“One of the state’s pre-eminent school districts…”
October 29, 2007 | 5 Comments
Wow……obviously “THE” story in our community continues to be the upcoming Bond Referendum next Tuesday, November 6. (I think I’ve already had about 4 or 5 blog entries over the past month on this topic alone).
Today there were several opinions expressed in The State from members of our community. Below is a cut/paste from today’s Opinions/Letters page.
*******
District 5 building plan will give students right tools to succeed
I have now been serving on the District 5 Board of Trustees for five years. When I first ran for the board, only one of my children was in school. Now, all three of my children attend District 5 schools. Naturally, as a father, I want my children to get the best education possible. I want the same for all District 5 children.
During the past five years, our school buildings have not kept up with our enrollment growth and, equally important, the instructional needs of our students.
In 2003, a study was done that recommended making some additions and renovations in a few of our schools along with the construction of a new high school, a new middle school and two new elementary schools. Since that time, the only major project completed has been the construction of one new elementary school, Oak Pointe. It is a wonderful school. I want every student in our district to have access to the types of great classrooms we have at Oak Pointe.
When the 2003 study recommended a new high school, the cost was $56 million. Today, due to escalating construction costs and the price of oil, the cost of that new high school is $86 million.
On that one project alone, we could have saved more than $30 million of your tax dollars if we had acted at that time. In fact, when you add up the cost of all the projects that were not done based upon that recommendation, the escalation in costs tops $100 million. That is a lot of your tax dollars wasted.
This Nov. 6 we need to do what we should have done several years ago and vote to approve our building plan.
There are some who will try to convince you that District 5 is wasting your money even though we have received awards for our financial accountability at the state and national level for the past four years. There is nothing that will waste more of your tax dollars than delaying the construction of schools that we need to build today. How much more can we afford to waste?
It is time for us to reinvest in our existing schools throughout Irmo, Dutch Fork and Chapin. It is time to build our new Career and Technology Center. It is time to provide enough classroom space so that we can eliminate our over-reliance on portable classrooms. It is time to reinvest in the future of our community.
There is an inseparable connection between the quality of schools, the value of our homes and the impact on our community businesses. In order for our community to thrive, we must have great schools.
I urge you to vote “yes” in the District 5 referendum. Support our children and our community!
ED WHITE
Columbia
*******
IN FOCUS: District 5 bond vote
• District can’t justify proposed referendum
On Nov. 6, voters in Irmo, Dutch Fork and Chapin will go to the polls to decide whether to fund a mammoth expansion plan for Lexington-Richland District 5.
The price tag for this year’s bond referendum — $256.5 million — is almost twice the size of the 2005 referendum. In the 2005 referendum, voters overwhelmingly rejected a $131 million plan, largely because the district administration failed to make a compelling case. Similarly, the administration has yet to offer any rationale for doubling the size of its wish list this year.
And then there’s the growth issue. Although the district hasn’t yet told the voters where the new schools would be built, the district just spent millions on acres of land in the most rural part of our district — Chapin’s Spring Hill community in Northwest Richland County. I don’t have to tell you why builders and developers so badly want the schools to be built on this site. When new schools are built in the wilderness, homes and commercial development soon follow. Schools built there only fuel growth.
Finally, there are expansion or renovation projects slated for almost every school in the district. Why? Projects in every school cluster would mobilize parents at every school. “This gives everybody a reason to come out and vote,” said board member Ed White.
For these reasons, the bond issue is simply not justified. A “no” vote on Nov. 6 will be in the taxpayers’ best interest.
WAYNE DUNCAN
Chapin
*******
• Growing district must maintain quality
I find it unbelievable that some people in this area believe that Chapin is not growing and the student population of our schools is not increasing.
Why are people moving to this area? I know why I did: I wanted my children to have the best education possible in a public school. I could have moved anywhere, but I chose Chapin for the schools and quality of life. I am sure most of the people in this area feel the same.
Unfortunately, excellence does not come cheaply. Neither does dinner at Applebee’s, Outback, Chili’s or any of the other restaurants at Harbison, but do you see them sitting empty? Ever notice all the cars at Columbiana Centre? Our property values are high because Chapin is not about cheap, or trying to scrimp and provide the minimum resources for our children’s education.
We want the best for our students, and in return, we get the best for our community. We do not want to keep putting more and more students in crowded schools. Let’s build new schools in the areas where people live. I have seen the portables, and I do not like them. Expand Chapin High? Expand where?
We should back our elected school board’s plan for the future and build the new schools that are needed. Let’s keep our school district at the top and not listen to those who are more concerned with their own pocketbooks than our children’s education. What happens to an area when the schools get overcrowded and start declining? Growth stops, and decay sets in.
Remember, you get what you pay for.
DOUG SATTERFIELD
Chapin
*******
• Fowler has done about-face since election
As a taxpayer who helped elect Jerry Fowler to the Lexington-Richland School District 5 Board, I was astonished to read his recent column in The State supporting our upcoming bond referendum. Since his election, Fowler seems to have undergone a metamorphosis reminiscent of the character in Kafka’s famed novella.
Fowler now says he opposed the 2005 referendum simply because it coincided with reassessment and “efforts of fund-raising associated with Hurricane Katrina and the uncertainty of several other economic factors.” Apparently having finalized Katrina fund-raising, he now favors the referendum, admitting “we have already wasted well over $100 million of your tax dollars in escalating construction costs and interest.” Would you buy flip-flops from this guy?
We who decisively defeated the 2005 bond referendum did not elect Fowler to spend “hundreds of hours” having his ear bent by education “professionals” and developers still intent on their self-serving agenda.
The victim of hyperbole and misinformation from Dennis McMahon and his minions a few years ago himself, Fowler now labels dissenting opinions as “propaganda” and “negative misinformation,” and calls expression of those opinions “a deliberate attempt to erode the quality of our school system and community.” This isn’t the man I voted for.
HARRIS P. KINDER
Columbia
*******
• Developers should help pay for new schools
While the need for more schools is more than evident, why is it that the homeowners must always bear the expense?
The area in which the new schools and improvements are needed is fast-growing. With more people moving in each year, and more homes and subdivisions being built, why not have the developers and general contractors pay for some of this $256.5 million?
In some areas of the country, developers of large subdivisions are required to build or provide funds (some, if not all) for new schools. This lessens the burden on existing schools.
The fees could be based on a percentage of the intended sales price of the new home. After all, homeowners in this area are looking forward to their property taxes going down.
The fees the contractors could pay may not seem like they would make much of a difference, but as they say, every little bit counts.
JERRI BREWER
Chapin
Pork - it’s not just for big spenders!
October 29, 2007 | 4 Comments
As everyone knows, when it comes to spending your hard-earned tax dollars, there aren’t many in the SC Legislature tighter than I am. In my freshman year, I was singled out by our Governor when he named a small handful of elected officials as Taxpayer Heroes. The next year, another organization recognized me as a Friend of the Taxpayer. To me, it’s common sense and it’s just doing the job I was sent to do. If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it one million times - elected officials should treat your money just as we would our own personal budgets at home.
For me, that means my wife and I continue to drive cars with 135,000+ miles and 195,000+ miles (my odometer broke in February and still hasn’t been repaired). It also means when we go out to eat, I try to do so on-the-cheap.
Yesterday in Knoxville,TN (yes, I’m a glutton for punishment by being a lifelong Gamecock), me, my wife, and our friends Robbie and Kim sat down to eat at Calhoun’s. When I read they had “The World’s Best Ribs” and they were only $11, I said “I gotta try those. I can see how it tastes and it won’t cost the taxpayers one dime!”
I’ve shared with you over the past few months that I’m very hopeful we will see some version of “Earmark Reform” in the SC Legislature this year. There’s been a small group of us in the House that have taken our lumps but I think this year we may start to see some results from our efforts.
Stay tuned because it’s going to be another interesting budget year! Since I’ve been elected we’ve had surplus budgets…this year, it appears that’s not going to be the case.
Time to tighten up the belt, big spenders. I’ll join you for ribs in town somehwere but not on the tax payers’ dime!
District Five Bond Referendum
October 26, 2007 | 8 Comments
*******
NOTE: There are new voting precincts in the Richland County portion of House District 71. You should have recevied a new Voter Registration Card last month which lists your voting precinct. Many stayed the same but several voters will be voting at a different spot starting November 6, 2007. For precinct information, click here.
*******
On November 6, 2007 we’ll have two important elections in our community. One is the Lexington/Richland School District Five Bond Referendum; the other is the Town of Irmo elections for Mayor and Town Council.
Here are informational sites to visit if you are still undecided on your referendum vote:
Lexington/Richland School District Five Website
Richland County Property Tax Information
Lexington County Property Tax Information
Viewpoints from community members (The State, Neighbors October 25)
Everyboyd’s Talking About It (Earlier blog post on nathansnews.com)
Neighbor’s Article from The State (October 25th)
Neighbor’s Article from The State (October 18th)
OFFICIAL BALLOT, REFERENDUM
$256,500,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE OF LEXINGTON COUNTY
AND RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
Question
Shall the Board of Trustees of School District Number Five of Lexington County and Richland County, South Carolina be authorized to issue and sell, either as a single issue or as several issues, general obligation bonds of in School District Number Five of Lexington County and Richland County, South Carolina in the principal amount of not exceeding $256,500,000, the proceeds of which shall be applied to defray the cost of the following:
1. Constructing a new high school, a new middle school and a new elementary school;
2. Constructing renovations and expansions to Leaphart Elementary School, Seven Oaks Elementary School, Irmo Elementary School, Chapin Elementary School, Irmo High School, Dutch Fork High School and Chapin High School; and
3. Costs related to the foregoing, including architectural and engineering fees, land acquisition, equipment and furnishings, and costs of issuance of the bonds?
In favor of the question
Opposed to the question
What your neighbors are saying….
October 25, 2007 | 3 Comments
I’ve mentioned before that we have one of the most involved citizenry in the state! You can’t read The State Newspaper each week without at least a few Letters to the Editor from the Irmo/Chapin area.
In today’s Neighbor’s section, we heard from various community members about the upcoming bond referendum:
VIEWPOINTS
On the upcoming referendum
*******
JIM GORDON, Chapin, former school board (1981-1985) and father of two District 5 graduates:
“People ought to vote on the merit of the bond referendum and not be misled by (superintendent) Scott Andersen’s comments that property taxes are going down and therefore you ought to vote for it.”
Gordon predicted those with commercial and industrial properties will take on a disproportionately greater burden to foot annual operations costs that go with expansion of schools, adding that “car taxes are going to go through the roof.”
Should the state’s economy take a nose dive, Gordon said he worries that District 5 homeowners could be in for “sticker shock” if state government is forced to rescind the property tax relief it adopted a year ago.
“I think a lot of this district,” Gordon said, “but I’m against wasteful spending. I think there are some things (on the list) that we could do without.”
*******
JERRY WHITLEY, retired District 5 educator, lives in the Dutch Fork attendance area:
“I’m not going to vote for it. Two years ago, we had a $131.4 million bond referendum and now we’re talking about $256 million. How did it get so big?” Whitley said.
“The way they went about handling this is wrong. More people should have been involved (in choosing the projects on the ballot).”
Whitley said he’s skeptical of the future enrollment projections and thinks the district would have been wiser targeting improvements in areas of the district where the population is more concentrated.
“The location (in the Spring Hill) area where they’re eyeing a new school isn’t the best,” he said. “Some of the (older) schools were built to add on to and they’ve never done that.”
*******
ROD SHEALY, JR., a political consultant working with a “grassroots committee” that opposes the referendum, an Irmo resident for the past 13 years:
“The broad consensus is that a new elementary school isn’t needed,” Shealy said. “They’ve never offered a rationale for doubling the referendum.”
Shealy said the bond opponents he’s advising “want all the facts. We want a level playing field. It seems like (bond supporters) gloss over things — like enrollment.”
“I’m talking to a lot of people who would vote for the older schools projects,” Shealy said of renovations to existing structures. “Instead, they lumped it all in together and people are concerned about that. The bond referendum seems like everybody’s wish list.”
*******
LORA LEE DOERRING, Irmo, member of District 5 First and parent with children at Irmo High:
“It’s time. We have needs that have not been addressed,” she said.
Doerring said she’s concerned by students navigating their way through crowded halls and taking classes in portable classrooms.
“That’s how children are supposed to excel in the classroom? I think not,” she said.
She said that parents in the district have to be advocates for the students and consider their safety and their right to a good education.
“We have got to move forward in this district. If we don’t do it now, then when? It’s not going to get cheaper.”
*******
PHIL STAMECK, Irmo, member of District 5 First and parent of children at Dutch Fork High and Dutch Fork Middle:
“It’s long overdue. We need to plan for the future of this area,” he said.
Stameck said he supports the referendum because it includes both renovations to existing schools and the building of new schools.
“The new educational space is needed as well as providing for the growth in our district’s schools.”
*******
KAREN OWENS, Chapin, member of District 5 First Committee and mother of children attending Lake Murray Elementary and Chapin Middle:
“It makes better sense to expand existing facilities and to build the proposed high school, middle school and elementary school,” she said.
Owens has lived in the district for about three years and said parents within the district — and those outside the area looking for homes — are aware of the district’s reputation of having some of the best schools in the area.
But as parents continue to move to the area because of the schools, she said, school officials have to accomodate the growth and maintain high educational standards.
Owens said the construction plan, which will roll out over the next 10 years, is neccessary.
“We feel like that’s a better investment than just simply adding all the portables to existing facilities.”
— Compiled by Devon Copeland and Bill Robinson
Property Tax Reform Debate
October 23, 2007 | Leave a Comment
My wife, Karen
October 23, 2007 | 1 Comment
Last week I remembered how much my wife helps me with my role as a State Representative and I realized (again) that there is no way I could serve our state without the support and assistance of my wife. I’m pretty sure the same can be said for all elected official’s spouses and their families!
By now, you know the numerous hours House and Senate members spend in session from January through June between floor debates, caucus meetings, committee meetings, and constituent service. Our time out of session is equally challenging because there are so many demands placed on our schedule.
Without her support at home and in other ways, the job could be overwhelming.
The thing that really makes me realize how important she and other spouses are in our lives is that spouses have so many other responsibilities in addition to the challenge of dealing with situations they never signed up to handle.
For starters, my wife is just as involved in the community as I am and she’s also the one keeping things together at home. Being a stay-at-home mom for our three kids, Sarah (11), JC (3) and Emma (2), keeps her busy but she always lends a hand when I need help.
I almost hate to ask her for help because she’s already busy enough at home with the children and in the little “spare time” she has, she’s often volunteering her time somewhere in the community.
At Riverland Hills Baptist Church she works with M.O.P.S (Mothers of Preschoolers) serving as a Discussion Group Leader/Crafts Coordinator.
With the Columbia Junior League, she’s a Vice-Chairman of the Holiday Market Decorations Committee. (And has meetings basically every week).
And, of course, there’s the everyday routine of taking JC and Emma to and from school, picking up Sarah from school, coming/going to Sarah’s cheerleading practices and also helping with homework while I’m away. I do try to always be home by “tubby-time” (JC/Emma) so we can hopefully tuck them in bed and say their prayers together.
She also fields questions from others when she’s out on errands at the grocery store/mall/church/etc. and she gets phonecalls at all hours of the day….7:00 a.m for questions about pet ordinances….during the day for requests for me to speak to organizations….in the evenings for constituents looking to speak with me before the morning.
Last year, she was asked to speak to the Freshman Class spouses to give them an idea of what to expect as the wife of a state legislator.
You know, come to think of it, I hope she’s happy being the elected official’s wife and not the elected official. She’d be tough to beat and I’ve already lost to her once, year’s ago for the Chairman of the Carolina Young Alumni Association!
Two big topics: Education and Roads
October 17, 2007 | 1 Comment
As you know, in our roles as Representatives we serve on various standing committees and we also serve on important study commissions during our time away from session.
I was honored to be named to two very important committees this year and have two very important meetings coming up in the next few weeks.
The K-12 Education Subcommittee will have a work session Wednesday, October 31, at 10:30 a.m. in Blatt Building Room 433. The purpose of this session is to continue discussion on the 1998 Education Accountability Act (EAA) and related issues associated with student assessment/testing and standards.
The Education and Public Works Committee Chairman, Representative Bob Walker (R - Spartanburg) also named me as his appointment to the Joint Transportatoin Review Committee which will meet Wednesday, November 14 in Room 207 in the Gressette Building. This committee’s responsibility is to screen candidates for the SC Department of Transportation Commission for election by the General Assembly. The committee is a result of Act #114 (SC Code 57-1-720).
Three DOT Commission seats expire next year so this committee will play a very important role for our state’s transportation needs in the future.
Serving on this committee with me are some of the most influential members of state politics (three in the “top ten”) and I look forward to working with them to advance the quality of life for our state. Elected officials serving on the committee:
Speaker of the House, Bobby Harrell
Senate President Pro Tempore, Glenn McConnell
Senator Hugh Leatherman
Senator Danny Verdin
Senator Gerlad Malloy
Representative Annette Young
Representative Jay Lucas
If you have any suggestions or ideas you would like to share on these topics, please let me know! I think we all would agree our state needs to work on both areas as they are vital to our quality of life.
In The Statehouse Chamber
October 16, 2007 | Leave a Comment
An International Perspective
October 14, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Friday afternoon, I had the opportunity to interact with South African lawmakers who were in Columbia, SC during a two-week visit in the United States through the American Council of Young Political Leaders. (One of the functions of the ACYPL is to provide an exchange for leaders from other parts of the world and here in the United States).
Two years ago, Representative Ted Pitts (R-Lexington) spent two weeks in South Africa and now it was the United States’ turn to host that delegation.
Pictured above with other local representatives from our area are A.M. Shimi Phate, John Steenhuisen, Jacqueline Reilly, and Tsakane Mahlaule.
During our hour-and-a-half candid conversation, it was interesting to learn about the politics of another country as well as outsiders’ views of America.
A few takeaways from this meeting for me were:
* Members of South African parties are not “allowed” to vote agains the party. Political parties (and there are several) yield much more “power” than they do here. If an elected official votes against his/her party, chances are very high that official will be removed by that party.
* Many question America’s “cowboy” role in this world and how we decided to invade Iraq (oil interests) but not other countries under control of cruel dictators. (I’ll bite my tongue here)
* Terms of office (local, state, and national) are generally longer in South Africa than our terms here. Usually a five-year term is the norm there.
* Women hold many more offices than they do here in the US, especially here in South Carolina. Parties actually encourage female participation.
* A candidate’s marital status plays no part in voter’s decisions. It was noted that only 1 of the 4 guests were married. Two were single women.
* Our campaigns (culture) focus much more on the “politics of destruction” and it seems we are always looking for faults in people’s past in hopes to discredit current positions or credibility. Particularly, this group mentioned how they could not believe how attacking the media was on our own President and others.
It was an interesting exchange…and we did have time to drift from politics to talk about other topics. When asked about their television viewing, the answers ranged from “Desperate Housewives” to “The Office”. (Right or wrong, these shows are what the world gets to see of America. Of course The Office is a personal favorite so I hope the humor plays well overseas.)
Tax Bills are coming! (Good news?)
October 10, 2007 | 2 Comments
Could it be? Will homeowners actually be HAPPY to see their property tax bills this year?
I certainly hope that’s the case because when I knocked on over 3,000 doors in our community, SEVERAL residents mentioned their high property tax bills and the struggle they had to pay taxes.
We’re all about to soon see why the House Republicans stayed into the midnight hour one evening two years ago to fight for Property Tax Relief. (Note: My floor speech on the issue should be under the Video section on the website or watch it here.)
While there are always exceptions to everything in life, most residents (and in House District 71 - several thousand residents) will see not only a reduction in property tax bills this year, but also a net savings in their pocketbook.
Simply put here’s how it works:
* Let’s say your tax bill is $200 less this year. (That reduction right there “feels good”).
* If you pay less than $200 in extra sales tax this year on purchases, you came out ahead.
How much “stuff” would you have to purchase this year to pay $200 extra in sales tax (based off the 1% sales tax increase that was part of this legislation)? $20,000 of “stuff”. Think you’re going to do that?
That $20,000 of “stuff” does not even include groceries because actually the grocery tax went down with this bill AND….again in this past session we removed ALL GROCERY TAX.
See how this is actually true relief for homeowners?
This relief is targeted to primary residences only. If you have a second home - you won’t see the relief on that property. If you have rental properties - you won’t see relief there. If you rent - you get no benefit and actually pay more based on the 1% sales tax increase (but do save on groceries).
Is it fair? Not sure, but I think it’s as “fair” as you can get.
Many folks think we didn’t go far enough and wanted to eliminate ALL property taxes instead of just 30-50%. While that would be great and surely get everyone re-elected, it would not be prudent and would be too drastic a change that could have had major repercussions.
Some thoughts behind the bill and the reason I worked for its passage were:
* Basically, even if you have no mortgage on your property, you never actually OWN your house. Is that “fair”? Many folks in our community have lived in houses for 30+ years that have gone from assessed values of $30,000 to $900,000. Their taxes are more than their mortgage ever was. Many are retirees who could pay taxes based on the price of the house they bought but not on something that (granted) has appreciated so much.
* Removing the school operating portion of homeowner’s bills (which is what the bill did) should alleviate the “I shouldn’t have to pay for schools” mentality that some in the state have and might help us move our state forward with educational issues.
* If you own a second home or rental property, odds are you also own a primary residence. Therefore, you are still receiving a benefit because your primary residence bill comes down.
* We should encourage home ownership in this state/country and therefore renters do not get the relief; homeowners do.
* As a mortgage lender, I know that the less the property tax bill is, the more people can qualify for homeownership.
* Should we have to pay taxes on FOOD? The grocery-tax reduction seemed “fair” especially to lower income residents, regardless if they own a home or rent.
Now - with almost every bill we pass - we don’t always get it right. Let’s see what the impact will be on state revenues, business owners, etc. and we’ll probably revisit the bill and make some adjustments.
In case you missed the link above, click Property Tax Relief to see an article in The State with examples.