The
92 schools that make up
the Anchorage School District are
an investment by our community
in the education of our children
and future generations.
It's important that we maintain
the value and quality of that investment.
That's what these bonds are about: bringing aged
buildings up to current educational
standards and providing solid,
safe, functional and efficient
facilities for our students and
educators.
These projects were researched
by professional engineers and
facility managers, reviewed by
citizens on the Capital Request
Advisory Committee, and publicly
scrutinized and approved by the
School Board and Assembly.
A significant
amount of State funding is currently
available for these bonds, letting
us conduct needed construction
and repairs with State financial
assistance. The reimbursement
plan was approved by the legislature
in 2002; funding of the plan is
subject to annual legislative appropriation.
Like any investment, these projects
come at a cost to local taxpayers.
Before heading to the voting
booth on April 6, please take time
to review the improvement
projects and weigh their benefits
against the cost.
More information
on the bond projects is available
on this Web site and from our facilities
department, 348-5156.
Carol Comeau,
Superintendent |
|
 |
School Bond Information, April 6, 2004 Election
Dear
Anchorage voters:
Thank you for recognizing the importance of major maintenance in our
schools and supporting Proposition
4. Your support allows us to protect the community's investment
in school infrastructure and extend the life of our facilities.
While voters supported Proposition 4, most said "no" to Proposition
5, which included school construction projects. I strongly believe
in the public process and recognize that this bond package was not
the right set of projects at this time. However, our school construction
needs have not gone away. Students are still attending crowded, outdated
schools.
And while our needs haven't gone away, the offer of State debt reimbursement
soon will.
The legislative program that reimburses 60 percent to 70 percent of
the total cost of school construction projects ends on December 31,
2004. State debt reimbursement significantly reduces the amount local
tax payers spend on these projects. Only projects approved before the
end of the year qualify for this program. It would be irresponsible
for the district to ignore the benefits of debt reimbursement.
Clearly, Proposition 5 was
not acceptable to voters. I hope to find out why voters turned down
the proposition. Was the proposition simply too large? Were there individual
projects within Proposition 5 that voters felt were important, but others
that they felt didn't merit approval? Was debt reimbursement too uncertain?
Would voters like to capture the debt reimbursement on some projects
by holding a special election in the fall? As always, I want to hear
what you have to say. Your input is a critical part of my decision making
process and that of the school board. Please
give us your suggestions through our Web site or by calling my office
at 742-4312.
I have heard the voters on the matter of the district owning an administration
building. I have no intention of placing this project on the
ballot again. We can still gain efficiencies by consolidating
our rented facilities and I'm considering all options. We'll continue
to pursue that project and all others that save taxpayers' money and
put valuable resources into the classroom.
Most sincerely,
Carol Comeau, Superintendent
(Documents provided here are PDF files and
require the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to
view. )
Local tax impact
Proposition 4 |
$36,380,000 |
Repairs, Renewals and Equipment
Estimated annual tax increase for every $100,000 of property
value to retire debt: |
| With State Reimbursement* |
$5.16 |
| Without State Reimbursement |
$14.64 |
Proposition
5 |
$95,830,000 |
Major
Construction and Renovation
Estimated annual tax increase for every $100,000 of property value to retire
debt: |
| With State
Reimbursement* |
$16.34 |
| Without
State Reimbursement |
$38.56 |
| Estimated
annual increase in tax cap for every
$100,000 of property value to pay for
operation and maintenance costs related
to the proposed capital projects |
$9.79 |
Proposition
6 |
$30,000,000 |
Administrative
Facility
Estimated annual tax increase for every $100,000 of property value to retire
debt: |
| With State
Reimbursement* |
$4.83 |
| Without
State Reimbursement |
$12.07 |
|
Total–Prop.
4, 5, 6 combined |
| Estimated ANNUAL tax increase for every $100,000 of
property
value to retire debt: |
| With State
Reimbursement* |
$26.33 |
| Without
State Reimbursement |
$65.27 |
Another way of looking at the cost:

|
| For
an Anchorage home valued at $215,000,
the tax increase to pay for bond debt
service and increased operations and
maintenance on a MONTHLY basis
would be: |
| With
State Reimbursement* |
$6.47 |
| Without
State Reimbursement |
$13.44 |
*State Reimbursement is subject to annual legislative appropriation. |
If you have comments or questions regarding these bonds, call 907-742-4153 or e-mail us using our Bond comment box
|
|
 |
|