Don’t forget to visit The Seventh Type blog! Good stuff over there

The Seventh Type 

Good post; State portion of school referendums

It turns out that in the 2009 Appoquinimink referendum, the state contributed $3 for every $1 from Appo. But for Red Clay’s current referendum, the state is contributing only $1.50 for every dollar from Red Clay. Read the rest.

State

Local

Total

State match per local dollar

Appo 2009

$48,486,900.00

$16,162,200.00

$64,649,100.00

$3.00

Red Clay 2012

$70,594,100.00

$47,062,800.00

$117,656,900.00

$1.50

Not sure why Mike! Maybe somebody at Appo is in bed with Markell?

About these ads

22 Responses

  1. Oh for cryin’ out loud–I know I had to tweek people’s memories about the 70’s, but I can’t believe I’m running a refresher course from 2009! Well, maybe sharing a few insights on how referendum monies are decided.

    First and foremost–the building capital money allotted to schools is a moving target each and every year–solely dependent on two things:
    1) How much the state is putting into the budget earmarked for school buildings/improvements that year.
    2) How many districts appear w/ referendums needing the state to underwrite a portion of the minor/major capital projects.

    That alone is the major determinant of how much the state vs. local share. If your district hits on a good year, where little is requested by way of buildings or renovations by districts, more can come your way–a quick average though is about 70-75% is state funded usually. The state can’t be on the hook for more than they have allocated, and they anticipate all referendums to pass.

    Next, equalization formula is applied to districts that do not have a population/economic base to support locally a strict percentage formula of say 75% state and 25% local. This is done because in the case of RC or another district, the density of population/houses that generate their property taxes is it easier to raise monies, w/ less of an additional tax burden than your rural districts. In Appo’s case, it somewhat applies, but minimally–a point or two.

    Lastly, your requests for buildings or renovations is decided by the state worthy of state funds or not. In the not too far past, athletic fields went thru a time when the state said no, and had to be locally funded. These things go thru additions and deletions all the time. I remember we funded the darn school playgrounds locally–now they can be included. Anyway, some of the items the taxpayers may be picking up in the local share, may be some “stuff” the state may not want to cover. Your renovations can be covered at a lesser amount too. All of these things roll into your referendum w/ the final number being stated as you have outlined. What Appo has done in the past–if the state refused underwritng of a project, we pulled it out as a line item vote–just because we wanted full understanding from the public of an exempted item we still felt worthy to fund–yet we didn’t want them to feel shanghaid that we batched the vote into one, hiding behind “the schools”. This we did at the high schools w/ playing fields expanded or added as a separate item, so folks could vote against them, who felt they didn’t want their tax dollars to go towards “extra-curriculars”. The final vote shows very compelling evidence of folks do vote for schools, but were glad they could cast a “no” for what they didn’t want tax dollars being allotted. The “no” had their say, and can’t argue they were not asked–instead of being manipulated. It did pass, but not as overwhelming as the schools.

    And finally, as the red herring in all this 2009 suspicion of “Appo got more than us”–was the land banking. The district was presented w/ an incredible offer of a huge piece of land a farmer wanted to sell, preferably to a school at an attractive price, because he didn’t want it to go piecemeal and be divided w/ developments etc.. This land can probably house 5 schools and a whole lot more. Judiciously, the state realized at that rate and the need going forward for undeveloped land at one spot, they better move and grab it. It was the first land banking deal ever done by the state in regards to public education. However, Appoquinimink only needed and asked for 2 schools, so the land is grossly disparate to only 2 schools, so the state share reflected seems like more–because we have not asked for buildings or whatever to offset the land purchase/size. Make sense?

    Sorry this has gotten so long–but I’m only writing this once–so you can share w/ whomever–but that’s the real deal Kilroy, and no special favors, and we all sleep in bunkbeds down here like one bunch of happy campers having been under the ethical eye of Dr. Tony Marchio and now Mr. Matt Burrows–I respond to you to defend the honorable school district, Appoquinimink!!! And of course, this is my opinion and not any official board/school district comment.

    Hope it has shed some light…..Joanne Christian

    Like

  2. Joanne for the win! Seriously, thanks for this.

    Like

    • No Kilroy wins! I knew Joanne would respond! :)

      Hey Mike O @ the seventh type, I caught an Appo grenade for you! You own me :) No you got your answer!

      Thanks Joanne!

      Like

  3. You instigator you….getting my claws all out :)

    Now back to being nice for Valentine’s Day–OK kids?!!

    pandora– get back in your box!!!!! you’ll know when to come out!!

    Like

  4. Thank you. Now go explain all that to a Wilmington parent who needs more programs in their school but is told it costs too much. My post wasn’t about Appo, it was about the state. Thank you for confirming the state portion is a deal done in back rooms.

    We’ll get a chance to test Joanne’s explanation when the state determines its portion for Phase 2 of the Appo campus construction. That referendum is this year, right? Have the CN’s been issued yet?

    Like

    • Warning danger danger Will Robinson (Mike O) don’t test Joanne! She’ll have you freeze-dried and put you in her basement with the 10 years of food she stores! LOL

      Like

    • Joanne – I”m not deterred by attitude or insults. It’s free entertainment; keep it up!

      The blog is two weeks old; take your best shot at it, I don’t care. I’m just surprised anybody is reading it at all.

      I try to deal in facts not slurs. My post just contained facts linked to documents – your documents – and asked if anybody could explain the discrepancy. You gave me a sort of answer, but you did so in the most comically rudest way possible. Now the whole world can see exactly what parents are up against with district officials (some of them at least). You need a thick skin to be an involved parent these days. Fortunately I have a thick skin.

      If you have pointed me to some facts, I’ll go look for them. You left me a lot of words to try to confirm. Primary documents are the currency in this game. not insults and cheering from the peanut gallery.

      I understand you and your cheering section will always win the insult and derision game. Go on, bring on some more of it. But that’s not the game I am playing.

      BTW, I like the land deal. I’m in favor of preserving open space. It’s just that by paying out 3:1, the state has set a new bar, which it is not meeting in Red Clay.

      Also, I don’t recall the state being especially flush in 2009.

      Like

  5. Well Mike O.–you are officially now a tool. The referendums described had NOTHING to do with any school programs–it is all bricks and mortar. And Appo is not going to referendum this year so far, because our growth has slowed down w/ the economy and we can take a breather in building. But go ahead, spread away your lack of knowledge in how all of this works and create an air of conspiracy models, and nefarious sub-plots in funding and further mislead the public in public education. Best to stick w/ what you know in getting your blog beyond Basic Enquirer edition.

    Like

  6. Darn you Kilroy–Had did you know I was winding up?

    Like

  7. [...] Well look at this – I poked the state, and Appo screamed… I didn’t think there was that kind of relationship, but now I’m not so sure: [...]

    Like

  8. Ok, dinner over. I regret my rude insult at your expense, and apologize. If you show up at any of Kilroy’s Summits I will buy you a drink.

    But it doesn’t change the reality you are confusing funding streams in your referendum attacks, under the guise if the state gave you as much money programs could be funded. Doesn’t work that way. The state funding for your capital projects can’t add one dime to any program.

    You deal in facts and not slurs? “deals done in back rooms”, and “state has set a new bar, which it is not meeting in Red Clay….” hardly smacks of fact. And about thick skin. Not necessary to be an involved parent. Very necessary when you go up against parents just like yourself, who want to cast this long shadow of suspect over referendum history elsewhere, that other parents again just like yourself and me,who worked very hard trying to pass, and were very forthright in the costs etc…

    Are you sure a thick head isn’t keeping you from processing the rules and rates at a referendum? Allow me to be comically rude now, because I saw nothing comically rude in my explaining the changing landscape surrounding state funding when it comes to referendum time. It is an ever changing proposition.

    Like

    • yea the state (Markell) a new bar and no snakes can do the limbo!

      Checkout Arne Duncan in the blue shirt doing his backroom deal

      Like

  9. Thanks Joanne, peace. I have been reading your blog comments for years, and the world is richer for them. I’d hate to be on the outs with you. I’m looking forward to working with you, at least on the blogs if nothing else. I’ll buy you a TAB.

    Like

  10. Honey, if you can find a TAB, I’ll buy it. Peace.

    And a shout out to John Young who hid under the bed but peeked out to clarify who said what and how….:)

    Like

  11. Whew! After reading that interchange, I need a glass of wine!

    Like

  12. [...] noticed that there’s an allegation on other blogs that some kind of special treatment was given to Appoquinimink because it got more state funding for a capital project than what’s expected at Red [...]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,136 other followers