Several days ago, KELO-TV reported that people were “flocking” to sign a petition to refer the Sioux Falls school board’s $50-million property tax opt-out to a public vote. Evidently the “flock” was a little thin: the Friday deadline for the referendum petition came and went with anti-tax petitioner Lora Hubbel turning in only a few dozen signatures. Dakota War College reports that Hubbel had 314 signatures while SD Learn, a second group irate about spending money to educate Sioux Falls kids, collected “over 3,500 signatures,” still well short of the 5,374 necessary to put the opt-out to a vote.
In my quest for morning lemonade, perhaps we can take this petition failure in Sioux Falls as a good political sign. Opt-out opposition was led by prominent figures of the hard right. Once again, the hard right failed to mount a successful public campaign. Perhaps this failure signals that if Jack Heyd pulls the trigger and starts circulating the anti-transgender initiative petition that he’s been sitting on since April, he won’t find as many eager conservative signers as he might think are out there willing to flog the culture war on the 2018 ballot.
The petitioners in Sioux Falls had 7 days to collect the required number of signatures to force the opt-out on the ballot and they chose to initiate this when the seven days fell over a holiday. I believe for a statewide ballot measure, they have longer to collect signatures on their petitions. I would not have signed this petition regarding the opt-out, but let’s be fair here.
I think petitioners have 20 days from the date of publication to opt out.
Donald’s right about the 20 days from publication. That time did include the July 4 holiday, so the holiday may have affected petition circulation.
Having two different groups circulating petitions on the same issue apparently became confusing as the groups, it seems, didn’t coordinate their efforts (or merge into a single unified group).
For those into history, the SF School District built Roosevelt High without a bond issue by using capital outlay funds (typically used for repairs and maintenance). After Roosevelt was built, the SD School District held a bond election to fund – you guessed it – repairs and maintenance.
The SF School District is currently discussing the need to build a new high school. If they request a bond election, the circumstances of the just-passed $50 million opt-out may be used as an issue by opponents of the bond issue. If the district builds the school using opt-out funds, the next attempt at an opt-out or bond issue election may be a real donnybrook.
Yup: SDCL 10-13-36 gives petitioners 20 days after official publication of the opt-out to file their petition calling for a public vote. Board voted June 12; drive started June 18. Marijuana petitioners viewed July 4 as a good opportunity to catch lots of signers at once at the July 4 parades, so I’m not convinced right away that having to petition over July 4 posed a disadvantage.
I’m more inclined to believe the disadvantage came in part from lack of coordination between the two groups… and quite possibly far greater support for allowing the school district to levy the taxes necessary to maintain services for all students.
Sioux Falls is a growing community with lots of young families. I can see where they might be looking at a fourth high school. I’d have to see the data on whether growth will continue.
Building schools is a tough decision for any Board of Education and community, but its far less tough than decisions to close schools. Be thankful you have the “problem” of deciding whether or not to build a school to house a growing student population.
Rapid City addressed a third high school in the early 1990s. I was against it, because data indicated growth in student populations would level off and I wanted to strengthen alternative programs, particularly to struggling students in elementary school and to students who didn’t do well in a big high school setting. So, Rapid City put money into those alternative programs, rather than into a third high school. The problem, of course, was that Janklow’s school aid formula, which included all the local revenue limitations, kicked in and starved those programs soon after they were established. I understand, however, RC’s alternative programs became so popular they are now housed in a former middle school that was a former high school. So, a third high school did come about through building some good alternative programs.
These decisions need to be student and data driven, not based on someone’s ideology. Another high school may not be a bad idea, but it all depends on data and what alternatives might be out there.
Donald:
SF is indeed a growing community, but the borders of the city and the borders of the school district are very different. Most of the city’s growth is occurring at the edges of the city, in places where other school districts serve; e.g., Harrisburg, Tea, West Central, Brandon, etc.
South Dakota’s cities can annex land not claimed by another city, but school districts can’t take land away from each other. The more Sioux Falls increases in geographic size, the lower the percentage of Sioux Falls’ land will also be served by the SF School District.
Whether the school district needs another high school is a school district capacity issue, not necessarily a city population issue.
To support Mr. Wyland’s geographical note, I look at preK-12 enrollments from 2010 and 2016 in the seven school districts in Minnehaha County and the four in Lincoln County and find the following rates of growth:
Canton 41-1 : -0.21%
Harrisburg 41-2 : 9.49%
Lennox 41-4 : 1.49%
Tea Area 41-5 : 4.27%
Baltic 49-1 : 3.58%
Brandon Valley 49-2 : 2.98%
Dell Rapids 49-3 : 0.86%
Garretson 49-4 : -1.71%
Sioux Falls 49-5 : 2.39%
Tri-Valley 49-6 : 1.2%
West Central 49-7 : 0.59%
Harrisburg, Tea, Baltic, and Brandon school districts are all growing faster than the Sioux Falls district. Lennox, Tri-Valley, West Central, and Dell Rapids are growing, but not as fast as Sioux Falls. Garretson and Canton are shrinking.