Another Local Citizen Opposed To Another Levy

Tax on top of tax? We haven’t been hit with the full intensity of the property taxes incurred with the nearly $100,000.000 school bond passed in 2016 (that’s dollars in millions). Has anything been said as to how many extra millions more in interest we have to pay on that tenth of billion dollar bond?

And GFPS wants us to absorb yet another tax on the $1.3 million levy, and levies never end, plus another interest rate along with it?

Interest rates fluctuate- the stronger the economy- the higher the interest rate.

“Great Falls Public School bemoans lack of funds, yet I find it astonishing there are 31 positions in their district that make over $90,000 yearly; 11 of those earn over $100,000  and Superintendent Lacey earning $150,000.”

Our school teachers need help from time to time to compensate them for the hard work they bring to the table. But I think that their highly paid administrative staff can and should find another way to help compensate the very backbone of their school district.

We have another 20 years of unforeseen events that could increase our taxes again, again and again.

Vote NO on May 8th.

Thank you,   Lynne V – Great Falls

Reader interactions

6 Replies to “Another Local Citizen Opposed To Another Levy”

  1. Long time secondary teacher here.

    The best way to improve quality of education is not to spend more per student, give everyone iPads, or hire more administrators–it’s to just reduce class sizes by hiring more teachers. Teachers with smaller classes are happier and more effective, and you don’t even have to pay them nearly as much as a bureaucratic admin.

    Since these proposed levies never go towards hiring more certified faculty, I say pass.


    1. River Patriot- 100% agree. Something else that bothers me, why are we adding huge amounts of building square feet to high schools that are at record low total enrolments. I was disappointed in how many educators didn’t question the need for such a large bond believing it would not affect future levies, I tried to warn them but they just repeated the administrative line that it is a different account and the money cant be mixed. While technically true it is a distinction without a difference for the taxpayer. I suspect that levies and therefore teacher pay will suffer for some time in order to pay for shiny buildings that have little effect on educational outcomes, compared to the same monies being spent on quality educators.


      1. I agree, RJ. Why the new buildings with schools at record low total enrollments?

        Also, considering how much technology has taken over our lives, it may be that many students will soon go to school online from home instead of going to bricks and mortar buildings. Increasingly, colleges are going this route. Why wouldn’t K-12 follow, and perhaps sooner than anyone thinks? I’d bet those thoughts didn’t even cross the collective mind of GFPS. But I believe those shiny new buildings could sit empty in that possible alternate future.

        Also, why the heck is GFPS involved in the RESIDENTIAL LEASING BUSINESS! Can anyone answer that?


        1. Specifically, no I cannot answer that question Jeni. Generally speaking though, many school districts throughout Montana own residential housing. Usually this is to provide housing for staff but often they are rented out when not in use by the district.


          1. You’re right Rick. I am aware that some school districts in Montana have owned residential property for teacher housing since finding housing in some communities is traditionally tough. Maybe it started out that way in Great Falls but it seems we wouldn’t need that now since there are other rental options available.

            I wonder if any of the residential properties owned by GFPS are occupied by teachers. I also wonder if their residential rentals lose money. If so, maybe the district should sell them and get out of the rental business.

            It’s just one of many reasons why I think a independent financial audit of GFPS is warranted.

        2. Mike Mikulski May 1, 2018 at 6:37 AM

          GFPS spends money on buildings because they can. After all, they got their levy. I wonder why they don’t go the bond route, unless they don’t like the time limit placed on a bond. As for doing school from home, I doubt that will happen at the K-12 level, simply because of the per head dollars that come in from the feds when a student is physically in a classroom. No offense to our Air Force folks, but the GFPS not only gets dollars for those students, but added monies from the Department of Defense as well.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *