Retired residents concerned about rising school taxes

By MaryHelen Swanson
Sticker shock might describe what Rush City residents experienced when they got their parcel specific tax statements this fall.
But there was never any doubt that taxes would rise, simply because of the passage of the school building bond referendum this year.
On hand for the school district Truth in Taxation hearing last week were a number of retired citizens and some newer residents to the school district.
Being new, they were not aware of how district taxes are spent and of the costs associated with the new elementary school project. Superintendent Tim Eklund explained the financial status of the district.
The good news out of the meeting last week was that a calculation error had been discovered and the final levy would be less than anticipated, although it was still at the maximum allowed.
The final levy to be adopted on Dec. 19 stands at $1,368,302.26.
Does what the votersí approved on the levy correlate with what you see on the statement? Superintendent Tim Eklund said ìyes, it does.í
However, what the resident sees on the current tax statement is probably more than what the actual tax will be due to the correction in calculation which does not show up on the tax statements this fall.
The amount of reduction should be about $30 for every $150,000 of homestead taxes, noted Laureen Frost, the districtís financial director.
An example would be: a residential homestead valued at $125,000 was to have an annual tax increase for debt service of $142. Under the new calculation, that amount would be $129.
One gentleman asked what the districtís debt is for.
Eklund explained the there is $7.8 million from 1993 for the high school building, $1,810,000 for the aquatic center (pool) from 1997, $11,150,000 from 2002 for the elementary addition and $1,785,000 from 2002 for the high school roof replacement. When asked about the roof, by residents who didnít understand how a 10-year-old roof needed to be replaced, Eklund said it was the districtís big embarrassment and he said the district is not proud of the situation.
He explained that the standing seam metal roof that was supposed to last 50-60 years, didnít.
And when the two-year limitation for warranty passed and the district was unsuccessful in getting any satisfaction from the contractor, it moved on and hired Inspec, Inc.
The recommendation that came forth was that the roof needed to be completely replaced.
The main concern of the retired individuals was that it is very hard to pay for medical bills, prescriptions, etc. when the taxes keep going up.

Top of Page

©ECM Post Review

6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com