So let’s look at those empty seat numbers. Last school year there were roughly 3,300 empty seats total district wide. That’s a lot of empty seats. The equivalent of 7 elementary schools being vacant if the schools were 100% filled. But that wouldn’t be good, so let’s go with about 2,800 seats with school capacity filled at about 88% and we can get that equivalent vacant elementary number down to about 6.

Last school year the District filled, and got revenue for, about 1,100 seats – about 4% of total enrollment. That must have been a ton of cash coming into the District but it also leaves about 1,700 seats not producing revenue. Not good. Maybe the District can hire a marketing person to hawk all those empty seats.

If the District had been able to fill all 3,300 empty seats it would translate to about 13% of enrollment coming from outside the District. Using the 2,800 seat number it would be about 11%. Either way that’s a lot of kids from outside the District. Why do we need a $ 236 million bond with all those empty seats?

I say boot out the out of districts kids and close, consolidate and reboundary! Think how much money the District could save by doing that. It would reduce costs substantially. And we could still do open enrollment to fill the few remaining seats to keep those cash cow dollars coming in.

Let’s do it for the kids – and the taxpayers!! That would be a plan I’d be more likely to consider supporting.

But we know closing and consolidating is off the table. The Daily has reported several times that closing and consolidating would upset parents so the District won’t close and consolidate. We certainly can’t have upset parents – even if it would mean a more efficient school district for both taxpayers and kids overall.

Boise Schools just flat refuses to admit its glory days are over. Like it or not, it is slowly becoming an urban (in a big city sense) school district with declining enrollment. Even the recent DeJong Richter report indicates flat to declining enrollment under their recommended enrollment projection scenario. Admitting all those kids from outside the District just hides the real, declining, enrollment numbers. Perfuming the pig so to speak.

And no, Cowpoke, I did not allege what you are claiming I did. Never even came close to saying that.

In 2006 “Gov” Risch led a successful effort to raise the sale tax one cent to shift school support from property tax to sales and income tax.

Shortly thereafter, the economy tanked and state funding of education followed. It has never recovered.

Since then, 89 supplemental levies have been borne by property tax payers, primarily homeowners, while:

-Legislature fails to allow impact fees on development for schools.
-Exempts more businesses from paying property taxes
-Diminishes income from reduced personal property taxes on business.
-refuses to increase homeowners exemption.

Schools may need more money, but effort should be directed at changing funding formula for schools.

And “no tax increase” talk is dishonest. It is like me paying off the last payment on my car and the bank says, no you have to make payments for another 20 years.

Like sheep we sleep walk to the polls and do what responsible citizens do and the Legislature won’t!

Too bad you didn’t use your response to JJ as your opinion piece. It provides a far more reasoned argument.

Here’s some answers to your questions – and then some.

The current total Boise Schools levy rate is .004929113 per $ 100,000 of taxable value. You can verify that by looking at your property tax bill.

Included in that rate is .0007 for bonds and .000195677 for the 2012 temporary operating levy.

Per the recently published BSD legal notice, the total cost of the bond is $ 236 million. That would seem to indicate about $63 million in interest costs over the 20 year bond.

The District has clearly stated supporting this bond will not “raise the current tax rate”. But what about future tax rates? And why is the current tax rate not going down in the future since both the 1996 bond levy rate is expiring (or has expired) and the 2012 temporary operating levy is expiring?

Since both levy rates are expiring it would seem the overall the levy rate should be dropping. But it’s not. Why? Well, as Trustee Beth Oppenheimer said at a recent public forum, both those rates are being “extended” (her words). “Extended” also has appeared on social media sites such as Nextdoor.

During the 2012 operating levy campaign the District said the levy would be “temporary” and expire at its end – July 1, 2017. Apparently that’s no longer true. It’s being hijacked by the District into a semi-permanent capital levy from a temporary operating levy. So much for District honesty (one of its core values) when it comes to “temporary” levies.

If the 2017 bond should fail, there will be a tax decrease. I say this because after a 2006 bond public forum a high level District official publicly let slip that if that bond failed (which it didn’t) the result would be tax decrease. Which means another effort to sell a bond would be a tax increase and tax increases are always a hard sell.

The tax levy rate should be dropping. It’s not. To me, that is a tax increase. The District is being dishonest with us.

And for the record, I am not opposed to school bonds per se but in this case I think the District has failed to thoroughly do its homework in spite of their claims, and numerous committees, to the contrary. A ten year Plant Facility Levy (like West Ada District is proposing) would be a start. A ten year levy for a ten year plan.

I’m impressed with your subject mastery of open enrollment. Open enrollment certainly can be a tool in the toolbox when used responsibly. Since you seem to have some expertise in open enrollment matters how about sharing with us some more information about it?

Like District cost per student, state reimbursement per student, and where the difference between cost and state reimbursement comes from. Maybe District funds? You know, just some basics. With your mastery of the subject I sure giving us that information won’t take much of your time. Looking forward to your response.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020915/what-country-spends-most-education.asp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/on-the-world-stage-us-students-fall-behind/2016/12/05/610e1e10-b740-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

You should probably avoid getting your news from the magazines in the grocery store checkout line.