Under Proposition C, half of a Missouri 1-cent sales tax now going to schools, is returned to the voters unless voters OK a waiver allowing districts to keep that funding.
In 1999 many other districts around the state passed similar waivers, but unlike the temporary waiver in the R-5 district, most of the others secured a permanent waiver.
A former R-5 School Board member, Dr. Warren Lovinger, who was on the board when the decision was made to include the sunset provision, stated that the board felt it best to try out the tax with the sunset provision.
"I'm just going from memory here, but as I recall, it was because it had not [been] approved before," Lovinger said. "The board felt it would be best to put a time limit on it so people could see that it was being used properly and would feel comfortable voting for it."
Voters also OK'd a property tax levy in 1999, which the district also hopes voters will continue. Both the Proposition C waiver and levy would remain the same as they are now, and both appear on the same ballot issue, called Proposition 1.
Nevada R-5 Superintendent Dr. David Stephens said the district wasn't seeking additional funds, merely a continuation of funds they already collect.
"We're not asking people to pay any more than they already are," Stephens said. "We're just asking them to maintain it where it is."
The sales tax is difficult to estimate since it depends on numerous variables, however, if a family spends $10,000 on taxable purchases it would cost $50 a year or approximately a dollar each week. The cost of the tax levy on a $100,000 home would be approximately $150 per year.
Several patrons have been critical of the fact the district started a new drug-testing policy and at the same time is requesting the funding stay at current levels.
"I'm glad you asked that question," Stephens said. "I've been asked the same thing by several people so I hope you can put the answer in bold type. The expense for the drug-testing policy comes out of federal funds that we are required to spend on safe and drug free school activities. Prop. 1 is local money and doesn't go to the drug testing policy at all."
Board member Mike McCaffree said that if Proposition 1 fails it would endanger the level of education Nevada students now receive.
"It's my understanding that this money is needed to keep the schools offering the level of service we're used to seeing from the district," McCaffree said. "We've got a school system recognized as one of the best. In my business you see people looking at that when thinking about moving to an area. If we want to continue with the level of education we're giving kids in Nevada we need to support this."
McCaffree's words were similar to school board vice president Chris Ellis, who said the board had worked hard over the course of several years of disappointing funding to anticipate future needs.
"We've looked far enough ahead so far that it doesn't hurt the kids, but something of this magnitude is going to have an impact," Ellis said. "If Prop 1 doesn't pass it will definitely impact some programs."
Stephens said the budget cuts announced by Gov. Jay Nixon Wednesday -- $204 million overall, with $19.5 million coming from elementary and secondary education -- would hurt, but the board used conservative figures to come up with the budget so the effect would be minimized.
"The only cut Nixon proposed that would affect us is in transportation," Stephens said. "We used last year's figures for revenue in the budget and that's about where the cuts will put us. We're going to feel a ding, but we anticipated and planned for that eventuality. We're still going to hurt, our revenue is the same as last year but our expenses are going up, with fuel costs the main reason."
The district currently has a hiring freeze in place, and hasn't filled some positions that "really ought to be." Some new hiring has taken place, but those are temporary positions in specialty areas that have received temporary stimulus funding through 2011. "Those people were told up front this is a temporary position" in special education and other specialized areas. The temporary help will enable permanent staffers to focus more on additional skills development.
Stephens noted that the state's funding formula also is fully funded for now, due to stimulus funding, but in two years that also will expire, and the state funding could be reduced as well.
Ellis said the board would likely revisit the issue in 2010 if the proposition failed to pass this November. Without approval of Proposition 1 in the Nov. 3 election, the waiver in place will expire Dec. 31, 2009.
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.nevadadailymail.com/images/nameplate.png)

Thank you for an article that finally puts the drug testing cost to rest. The proposition 1 approval will benefit the children of Nevada. I do not have any children in the district anymore but I beg anyone who reads this to please vote yes for the school district. We may or may not agree or even like the people who make the decisions in the school district but one thing we have to understand is that this is best for the students of Nevada. The students will be the ones who can make a difference in the community with a great education or better yet they will be the ones who will be taking care of us in the future. I would rather vote yes and have a student that can read give me my pills when I am ninety than vote no and have the same student whose education was neglected because we voted no give me the wrong pills. The educational world has changed since many of us have attended school and it is ever changing. If we expect our district to keep up with other schools then we need to vote yes. What is $150 when you think of the big picture? It is not a tax increase, it is just keeping it the same. Now I know there are people complaining about the drug policy. I personally don't like the idea of it but society has changed and I trust that it is a good thing for kids because the school board voted to use it. I just ask that you put your bitter feelings aside and look out for the students of Nevada, they deserve an opportunity to succeed and the approval of the proposition will allow them that opportunity. Believe in the students because they are the future of our society!
One more comment that I forgot to add:
The drug testing policy is paid for by federal money not local. Just in case some of you did not read that, it is federal money that has to be spent on drug free schools! The students are the future of Nevada.
Ahh so now the truth begins to peek out. We aren't about helping kids with this drug screening thing instead we want to glom onto a federal grant! If it is just for drug free schools why not apply it to one of the 500 proven programs that have scientific backing? That would be the same scientific backing that the school board cant provide to explain why they are so hot to trot for this idea. Alas that is not why we are here this is about funding. So if we look are they going to run out of money next year and Jimmy wont be able to take reading? No if you look they almost admit to being funded through the 2011 school year. So where is this money going if all there programs are funded? Well I made that inquiry of slick willie aka Dr Stephens. It is needed to keep the raise structure going! So at a time when the paper is filled with our neighbors losing their homes he wants to make sure his pay scale remains on par with the larger communities down south, because surely they aren't having any of this down turn! All the decision coming out of there are based on how much money they can take not on what is good for OUR children or this community! Stop the hype we have to live here the piracy must end.
So your saying the drug screen was not about kids instead it was about giving away the child's forth amendment right in exchange for a federal grant. Hmm Then you want me to allow you to make a temporary tax permanent so that you can now move it over to salaries. All this at a time when everyone is just trying to get by. Also of note is the fact that they admit the programs are funded for at least the next two years. Why then isn't this broached at a time when we might be in a more sound position economically as a community? Greed is your answer that is what this is about not children so quite being pathetic and trying to hold our children hostage with lies of what you will do for them!
Isn't it sad that everytime anyone talks about the school district losing even one cent, they try to make us think that if this is done, the children will turn out as dumb as a box of rocks? While people are losing their jobs, getting their hours cut, businesses are closing, and many haven't had raises in two or three years, some think that the teachers should be immune to the recession happening all over the country. To some families, $150 to $200 a year means the difference between their children going to bed hungry at night, while to the school district it means not getting a $1,000,000 elevator, or a $35,000 trophy case until next year. Most people in the district have to make the best they can on a little less, so why shouldn't the school district? The school board and the superintendent of schools are very intelligent people, so I am sure they can manage on a little less, like the rest of us.
It seems they do it because with the collusion of the media it works!