My wife, her mother and aunt all were associated with Moab schools back in the 1950s. I am an old park manager and as such have always believed in financial responsibility and moderation.
As I understand it, the school operation budget was illegally padded by “siphoning funds not normally designated for operations.” Now, rather than go back to the original budget before padding, the administration wants us to keep up the present padded budget by voting for a voted leeway. This would allow the schools to keep programs and people gotten by the illegal fund siphoning.
It would cost the average $200,000 house owner some $350 a year-plus because the leeway asked for is beyond what would equal the siphoning so that a cushion for the possible future demands could be met.
However, Ms. Numaguchi, in her “Moab Happenings,” April 2010 article, says that Utah House Bill 295 allows our school district two more years of siphoning. So why the voted leeway, now or in the future? Or is there a payback clause so that maintenance will be properly funded and no new schools needed because of the lack of good maintenance?
I have seen no figures on the school budget, but I do note the increase in the past five years in the assessment of my property values – a little less than 50 percent for developed property and more than 50 percent for undeveloped lots. In addtion, there has been a building boom in the valley, adding to property taxes, school enrollment is supposedly on the downward trend, and many of the new homes are second homes with no addtional children to add to the school system’s burden. This would seem to me to provide enough additional tax monies to take care of siphoning problems
One additonal note to put this all in focus – the last certificate of deposit I have gets all of three-quarters of 1 percent interest.
—Lloyd M. Pierson
Moab