Post by blankcheck on Mar 16, 2006 9:03:31 GMT -6
Since this is a "Yes" board, I debated whether or not to put in why I am voting No. I can appreciate Rocky's comments and I guess the point here is that we all need to arrive at our own conclusions. I am not with any party, have never donated to anyone. I am just a concerned parent who has tried like everyone here to pick apart the information and arrive at my own conclusion.
1) The cost of the land. Why would anyone vote for something they have no idea what the cost will be? They are going back to court on March 21st (the day we vote) This issue could wind up going to a jury to determine the fair market value of the property. When they originally went for the land, their first offer was $105,000/acre. They settled two years later for $257,500/acre. Also, this land that they currently have is not suited to be built on - so was it the cheapest part that the estate sold them and the rest is premium?
2) Operation fund referendum 2009. They have stated that if the land costs more, one option would be to use money from the operating fund to absorb the additional cost. The money is there for current buildings (ie: Waubonsie). If they take money out of that fund, it could prevent them from doing work on our existing facilities.
3) Referendum 2009 - They have told us that the cost to operate a 3rd high school is 4.5 million dollars. They leave out a huge chunk of that cost in teacher salaries. We are in negotiations right now. If you look at the staff of just Neuqua alone, they have over 400 full/part time staff. With a 3rd high school we would need that as well. However, with additions etc. I feel that would be less.
4) Our current debt is $287,000,000 million dollars. With this additional cost just to build the school and furnish it, would bring our debt to over $400,000,000. In addition, the refinancing of debt would be extended out for year to come hence, the taxpayers in the long run will pay a lot more in interest for this debt. As stated in the Daily Herald yesterday, the cost for this high school will be double of what they are asking for because of the additional interest we will pay.
5) Capasity - Numbers are everywhere. We have empty seats at the elementary level as well as a brand new 850 student building which will not be opening. Ashwood Park homes range from $500,000-$1,000,000. This is very expensive and I feel the development will not be as rapid - hence not the influx of students coming at the same time.
6) Past History - Although mistakes have been made, we are being asked to pay for those mistakes. During the 2001 referendum, they would not look at a third high school because the cost for teacher salaries and the high school would be to much. Hence, they assured us the freshman centers would work knowing full well it was a bandaid. It was an all or nothing issue.
7) Home values - Everyone state that our home values will go down if this fails. The flip side to that coin if this passes - who is to say that people will be able to purchase that $300,000 home who has over a $10,000 realestate tax bill?
8) Our tax rates have been 5% or higher for the last three years. In comparable districts, we are the highest. On top of this, the next campaign for $$$ will begin in 2008 for more $$$ for the operating fund. I realize that this will happen with or without the additional school. We are in negotiations right now with the teachers union. We use many of these same districts to compare teacher salaries as we do tax rates.
9) Again - past history dictates to me a lot of information. After the passage of the 2001 referendum, the school board gave Gail McKenzie over a $75,000 salary increase for her last year. Although you may say this is old news being druged up, to me it show how our board has acted in the past. As stated throughout months of this, the voters were told we may have to cut PE teachers etc., yet they gave themselves a 3.5% salary increase. Where was the downsizing of administrators? The downsizing occured at the classroom level not administrative level. This is called history of past performance.
10) There have been many questions regarding the funding of CFO - I agree. We should question who is funding both sides of the issue. If there are things to disclose, CFO should comply. However, I do question the funding as well as the 204the kids. I find it a conflict of interest when a school board member who is president of a bank, and that bank donates $1,000.00 towards the campaign. I guess that is why I hate politics. Questions about campaign funding can be thrown out to both sides.
I guess I could go on, but this will get to long. I have lived in this district a very long time. I have always been supportive of the school district and in my own way still will be supportive. My "No" vote by no means is an indication that I'm not for the kids. I am for the kids as well as their parents who down the road may be forced to make some tough choices whether they can afford to live here or not. I'm sure everyone on this board will have a lot of fun tearing my post to shreads today.
1) The cost of the land. Why would anyone vote for something they have no idea what the cost will be? They are going back to court on March 21st (the day we vote) This issue could wind up going to a jury to determine the fair market value of the property. When they originally went for the land, their first offer was $105,000/acre. They settled two years later for $257,500/acre. Also, this land that they currently have is not suited to be built on - so was it the cheapest part that the estate sold them and the rest is premium?
2) Operation fund referendum 2009. They have stated that if the land costs more, one option would be to use money from the operating fund to absorb the additional cost. The money is there for current buildings (ie: Waubonsie). If they take money out of that fund, it could prevent them from doing work on our existing facilities.
3) Referendum 2009 - They have told us that the cost to operate a 3rd high school is 4.5 million dollars. They leave out a huge chunk of that cost in teacher salaries. We are in negotiations right now. If you look at the staff of just Neuqua alone, they have over 400 full/part time staff. With a 3rd high school we would need that as well. However, with additions etc. I feel that would be less.
4) Our current debt is $287,000,000 million dollars. With this additional cost just to build the school and furnish it, would bring our debt to over $400,000,000. In addition, the refinancing of debt would be extended out for year to come hence, the taxpayers in the long run will pay a lot more in interest for this debt. As stated in the Daily Herald yesterday, the cost for this high school will be double of what they are asking for because of the additional interest we will pay.
5) Capasity - Numbers are everywhere. We have empty seats at the elementary level as well as a brand new 850 student building which will not be opening. Ashwood Park homes range from $500,000-$1,000,000. This is very expensive and I feel the development will not be as rapid - hence not the influx of students coming at the same time.
6) Past History - Although mistakes have been made, we are being asked to pay for those mistakes. During the 2001 referendum, they would not look at a third high school because the cost for teacher salaries and the high school would be to much. Hence, they assured us the freshman centers would work knowing full well it was a bandaid. It was an all or nothing issue.
7) Home values - Everyone state that our home values will go down if this fails. The flip side to that coin if this passes - who is to say that people will be able to purchase that $300,000 home who has over a $10,000 realestate tax bill?
8) Our tax rates have been 5% or higher for the last three years. In comparable districts, we are the highest. On top of this, the next campaign for $$$ will begin in 2008 for more $$$ for the operating fund. I realize that this will happen with or without the additional school. We are in negotiations right now with the teachers union. We use many of these same districts to compare teacher salaries as we do tax rates.
9) Again - past history dictates to me a lot of information. After the passage of the 2001 referendum, the school board gave Gail McKenzie over a $75,000 salary increase for her last year. Although you may say this is old news being druged up, to me it show how our board has acted in the past. As stated throughout months of this, the voters were told we may have to cut PE teachers etc., yet they gave themselves a 3.5% salary increase. Where was the downsizing of administrators? The downsizing occured at the classroom level not administrative level. This is called history of past performance.
10) There have been many questions regarding the funding of CFO - I agree. We should question who is funding both sides of the issue. If there are things to disclose, CFO should comply. However, I do question the funding as well as the 204the kids. I find it a conflict of interest when a school board member who is president of a bank, and that bank donates $1,000.00 towards the campaign. I guess that is why I hate politics. Questions about campaign funding can be thrown out to both sides.
I guess I could go on, but this will get to long. I have lived in this district a very long time. I have always been supportive of the school district and in my own way still will be supportive. My "No" vote by no means is an indication that I'm not for the kids. I am for the kids as well as their parents who down the road may be forced to make some tough choices whether they can afford to live here or not. I'm sure everyone on this board will have a lot of fun tearing my post to shreads today.
