By ART LAWLER

The voters in the Mabank School District have spoken.

The Trustees will do as instructed by those voters.

And, according to school officials, the district will turn down over a $1 million in the next two years because its residents voted against the Texas Ratification measure in the Nov. 3 election.

Was there a misunderstanding? A lack of communication?

Why would the public vote against carrying a couple of $55,000 bags of loot out of Austin?

Two words, maybe? Raising taxes? It’s almost like yelling fire in a theatre these days.

“I don’t have a scientific answer, but I do have an opinion” Dr. Russell Marshall said. ”I believe it was a combination of two things; first, we were required to hold this election on the general election day, instead of calling it specifically for the TRE.

“This meant many people went to the polls to vote on the amendments, and stumbled into the TRE election.

“The second issue deals with the wording of the ballot. We were not able to change the wording of the ballot (the district) to explain that even though one part of the tax rate was going up 13 cents, we were dropping another portion by the same amount so that there was no tax increase over what was already established.

“We were going $1.38 no matter what, and still are?

“Those that voted against the TRE thinking they were voting against higher taxes, can look at the statement they already have in their hands, and it will not change, because the TRE failed.

“The only thing that changes, is the opportunity to recoup over $550,000 a year from Austin.

“But we understand this is done and we will act accordingly,” Marshall said.

Scott Adams, an assistant superintendent dealing with financial matters at MISD, explained what actually happened and what could have happened..

“With a tax ratification election, if you vote for it, then you’re voting to ratify, or approve the board’s action in setting the tax rate,’’ Adams explained.

What follows is a Q&A with Dr. Adams explaining the ratification effort and why the school district favored it:

PILOT: What was the rate the school board set on Aug. 31?

ADAMS: “The school board set the rate at 1.17 for maintenance and operations (the maximum rate under current law that the M&O can be raised), and 21 cents for I&S (debt service), for a total tax rate of $1.38.”

PILOT: What was the tax rate for the district two years ago?

ADAMS: “Our tax rate was $1.36.5 per $100 valuation, but last year it went down a penny to $1.35.5.

“This year our tax rate was $1.38.

PILOT: “Then that’s a 2.5 cents tax increase per $100 valuation?

ADAMS: “Yes. The reason the rate moves up or down, is due to the change in the annual bond payment, which was the payment we make on bonds we have sold in the past.

“The bonds we have outstanding are for construction of the high school and Central Elementary on U.S. 175.”

“So that’s why the tax rate will change a small amount of pennies in different years:

PILOT: Nevertheless, it’s a tax increase, right?

ADAMS: “The tax rate of $1.38 is 2.5 cents higher than last year, but only 1.5 cents high than the year before.

“The reason we had to have the election is because, if we move the Maintenance & Operations above $1.04, then that rate has to be approved by the voters.

PILOT: So, how much did you make the new M&O rate?

ADAMS: “To $1.17.

PILOT: That’s a big jump (13 cents), isn’t it?

ADAMS: “At the same time we reduced the debt service rate by 10.5 cents.”

PILOT: Explain, please.

ADAMS: “So we would not have to pass the tax increase on to the taxpayers of our district”

PILOT: How’s that?

ADAMS: The difference of the 13 cents (for the increase of $1.04 to $1.17), is offset by the 10.5 cents. That’s a 2.5 cent difference from last year, which is the rate we set at $1.38..

“The reason for increasing the M&O rate was to gain additional revenue from the state of Texas, which would have been approximately $550,000 per year.

PILOT: Is that the reason you moved the tax rates around?

ADAMS: “The sole reason.”

PILOT: So how do you figure the cost to the district to be $550,000 per year for the next couple of years, and maybe longer?

ADAMS: “Since the TRE did not pass, we will re-adopt the old tax rate at $1.04 for M&O and 34 cents for debt service for the same tax rate of $1.38.

“The $550,00 comes out of the fund balance for the school district.

PILOT: So why would the state of Texas suddenly have had a bag of money for ($550,000, roughly) to give to MISD?

ADAMS: “Because of funding formulas done with the State of Texas, the main components for our state funding, are student enrollment and attendance, the property value of the school district, and the tax rates we levy and collect.

“The state pays us more money for an M&0 tax rate than for the debt service tax rate.

“By the school district increasing the M&0, we would have triggered an extra $550,000 from the state of Texas Foundation Program, I believe they call it.”

PILOT: And the MISD tax rate would have been the same either way, $1.38 — a tax increase over $135.5 to be sure, but the same as it would have been had voters approved the funding changes?

ADAMS: “Yes.”

PILOT: The only difference is that now, MISD doesn’t get the approximately $550,000 that would have benefitted available for the next two years.

ADAMS: “Yes, that’s every year until the state funding formula changes.

“The legislature meets again in “2011.”

PILOT: So that’s $1.1 million the district’s voters kissed goodbye in the recent election by voting against the changes, 537 to 437?

“Any thoughts about that?

ADAMS: “That’s probably a Dr. (Russell) Marshall question,” he said.

DR. MARSHALL: “We knew it was a good deal this year, so I anticipated the board will still feel it’s a good deal next year, and will give the voters another opportunity to vote on this issue.

Hopefully, this is a $550,000 question because we hope to re-visit this issue again next fall.



E-mail Art Lawler

sports@cedarcreekpilot.com