Harrisburg School District proposing a $40 Million bond with NO tax increases

I know, you must be scratching your head a little, as am I. How can the Harrisburg school district propose a $40 million dollar bond without a tax increase? Oh, I don’t know, it’s that little thing called GROWTH!

Rasmussen said there are enough new homes and businesses in the district to support the proposed $40 million dollar bond vote without increasing taxes.

This was my argument about the SFSD bond, with record breaking building permits for over 6 years and the massive growth in Sioux Falls, why would we have to increase property taxes for our bond? Or better yet just build the schools out of the capital outlay without bonding and paying a $100 million in interest. How can a small community like Harrisburg figure out this simple math problem and NOT Sioux Falls? Sometimes arrogance gets in the way of prudence.

I think it would be safe to assume that the Harrisburg bond will pass the 60% threshold easily, especially with NO tax increases. It will just be interesting to see if they hit 85%. Yeah right.



12 comments ↓

#1 D@ily Spin on 10.02.18 at 10:34 am

It’s because Harrisburg is reputable and responsible leadership. They don’t have the corruption Sioux Falls has. Their growth is strong residential because there’s an outflow to escape imposed higher property taxes in Sioux Falls. Inevitably, they’ll become the best school district in the area. Property valuation will soar there but slow here.

#2 matt johnson on 10.02.18 at 12:48 pm

much of Sioux Falls growth is in the Harrisburg school district (or other school districts) not defending the local yokels but do need to tell the whole story as it relates to the growth issue

#3 l3wis on 10.02.18 at 1:48 pm

While there is certainly MORE growth in that area, ALL of SF has massive development and growth.

#4 Dan on 10.02.18 at 2:05 pm

Harrisburg, Tea, and Brandon actually all have higher property taxes than Sioux Falls.

https://www.teasd.com/?SEC=B2DBFD99-A1DB-4AEC-9F0D-62ACC775CDCA

#5 l3wis on 10.02.18 at 2:17 pm

And probably the reason they don’t have to raise taxes for the bond 🙂

#6 Rob Sandberg on 10.02.18 at 4:04 pm

@Daily Spin; you lose credibility when you make claims that aren’t substantiated and easily looked up. Kinda rips apart your argument and makes you look silly. Again. Come on down to Lincoln County and get out of your hated Sioux Falls where there’s conspiracies afoot all over the place. Hint; the grass ain’t greener.

#7 l3wis on 10.02.18 at 9:28 pm

Beresford school bond vote tonight fails huge;

Beresford School District’s Watchdog Legacy Project Bond was not passed by its District voters. There were 370 yes votes in favor of the bond (35%), 673 no votes against the bond (65%), and 1 unaccounted. The bond needed 60% to pass.

#8 anonymous on 10.03.18 at 1:00 pm

The Beresford school bond issue was for 11+m.

They informed their voters it would be an annual property tax increase of $320 on a $200,000 home with a payment period of 20-24 years.

SF taxpayers will only see a $2 per month increase for $24 a year on a $185,000 house for a $190m bond with a payment period of 25 years.

Yah, Right!!!!!

#9 The Guy from Guernsey on 10.03.18 at 3:23 pm

The Beresford project included a performing arts center, a second full-size gymnasium and a fitness center. Was there any classroom or educational space included ? If not, easy to see how it would be voted down.

But in comparing the recent bond referendums of Beresford and Sioux Falls (and the tax levy required to repay the bonds) consider that the assessed valuation of taxable property (the tax base over which repayment of the bonds are spread) are quite different.
Taxable Valuations (2016, payable 2017):
Beresford ~$467 million
Sioux Falls ~$10.5 BILLION
The tax base is 22x larger and over 40% of the valuation in the Sioux Falls school district is ‘Other Non-Ag/Utilities’ (Not ag land, nor Owner Occupied property).

#10 l3wis on 10.03.18 at 3:41 pm

Yes, there are multiple differences. I just found it interesting. The Harrisburg bond is also different.

#11 The Guy from Guernsey on 10.03.18 at 3:58 pm

Levy of school taxes in Harrisburg (per $1,000 of valuation) is larger than that levied by the Sioux Falls School District – by about $2.35/$1,000 of valuation for Owner Occupied property.

How can Harrisburg propose bond financing for recent school projects (this project, as well as the bond which included the present high school), but which does not project to further increase the levy rate?
The answer is contained in one of the graphs associated with the link you used in your post to the KSFY piece.
Since 1999, the valuation of taxable property in the Harrisburg district has multiplied by 14x.
This growth has been largely organic – conversion of Ag Land to Owner Occupied and Commercial (thanks, Walmart!) valuations.
I’ll acknowledge some influence from inflation of valuation of homes in the Taupe Society of Conformity about which JKC is likely to remind.

#12 JKC on 10.04.18 at 7:08 pm

TGfG,

It’s called the “Taupe HOUSING Society of Conformity” and not just TSC. TSC is a farm and ranch store. THSC is an urban reality, or a surrendering should we say. But thank you, however, for acknowledging the homeowner value inflation in this town, or area. Now, if only our politicians would.

Leave a Comment