|
|
Post by fence on Feb 28, 2006 10:42:29 GMT -6
I have a question for current NO voters. This is just a hypothetical question that I have, and I'm asking it just out of pure curiosity.
If the referendum was NOT for a 3rd HS, but instead:
1. For additions to NV and WV so that they could both accomodate 5000 students, and for the construction of another middle school
2. For the sake of argument, the total cost would be 1/2 the cost of the new HS cost estimate.
3. 2009 would still bring an operating budget increase in order to operate the additions and the new MS
4. Teachers would need to be added to accomodate the new MS and the additional HS students in the additions
5. Debt is still restructured as is currently planned
If the above was on the table, would you vote YES or would you still vote NO?
If you would vote YES to the above, what would be the main reason you'd trust the SB in this scenario if you don't trust them with the current referendum? In other words, what changes for you in your opinion with the above solution as it relates to trusting the district's proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 28, 2006 17:28:45 GMT -6
I have a question for current NO voters. This is just a hypothetical question that I have, and I'm asking it just out of pure curiosity. If the referendum was NOT for a 3rd HS, but instead: 1. For additions to NV and WV so that they could both accomodate 5000 students, and for the construction of another middle school 2. For the sake of argument, the total cost would be 1/2 the cost of the new HS cost estimate. 3. 2009 would still bring an operating budget increase in order to operate the additions and the new MS 4. Teachers would need to be added to accomodate the new MS and the additional HS students in the additions 5. Debt is still restructured as is currently planned If the above was on the table, would you vote YES or would you still vote NO? If you would vote YES to the above, what would be the main reason you'd trust the SB in this scenario if you don't trust them with the current referendum? In other words, what changes for you in your opinion with the above solution as it relates to trusting the district's proposal? Clarification....why does the debt still have to be restructured under this scenario?? |
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 28, 2006 17:36:16 GMT -6
Just because they said they'd be doing that no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 28, 2006 17:52:53 GMT -6
Just because they said they'd be doing that no matter what. I'm sorry, why are we restructuring either way??? I am not sure I remember why??? (brain cells are going) thank you |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Feb 28, 2006 18:04:13 GMT -6
Charmant, it's a hypothetical question. Feel free to ask your own, or answer this one yes or no as was asked.
I, as a YES voter can not answer it.
Feel free to answer the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 28, 2006 18:05:25 GMT -6
This question came up several weeks ago. Here's an email from Dave Holm that says restructuring the debt is not contingent upon the referendum passing.
The Citizens' Financial Advisory Council (CFAC) decided to restructure the debt, and their decision is completely independent of the referendum.
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Feb 28, 2006 18:40:36 GMT -6
Just because they said they'd be doing that no matter what. I'm sorry, why are we restructuring either way??? I am not sure I remember why??? (brain cells are going) thank you If I made it more confusing you can leave that part out. I just included it because it was my understanding that we'd be doing that eventually anyway. I was trying to just keep things as even as possible, but if you want to give feedback outside of that, that's great too. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 28, 2006 20:08:51 GMT -6
This question came up several weeks ago. Here's an email from Dave Holm that says restructuring the debt is not contingent upon the referendum passing. The Citizens' Financial Advisory Council (CFAC) decided to restructure the debt, and their decision is completely independent of the referendum. Thank you 204 for the info. Could you please address the highlighted and further explain what refunding the debt means?? just trying to be crystal clear b4 I answer 'fence' "right the first time, every time" merci |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Feb 28, 2006 20:22:34 GMT -6
This question came up several weeks ago. Here's an email from Dave Holm that says restructuring the debt is not contingent upon the referendum passing. The Citizens' Financial Advisory Council (CFAC) decided to restructure the debt, and their decision is completely independent of the referendum. Thank you 204 for the info. Could you please address the highlighted and further explain what refunding the debt means?? just trying to be crystal clear b4 I answer 'fence' "right the first time, every time" merci I had to read that one a few times myself. I'm so used to hearing about 'restructuring' the debt, the word 'refund' threw me off at first. I keep waiting for my refund check and it never shows up  I think its another way of saying 'refinancing' the debt. |
|
|
|
Post by charmant on Feb 28, 2006 20:30:29 GMT -6
Thank you 204 for the info. Could you please address the highlighted and further explain what refunding the debt means?? just trying to be crystal clear b4 I answer 'fence' "right the first time, every time" merci I had to read that one a few times myself. I'm so used to hearing about 'restructuring' the debt, the word 'refund' threw me off at first. I keep waiting for my refund check and it never shows up I think its another way of saying 'refinancing' the debt. Thank you much for the clarification. My question still begs. Why do we have debt to restructure?  ETA (I feel so hip now) Why do we have debt while asking for $124.6 more in debt?? Further we will be incurring ADDT'L debt with the 2009 ref?? Are the taxpayers 'debted out' |
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 1, 2006 13:30:15 GMT -6
I had to read that one a few times myself. I'm so used to hearing about 'restructuring' the debt, the word 'refund' threw me off at first. I keep waiting for my refund check and it never shows up I think its another way of saying 'refinancing' the debt. Thank you much for the clarification. My question still begs. Why do we have debt to restructure? ETA (I feel so hip now) Why do we have debt while asking for $124.6 more in debt?? Further we will be incurring ADDT'L debt with the 2009 ref?? Are the taxpayers 'debted out' How could we not have debt after building so many schools in a short period of time (15 in the last 10 years I think)? It's my understanding that we owe approximately $250 million now. The 2009 ref would not be for incurring debt. It would be to pay for annual expenses as they occur. |
|
no
Frosh
Posts: 23
|
Post by no on Mar 1, 2006 14:21:55 GMT -6
250 million current debt add another 300 million with a new HS and interest. Whats that over a half a billion dollars. Is this debt fot the kids to?
|
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 1, 2006 14:27:52 GMT -6
You do what you have to do to get everyone educated to the standards expected for this SD.
Providing a substandard education because we would rather save a few dollars in the long run is not an acceptable solution for my tastes (and hopefully a majority of the voters' tastes either).
|
|
|
|
Post by fence on Mar 1, 2006 14:36:21 GMT -6
The debt refinancing is a peripheral issue to the main question. If anyone would prefer to answer it without that specific issue attached, please feel free!
|
|
no
Frosh
Posts: 23
|
Post by no on Mar 1, 2006 14:41:33 GMT -6
Few dollars??? Tell that to the guy that just got layed off. Tell that to the family thats struggling on one income. Tell that to the single parent.
I believe the education my kids are getting in this district is up if not exceeds the expected standard. I'm sorry you don't believe that.
|
|
