taxes we collect? It will be interesting to see how that pans out.
