Most of our dedicated readers know that the Ludington Area School District (LASD) has been reviewing a variety of plans in order to update the district's buildings with either building renovations, consolidations, and/or new structures.  At the last public meeting on October 10th, they presented five options, all of which presented a large bill for the taxpayers.


Realistically, either of these options are going to be tough to afford by Mason County taxpayers that have consistently proven their generosity by seemingly passing every millage request and renewal that comes before them.  But the time is almost here where the school board will choose one of these options (or even another option) to put forth to the voters in the district to approve.  The LASD has been fairly transparent in the process, establishing a web page with relevant materials for the public.

If you live in the district, you may have received this in the mail the last couple of days:

Surprisingly, while they encourage district members to take their survey, they do not encourage the folks to attend the November 19, 2018 meeting (6 PM at the Central Business Office), where the board is scheduled to accept the final recommendation, which may or may not reflect the public's responses to the survey.  Here's a link to the survey, take it if you haven't already.


If you have a strong position on what should be done, you may want to attend this meeting to reinforce your points to the school board.  In December, the board will (likely) approve a PQ application to the Michigan Dept. of Treasury, which may be approved on January 3rd at their meeting, and sent back to the LASD, which will have two new members:  Leona Ashley and Scott Foster.  They both have a presence on Facebook: LA and SF, just in case you want to see how they stand.

So, if you are disappointed by the December choice by the board, you may still be able to influence the new members (and any old board members that may not have been completely pleased by the December vote) if you can present them with a valid argument against whatever is chosen.  Remember, the voters of the school district have the ultimate say on whether they accept the increased millage, whatever it turns out to be, and it will be strongly marketed even if it's the cheapest option (if just under $100 million can be called cheap).

Views: 492

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It is an unfortunate time for the schools to be asking for minimum $100 million in new taxes when the city has just taken on $40 million dollar infrastructure debt and has $12 million unfunded city employee tax liability. Now the city is approving tax schemes for something like100 + new section 8 apartments (downtown development and Madison Depot). This is crazy. Where are we going to get 100 families to fill the new section 8 (low income) without massive amount of new jobs in the area? From outside the city? Or take away from existing apartment owners? The owners of these new TIF apartment building should be taxed more instead of getting breaks to pay for our added infrastructure needs and school debt because the low income people are not going to afford $200 million in new taxes. If buses and parking and drop off is such a problem for LASD, let the children walk like we used to do . Too many taxes, too many benefits for schools and low income will tax the median wage residents out of the region.

This is nuts. 100 to 160 million dollars of debt for such a small school district. I hope taxpayers reject this money grabbing scheme. My neighbor is a part time resident living in a non homestead dwelling and these types of tax gouging money pits affect  him the most. Huge tax increases with no vote. Residents should be grateful that non homesteaders pay a large portion of the bill instead of sticking it to them every millage increase. Thanks for the info X.

One thing I asked Superintendent Kennedy about specifically would be the difference of impact between homestead and non- on this debt millage.  What I was told, and is in the information towards the bottom of the school's info page, is that both taxpayers will be hit equally with this millage.  

So though non-homesteaders would see a significant increase in their taxes, they would actually see the same increase in taxes as those who live and vote here, and effectively pay less percentage-wise of the overall school bill.  This is because the homesteader's will see a major increase from what they are paying, and they currently pay about 1/3 of the rate of non-homesteaders.   

X, could you please explain the last paragraph you posted. My understanding is that non homesteaders pay a significant amount more than homesteaders. So, non homesteaders will not be paying the same increase in taxes but will actually be paying more than those paid by homesteaders. i bet no non homesteader receives one of those surveys even though their taxes are paying for them. Since I own hunting land east of Mason county and the taxes, millage and increases are voted on by homesteaders I find it extremely annoying that my taxes keep rising and I have nothing to say about it.

Maybe I didn't explain it that well, I will use a visual aid showing a homesteader's tax rates for education (w/o the ESD or WSCC included), which is why they pay nothing for school op.  

For education, you roughly pay 7.9 mills as a homesteaders, the non-homesteader pays all, or 25.9 mills, a bit over three times as much.  The current debt millage will disappear shortly, if this is replaced by the 3.46 mills for the most costly option, the rates would then be 10.8 and 28.8 mills respectively, and the non-homestead rate is only about 2.5 times as much.  This was the point I tried to show, that homesteaders (local voters) would be shouldering more of the overall education burden.  

Thanks X, I understand now what you were trying to say, even though Non homesteaders are still being shafted.

According to my imbed, the school board met tonight and agreed on what they called Scenario J (only Scenario A-H has been revealed to the public).  This option would cost over $100 million over its duration and incur a modest 1.5 debt millage rate increase.  From my understanding of it, LASD would close existing elementary schools and run with a prekindergarten to 5th grade facility out at the Outcalt property adjacent to the school forest.  The middle and high school will undergo extensive renovation and addition but basically retain the same footprint. 

This whole proposal is a crock... It is TOTALLY unneeded as our elementary enrollment is at it's lowest point since the mid 1960s. I also found it extremely cowardly in how a vote was rushed into a lame duck type session with two of the outgoing board members voting for it....MaryJo and Kelly , how could you..?  I will join any group that wants to fight against this proposal & perhaps a recall petition against our new superintendent may be in order as well......

Well said snide, it's a total crock from start to finish the way things are going now.

It's been a while since I've seen any sort of local organic movement come out and strongly oppose a millage being raised.  You can believe there will be construction companies and arms of the LASD 'educating' the public on why $100 million of improvements will be needed to bring the area into the 21st Century. 

But will there be an organized resistance that will be able to articulate their own points in the local media (if that media allows them to), send out matching flyers in the mail, and place yard signs urging voters to vote no in early May?  I just don't see it materializing, especially since the school, construction agencies, and media will demonize any individual actively going against their goals.

Here is why I feel it was so cowardly for them to force it through with two "lame ducks" still on the board.... The two candidates that won the two seats on the school board during this past election (L. Ashley & M. Foster) ran their campaign on the premise that this project would NOT go through. Meaning(correctly) they feel it's a WANT not a NEED. Had the two lame ducks abstained from voting -- as they should have-- the board would not have had a quorum & it could not have even got to the present stage...There is NOTHING wrong with the present buildings that routine maintenance or repairs cannot fix......& furthermore to build on Jebavy Drive is just plain asinine. That road is way too busy now,much less putting a school on it....It just shows how out of touch with the community that this new "superintendent" is & maybe a recall may be needed.....

This pushing of fixed agendas in our local school board and city council has become a steadfast routine for quite a few years now, and nothing changes for the positive for locals. This superintendent does need recalling over this issue, and several others of recent, thanks snide. But, can that legally happen? Idk if it can anyhow. This local gov't. thinks taxpayers have bottomless pockets for them to pick, sadly, Ludington has one of the smallest annual incomes of any city in west Michigan now, and I don't see it getting much better soon.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service