Ballot Issue 5B (MLO) Pros & Cons

Arguments For:

• Due to the lack of adequate funding, Adams 12 Five Star Schools had to cut $27.5 million for the 2025-26 school year, including about 150 jobs, leading to larger class sizes and fewer class offerings or electives for students to choose from.
• Our students thrive when they’re learning from highly-effective teachers, but Five Star Schools ranks closer to the bottom (10 out of 15) in average teacher salaries compared to nearby districts, putting Adams 12 at a competitive disadvantage in attracting and keeping top-tier staff.  
• 97 percent of graduating career and technical education students immediately enter college, the military or the workforce, having a positive impact on our economy and quality of life; but the district needs additional qualified staff to provide students more hands-on learning experiences in high-demand careers.
• Students value additional trained safety and security staff, but Adams 12 Five Star Schools has one of the smallest security staffs among nearby districts.

Arguments Against:

• The State used the Negative Factor (aka, the Budget Stabilization Factor) to reduce funding in Adams 12 Five Star Schools to the tune of nearly $493.2 million since 2010-2011. The State should find a way to provide more funding for schools.
• The district cut its property tax rate by 10 percent recently (6.606 total assessed mills reduction in property tax collection year 2024). Even with a higher cost of doing business, the district should cut more.
• As with any property-tax increase, mill levy overrides raise taxes. In Adams 12 Five Star Schools the mill levy override proposal is estimated to cost a homeowner about $5/month per $100,000 of home value. This increase in funding would move the district closer to the market average of nearby school districts. 
• The district has spent down reserves (one-time funds) to fill some of the funding gap caused by inadequate funding from the State, leaving its fund balance lower than most comparable districts. It should deplete reserves even more, even though these funds are one-time and can’t support ongoing expenses like staffing.