|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 5, 2007 10:00:15 GMT -6
Yes, it has always been know that there will be another referendum in 2009. Maybe dcyst is concerned about what will all be included in that referendum. It is one thing to ask for operational $$ (for salaries ect) it is another thing to ask for additional money to finish building a school (again, I refer to them asking for additional $$ when Neuqua was built) They could not 'pad' an operational expense referendum then use that 'padding' or any money for construction. There must be a separate and explicit vote and approval by the taxpayers, as was the case for NVHS, they asked for more money SPECIFICALLY for completing construction, they did not siphon funds from those approved for other things like operating expenses. So far, I do not see *ANY* work being done to ask for more CONSTRUCTION money. If you or anyone else has any real info otherwise, them please share it. Additionally, if my recollection of history is in error, please correct that too with regards to NVHS. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jul 5, 2007 10:58:29 GMT -6
From information the district handed out answering questions regarding past referenda:
1994 Referendum-
NVHS - 56.0M (Actual total cost was $62M)
Crone $10.1M
Four elementary schools$22.0M
O/M $3.0 M (I am assuming this stands for operations/maintenance)
Parity WV upgrades etc $6.15M
Total $97.25M
1997 Referendum
6 elementary schools $43.7M
2 middle schools $35.5M
Additional gym NVHS $1.0M
District education center $7.0M
Technology $8.0M
O/M $8.2M
School sites $2.4M
Additions to elementary schools $3.7M
Total $109.5M
So they were all put on the same ticket. That is what concerns me for 2009
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 5, 2007 11:10:08 GMT -6
Ok, same ticket, but different amounts earmarked specifically for different things. Also, it looks like everything is HARD GOODS related on those, not operating expenses.
If they put an increase for additional construction costs on the 2009 referendum for operating expenses they will be setting themselves up to be shot in the foot, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jul 5, 2007 11:16:42 GMT -6
Move forward to the 2001 referendum
Replacement middle schools $40M
Freshman Campuses $13.0M
1 elementary school $9.5M
Graham addition $1.8M
MS Air $3.0M
Elementary ventilation $2.0M
O/M $8.0M
Technology $9.0M
School site (mow part of new high school $2.5M
Total $88.8M
If my memory is correct, it was an all or nothing vote on this one. Either we construct AND vote for operating or we don't.
Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, they allocated 2.5 million for the school site (the 25 acres)
We paid 257,000/acre. So where did the other 3.9 million come from? Maybe I'm missing something,
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 5, 2007 11:37:28 GMT -6
Move forward to the 2001 referendum Replacement middle schools $40M Freshman Campuses $13.0M 1 elementary school $9.5M Graham addition $1.8M MS Air $3.0M Elementary ventilation $2.0M O/M $8.0M Technology $9.0M School site (mow part of new high school $2.5M Total $88.8M If my memory is correct, it was an all or nothing vote on this one. Either we construct AND vote for operating or we don't. Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, they allocated 2.5 million for the school site (the 25 acres) We paid 257,000/acre. So where did the other 3.9 million come from? Maybe I'm missing something, This again looks like hard-goods. Which part of this was Operating expenses for the district that's similar to what's been said is coming for 2009 ? |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 5, 2007 11:46:49 GMT -6
Your memmory failed you. They were two seperate questions on the ballot. A bond issue for construction and a tax increase.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jul 5, 2007 12:17:48 GMT -6
Hey Bob, hope you had a nice 4th. I believe they were two seperate issues however, if the operation funds did not pass, they would not build the freshman centers - so basically it was an all or nothing deal.
My point on the other two mentioned is that they tied in O/M with construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 5, 2007 13:01:49 GMT -6
Hey Bob, hope you had a nice 4th. I believe they were two seperate issues however, if the operation funds did not pass, they would not build the freshman centers - so basically it was an all or nothing deal. My point on the other two mentioned is that they tied in O/M with construction. How could it be all or nothing when there was two seperate votes? The voters voted once on the TAX INCREASE and once on the BOND ISSUE? |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 5, 2007 13:28:17 GMT -6
Hey Bob, hope you had a nice 4th. I believe they were two seperate issues however, if the operation funds did not pass, they would not build the freshman centers - so basically it was an all or nothing deal. My point on the other two mentioned is that they tied in O/M with construction. How could it be all or nothing when there was two seperate votes? The voters voted once on the TAX INCREASE and once on the BOND ISSUE? bob, It was sold the same way MVHS ref was based on BB without that specific language being there. It was implied. Which is part of the past practices of the SB we have to get them to stop doing, but they seem to fall back to old habits. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jul 5, 2007 13:29:32 GMT -6
Hey Bob, hope you had a nice 4th. I believe they were two seperate issues however, if the operation funds did not pass, they would not build the freshman centers - so basically it was an all or nothing deal. My point on the other two mentioned is that they tied in O/M with construction. O/M is for the buildings (hard goods) in the cases you cited. The 2009 Referendum is for operating expenses for salaries and such (Soft goods)... Unless you are saying only 3.2, 8.2, and 8.0 million were needed in years 94, 97 and 01 respectively to pay salaries and benefits. If it was for salaries and such, please post a link to it. I'd love to read it. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 5, 2007 13:49:56 GMT -6
How could it be all or nothing when there was two seperate votes? The voters voted once on the TAX INCREASE and once on the BOND ISSUE? bob, It was sold the same way MVHS ref was based on BB without that specific language being there. It was implied. Which is part of the past practices of the SB we have to get them to stop doing, but they seem to fall back to old habits. Show me some proof of this being implied for the 01 referendum? You should be able to pull a quote out of the Herald or Sun where somewhere implies it. Cause I don't think it happened unless you are going with the the d204taxpayer theory that the voters are stupid and gullible soulless vessels weak minded souls. (had to get my favorite quote corrrect) editted to correct 91 to 01 |
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 5, 2007 13:59:10 GMT -6
bob, It was sold the same way MVHS ref was based on BB without that specific language being there. It was implied. Which is part of the past practices of the SB we have to get them to stop doing, but they seem to fall back to old habits. Show me some proof of this being implied for the 91 referendum? You should be able to pull a quote out of the Herald or Sun where somewhere implies it. Cause I don't think it happened unless you are going with the the d204taxpayer theory that the voters are stupid and gullible soulless vessels weak minded souls. (had to get my favorite quote corrrect) I have no knowlege of the 91 ref, but IIRC that "all or nothing" was implied on the 01 ref for the freshman centers. Another Howieism. This is my recollection of the events..I do not have time the desire to search the news archives for it. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 5, 2007 14:12:37 GMT -6
So you are saying that if the 01 vote was no on the bonds and yes on the tax increase, the SD would have declined the tax increase?
|
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jul 5, 2007 14:21:51 GMT -6
That's what I recall. take it for what it is worth.......
Seeing as they both passed it is a moot point.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Jul 5, 2007 14:38:37 GMT -6
Daily Herald Neighbor section January 31, 2001:
"The district will be seeking permission for two tax increases that day - one to fund classroom expenses and a second to pay for construction, renovation and expansion. School leaders, though, have deemed the request for education funds more important; without it, Indian Prairie will not move forward with any building plans.
|
|
