Based on Community Input, Washington Street to Remain Open

On September 13, residents will vote on a bond issue that, if approved, will allow us to move ahead on a series of facility improvements to Hudson High School. Some community members have asked why the district has not considered closing Washington Street, which runs between our junior high and elementary/high school building. 

This issue was thoroughly discussed by our Community Task Force, beginning in 2018. At the time, an idea was brought forth to have a junior building that linked the elementary and high school buildings. Because students often travel between the two buildings for some classes, this seemed to make sense. 

Considering the through traffic on Washington Street and constant pedestrian traffic, the case was further strengthened from a safety standpoint. 

However, the plan also had its flaws—including high projected costs. The original estimates for the facility master plan, as proposed in 2018, was an eye popping $40+ million. So, even if that was something we were interested in pursuing, it was well beyond our financial capacity. 

Still, we did our due diligence and fully explored the idea. This led to a finding that, according to the Department of Transportation, Washington Street is considered a “collector road.” To close that street, we would need to demonstrate that it no longer served a legitimate public purpose. About that same time, several members of the community shared that they were not supportive of this plan. 

By then, we had gathered enough data to make the determination that closing Washington Street simply was not a viable solution. 

When the taskforce reconvened in January 2022 to begin evaluating needs at our high school, the idea of closing Washington resurfaced. However, the same hurdles that existed in 2018 were still prevalent. The only missing data point was true community feedback. In 2018, we had anecdotal data from the community that suggested soft support for the plan. Before moving forward with any type of project, it needed to be poll tested in our community. We did that, and it was clear that closing Washington Street did not have enough support for further consideration.

Because of community feedback, Washington Street will remain open—regardless of how the balance of our high school renovation progresses.

At the same time, we intend to move forward with some key additions to the high school if the bond issue is approved September 13. Among other things, this will include a career and technical education center (CTE) addition. The exact location of the addition is still under consideration, but we intend to complete it in a way that does not disturb Washington Street or any other public road. 

The CTE center will serve as a valuable space for classrooms and labs dedicated to our agriculture and industrial technology programs. Time and again, we have heard from local business leaders that they are continually looking for employees. They have good-paying jobs available right now that quite literally are the gateway to the middle class. 

Furthermore, these jobs look quite a bit different than they did when many of us were students. Today's skilled labor force—including farmers, mechanics, and HVAC technicians—are accustomed to comfortable, clean, and climate-controlled environments. If you have been in our industrial technology building lately, you’ll probably note the building is a far cry from a modern facility that meets industry standards. It is very difficult for young people to be excited about entering these high-demand fields when we are not providing them with the right tools and environment.

So, what's the takeaway? Washington Street will remain open. The old industrial technology and agriculture building will be torn down. A new center will be built that meets industry standards and exposes our students to a clean and comfortable work environment that mirrors what they will see in today’s world of work.

Election day is Tuesday, September 13, 2022. Don't forget to vote!

Welcome to Our New Staff Members!

One of the many reasons Hudson is such a fantastic school district is because we value community. We are a team. With that in mind, I would like to welcome our new teachers and staff for the 2022-23 school year!

Maggie Driscol will be our next third-grade teacher. She grew up in La Porte City, Iowa, and holds a degree from the University of Northern Iowa. Ms. Driscol enjoys walking, reading, playing or watching sports, spending time with loved ones, and spending time at the beach.

A native of Bloomfield, Iowa, Jordan Lough will teach sixth grade this school year. Last December, she graduated from the University of Northern Iowa. Ms. Lough likes to spend her free time with her friends and family or on walks with her fiance and their dog, Paisley. 

Annie Smith is our newest kindergarten teacher. She grew up in Cedar Falls, and received her associate degree from Hawkeye Community College. Two years ago, Ms. Smith decided to go back to school at Upper Iowa University’s Waterloo campus to earn her bachelor's degree in elementary education, graduating in May 2022. When she’s not teaching, Ms. Smith loves spending time with her husband and three children outdoors, especially when they are able to take their boat to the lake for fishing and swimming.

Gabby Terril joins us as a consumer science teacher, as well as a work-based learning teacher. She is originally from Aplington, Iowa, and graduated this past May from Iowa State University. In her free time, Ms. Terril likes to spend time with her family, bake, and go to movies with her husband, Jaydan.

Alexis Brouillette will be teaching high school math. She grew up in Hudson and went to Hudson schools! After high school, Ms. Brouillette attended Iowa State University and earned a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, along with a master of business administration degree. She is also currently enrolled in Morningside University’s teaching licensure program. For fun, Ms. Brouilette likes to spend time with her family outdoors, go on walks, and travel. Ms. Brouillette and her husband have a mini aussiedoodle, and they welcomed their first child on May 25!

Michelle McPoland will serve as a social worker, dividing her time between our district, Union Community, and Galdbrook-Reinbeck. She is from Waterloo and she received her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Iowa. Ms. McPoland enjoys spending time with her family (especially her two kids), as well as reading, watching sports, and watching movies.

Christina Cortez will be teaching Spanish at our middle and high school. She grew up in Des Moines and went to the University of Northern Iowa. In her free time, Ms. Cortez likes to spend time with her family, travel (especially internationally), read, listen to music, and volunteer in her community. 

Please join me in welcoming Maggie, Jordan, Annie, Gabby, Alexis, Michelle, and Christina to the Hudson Community School District! 

Understanding Property Taxes and Taxable Valuation

As we prepare for the bond issue vote on September 13, I wanted to spend just a few minutes discussing property tax rate calculations and how our capital improvement property tax levies compare with our conference peers in the North Iowa Cedar League. 

First, it’s important to understand how we arrived at $11.65 million as the amount of the proposed bond. While that’s certainly not a small number, it did require us to narrow our focus to the projects that absolutely needed to be addressed within the constraints of our debt limit capacity. 

As a reference point, when our original task force convened in 2018, we considered multiple facility projects that would address every conceivable “need” and “want,” now and in the future. The “all-in” cost for these infrastructure improvements was estimated to be more than $40 million. This amount is far too high and well beyond our capacity due to what’s known as our constitutional debt limit. The Iowa state constitution authorizes local governmental entities to incur indebtedness that is no more than 5% of all the assessed property valuation in that taxing authority. This means our debt limit capacity is roughly $17,171,889. 

If you are wondering why we did not propose a referendum of $17,171,889, the answer is quite simple: the tax impact would have been too high on our community members. Proposing a bond in the full amount allowed would have led to a tax increase of $4.05 per $1,000 of assessed property value, rather than the currently proposed $2.70.

When comparing our proposed levy with other districts that have recently held a bond referendum, one must understand that assessed valuations differ. A district that has more valuable property will not only have a higher debt capacity, but will also be able to leverage more funding. Commercial property is very valuable, and the rollback for it is much smaller than the residential rollback. Because Hudson is not home to a lot of commercial or industrial property, our debt limit is smaller and our tax dollars do not go quite as far. 

Residents do not pay property taxes on the total value of a property, but rather a percentage of the valuation—known as the rollback. In practical terms, the rollback is the statewide “discount” on your assessed property, or the percentage of valuation for which you pay property taxes. The rollback is currently 54.13%. So, if your home is valued at $100,000, your assessed value (or the amount you pay taxes on) is $54,130. 

If you have received the Homestead tax credit of $4,850, you also subtract that—giving you an assessable taxed valuation of $49,280. The property tax implication for the referendum ($2.70) is then applied to every $1,000 of valuation: $49,850/$1,000 = $49.28. $49.28 X $2.70 = $133.06 per year. 

This flyer does an excellent job of explaining the formula and providing you with the resources needed to calculate your personal property tax rate. If you would like help, I would be more than happy to assist! Feel free to reach out here. 

We have discussed the constitutional debt limit and how that number is wholly dependent on the sum total of all the property valuations within that school district. Likewise, property valuations in an entity like Cedar Falls or Waterloo will be very different from those in Hudson, for the simple fact that their commercial footprint dwarfs that of Hudson. Indeed, every school district in Iowa is unique in this regard. The farm ground, residential property, and commercial blend are all different. So, too, is the capital outlay that each district commits to infrastructure. For this, I believe a useful illustration is a comparison of tax rates by conference district:

The total tax levy for the fiscal year 2023 budget in Hudson is $13.32. Of that, $1.67 is dedicated to capital levies. These levies include the voter-approved PPEL (which is $1.34 and is up for reauthorization on the September ballot) and $0.33, which is approved annually by the Board of School Directors.

What the table here indicates is the capital improvement levies in place at all the districts in our conference. The fact that some districts are moving forward with building projects and renovations is a direct result of the levies they have in place. The lighter-shaded gray represents general obligation bonds or debt service, which is a voter-approved referendum. This is what Hudson community members will consider on September 13.

The amount of revenue generated by a district is in direct relation to the value of the assessed property in that district. The math is really quite simple: the more value the property has, the more proceeds generated for the improvement projects. 

For more information on the upcoming bond, voted PPEL, and Revenue Purpose Statement votes, please visit https://www.hudsonschoolbond.org. 

The 3 Funding Streams of School Infrastructure

A school district’s budget can be complicated, with about eight separate funds designed to cover specific operational or facility needs. Within those funds are often several “sub-funds” that are even more restrictive.

The fund that operates the hot lunch program, for instance, includes money that can only be used for food services. There are dozens of other examples of these mechanisms, which serve to prevent a district from taking money from one fund and using it for another aspect of its operations.

It’s our responsibility to ensure that, when making a spending decision for the district, the expenditures are accrued to the appropriate fund. 

Our largest fund is the general fund. Sometimes referred to as the operating fund, it’s used to manage the district’s day-to-day operations.

When it comes to infrastructure and capital improvement projects, Iowa public school districts have three funding options outside the general operating fund. These funds cannot be used for general operating expenses. Likewise, using the general fund for large capital infrastructure projects is not a viable option, in most cases.

Over the last several months, we have focused on what are known as general obligation (GO) bonds, a funding mechanism specific to infrastructure. Accessing this funding stream requires at least 60 percent voter approval. It’s a high threshold in place to ensure school districts are doing their due diligence prior to bringing a bond issue before their voters. 

Why? Because of the property tax implications. In our case, we are asking the voters to approve a $2.70 levy that will enable the district to sell $11.65 million in GO bonds. The proceeds of those bonds will be used to pay for the infrastructure and capital improvement projects that have been recommended by the task force, assembled last January.

The district also collects statewide sales tax revenue that can be used for capital improvement projects. Known by its more common acronym, SAVE, the district collected approximately $723,187.89 through the program during the last fiscal year. Of that, we used $580,939.60 as a payment for our revenue bond. (Our community may recall that we sold revenue bonds of roughly $5.1 million a few years back to pay for our K-8 renovations and addition.)

While the SAVE funding stream is not composed of property tax, it does permit and require the voters of the district to weigh in on how these funds are allocated. When you go to the polls on September 13, you will also be asked to approve what is known as a Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS). This lengthy document outlines all the different purposes acceptable for use of this fund. The RPS that we are seeking affirmation on is designed in a way to maximize the options available for infrastructure projects.

The third leg of this infrastructure stool is known as the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL). While it can also be used for capital improvement projects, it serves as a great source of revenue for purchasing school buses. For the fiscal year that began July 1, we anticipate revenue collections in PPEL of roughly $436,415. During the last fiscal year, we purchased a school bus at a cost of $97,753 and an accessible van for $26,988. 

While the $1.34 levy has been in place in Hudson for decades, it does require voter reauthorization every 10 years. Renewal of the PPEL is not a tax increase, but rather a continuation of a levy that has been a mainstay of our capital improvement strategy for decades. Voters will decide on renewing the PPEL on September 13, as well.

The remainder of both the SAVE (after paying the bond) and the PPEL (after purchasing school buses) continue to serve important purposes for the district. For example, these funds are used to maintain our computers in the district. We budget $216,000 in capital outlays for such items as computers and non-instructional software. Classroom furniture routinely needs to be replaced, and these revenue streams are an appropriate funding mechanism for that. 

And, of course, we must be prepared for a wide range of emergencies that could arise. For this, we budget $100,000.

All three of these funding streams work in tandem to ensure we have top-notch facilities, stay up to date with current technology, and ensure our buses are safe and well maintained. Without these resources, the district would be forced to make difficult choices and reorder our priorities.

If you have questions about any of these resources, you are encouraged to reach out! If you would like to submit a question regarding our upcoming referendum, please submit it to our website at www.hudsonschoolbond.org. 

Don't forget to vote on September 13!

The Voters Will Decide

At the beginning of my tenure well more than a decade ago the board was steadfast in their desire to utilize a 'pay as we go' approach to capital improvements. The first couple of projects we tackled were parking lots, ones that were relatively easy to fund with cash on hand. But, as the years went by the 'low hanging fruit' became much higher to reach on the proverbial tree. Yet that strategy served us well and we were able to complete some great facility projects on behalf of the citizens of our community and the students we serve. Once we started master facility planning in 2018 it became apparent the 'pay as you go' philosophy would soon come face to face with the reality of time versus the ability to get the job done. Still, we persevered. Both Phase I and Phase II of the elementary renovation were funded with cash on hand. One of the proudest moments for the board came with the completion of Phase I, which made the competition gym accessible with the installation of the ramp at the south entrance. Once we got to Phase III though, it was apparent this work could not be completed using a 'pay as you go approach'. That is, unless the community was comfortable with a completion date sometime closer to (or beyond) my retirement. 

Generally speaking, I am sensitive to property taxes; as well you may be. With that mindset, when preparing our annual budget we have kept that at the forefront of our thinking and worked hard to be responsible stewards of the tax dollar. It was with that context we approached Phase III. Instead of relying on property taxes, we would utilize sales tax; selling revenue bonds and using the proceeds to fund the project. Hopefully you agree we have a beautiful building for our efforts.

Again though, when we began our planning in 2018 we understood that at some point a referendum was likely in our future. And in so doing, the voters would need to weigh in and have their voices heard. That is where we find ourselves today. While the pandemic put a hold on our plans, it also created an opportunity to rethink our priorities and re-engage with our community. 

To that end, we convened a task force of stakeholders that represented a broad cross section of our community. It included retirees, young families, employees, business owners, and farmers. Beginning in January of 2021, the group met regularly to scrutinize our high school facility and consider the future. They examined the building, brainstormed ideas, and considered how best to meet the needs of our students today and tomorrow. They met with architects, financial planners, and engineers. Each member of our task force brought their own area of expertise, be it as a contractor themselves, a parent of students in our schools, or a community member that has a vested interest in the success of our local public school district. I am incredibly proud of the work put forth by our task force and am honored they gave us their gift of time in this endeavor. 

In their discernment, they realized that many of our building mechanical systems have reached 'end of life'. Air handling systems no longer work properly (and in some instances never worked properly from the beginning). Our current library space is woefully underutilized. The industrial technology building has far outlasted its usefulness as an instructional space, particularly when compared to the industry standards of today. Furthermore, school safety is a top priority; and while recent efforts to improve security have been implemented, a safe and secure entrance similar to the K-8 attendance center would give everyone greater peace of mind. And finally, the task force recommended that we add gym space. The fact of the matter is that as enrollment grows, so too will our need for classroom space. Part of our classroom space issue will be resolved by reimagining our library. At the same time though, gym space serves more than one purpose as a competition venue. It also serves as a classroom space. The time isn't too far away and we'll be teaching two physical education classes concurrently. 

To help you learn more about the work of the task force, the key components of the proposed project, and the taxing implications of this referendum, you are encouraged to attend one of our upcoming public meetings. We'll have community meetings on August 16th at 12:00 p.m. in the Hudson High School library and then again on August 22 at 7:00 p.m. in the library. A special event designed for parents will also be held in conjunction with Open House on August 18th. 

As we go through the next couple of months in preparation for the referendum, you are encouraged to ask questions. You can submit your questions to our website: www.hudsonschoolbond.org, just scroll to the bottom of the page to make your submission. You are also able to stay up to date on the latest information by checking out our FAQ which is updated frequently. 

Following that, our work is complete. The time for you to cast your vote at the polls will soon be upon us. How do you do that? Vote on September 13th! And to ensure we give everyone ample opportunity to have their voices heard, you can choose to vote early on September 2nd from 4:00-8:00 p.m. in the competition gym, which is the same evening as our home opener football game against BCLUW. 

Is the investment in our community; in our school worth it? You'll have to decide when you visit the ballot box.