Six Months later and $7M more...
The housing market is in a 15 year low, developments surrounding the district have been put on hold, student enrollment has remained below projections and yet the School Board feels it is appropriate to request a $25M referendum on the November ballot. As a member of the Facilities Taskforce established after the failed (2-1 against) March referendum for $18M, I am disgusted to see the School Board’s recommendation to proceed with the November Referendum.
I personally sat through endless hours of taskforce discussions throughout the summer and saw no evidence that would support this size of a referendum. In addition, the taskforce itself was mislead by the schools administrators that we would have an open sharing of alternative ideas including options that would take into consideration postponing this referendum until we could see how the developments were progressing. The taskforce was committed from the beginning to force a referendum in November against the recommendation of numerious members, many of whom resigned from the taskforce in disgust of the process. Here we are, six months later, and I ask what's changed?
Everything... Now we have proof the developments in the area are not growing as fast as was proposed by the school board. We now have a clear understanding of the costly impact of soliciting premium bonds and the financial damage that they would have caused if the March referendum had passed. And we now know that the student enrollments numbers are lower than the schools published projections, which is not a surprise on all fronts.
We also know that the state legislative representatives are willing to work with us (i.e. no need to rush) to create laws that allow districts like ours to issue bonds above our bond limit without having to incur premium bond fees. Again, this last point is important. We don't have to rush to get this done in 2006. We will need to expand in the future and we can do so with sound financial instruments instead of excessively leveraging our community prematurely.
In general, we know that the school board and various community members are committed to misleading the community into a costly referendum with no remorse for the tax payers in this community. I urge you to research the facts and VOTE NO in November.
The housing market is in a 15 year low, developments surrounding the district have been put on hold, student enrollment has remained below projections and yet the School Board feels it is appropriate to request a $25M referendum on the November ballot. As a member of the Facilities Taskforce established after the failed (2-1 against) March referendum for $18M, I am disgusted to see the School Board’s recommendation to proceed with the November Referendum.
I personally sat through endless hours of taskforce discussions throughout the summer and saw no evidence that would support this size of a referendum. In addition, the taskforce itself was mislead by the schools administrators that we would have an open sharing of alternative ideas including options that would take into consideration postponing this referendum until we could see how the developments were progressing. The taskforce was committed from the beginning to force a referendum in November against the recommendation of numerious members, many of whom resigned from the taskforce in disgust of the process. Here we are, six months later, and I ask what's changed?
Everything... Now we have proof the developments in the area are not growing as fast as was proposed by the school board. We now have a clear understanding of the costly impact of soliciting premium bonds and the financial damage that they would have caused if the March referendum had passed. And we now know that the student enrollments numbers are lower than the schools published projections, which is not a surprise on all fronts.
We also know that the state legislative representatives are willing to work with us (i.e. no need to rush) to create laws that allow districts like ours to issue bonds above our bond limit without having to incur premium bond fees. Again, this last point is important. We don't have to rush to get this done in 2006. We will need to expand in the future and we can do so with sound financial instruments instead of excessively leveraging our community prematurely.
In general, we know that the school board and various community members are committed to misleading the community into a costly referendum with no remorse for the tax payers in this community. I urge you to research the facts and VOTE NO in November.
posted by Candidate at
8:53 PM
26 Comments:
Thank you for doing this posting. I have shared it with some of the folks in my neighborhood. You can count my vote being a NO. If the bond fees can be reduced, or even eliminated, it can help us all in the end. Let's support the representatives willing to work with us.
This district is losing the community's trust with their "fuzzy math" and "smoke & mirror" proposals. Let's get the word out about voting NO.
By
Anonymous, at 10:14 AM, October 17, 2006
And who is it actually you are voting no for? The children - because that's what you are doing.
Stop making this a personal issue against the school, get your head out of the gutter, and look at the facts.
The school is overcrowded. Have anyone of you "NO" people actually taken a tour of the school? Maybe you should - a picture is worth a thousand words. Wake up people.
By
Anonymous, at 11:13 AM, October 18, 2006
I agree with above - voted no in March, facts were misrepresented by your side. Breseman's comments were false according to the RTA findings. YOu guys need to come up with some more concrete and correct data - you're only hurting the children and costing them an excellent education. What are your solutions? Adding on to the school now and going for a second referendum later for a new building would cost the taxpayers so much more money - What's going on!
By
Anonymous, at 11:15 AM, October 18, 2006
Mr. Dalton - if the enrollment is so low as you claim, then why are we almost at capacity? What is your plan to add more classrooms and where. I also sat on the task force and you were asked to come with your own projections. Unfortunately for you, you failed and your presentation, which you developed, was right along with the "green book" enrollment numbers. You were asked to provide projected enrollment figures and never did? Why don't you stop all this negativity and try working with the school for a solution. Unless, you plan, of course to put your children in a private school.
By
Anonymous, at 11:20 AM, October 18, 2006
I too voted no last March and I also sat on the task force. And I do spend time in my children’s class rooms. Our school is NEAR capacity not at it. And class size does not make all the difference, our education standards do. Maybe our school should have used the few millions they over taxed us for on the last referendum and step up our children’s education and test scores! I will continue to vote no and will not give my tax dollars to the current school board. They messed up last time by over taxing us with NOTHING to show for it. Now they want even more money? They want to build next to power lines? And they are willing to pay over 3 million for such bad land? And we think it will work out better this time around? Who are you kidding?
By
Anonymous, at 1:44 PM, October 18, 2006
What is your solution then @ 1:44 pm? All you are doing is penalizing the children for what you call a school board problem. What have they done that is so bad that you will jeparadize the children's education? Oh, by the way, the second question on the ballot will alleviate the problem you are refering to in 2002. It gives the school board the "right" to give back the taxpayers the money. Maybe you need to educated yourself a little more and think about what you are voting no for. Do you ant your children educated in mobile classrooms? Try selling your house in a school district is at capacity and no referendum passed for a new school? What is YOUR solution - enough about the past. Lastly, I do not know what classrooms you are in, but they are ALL FULL AND busting at the seems.
By
Anonymous, at 3:03 PM, October 18, 2006
Mike Breseman is one of the few people in this community that I will trust with no hesitation. Nobody is more dedicated and passionate to this community and it's children.
And to anonymous #3: what are Mr. Breseman's comments that are allegedly wrong? Let's spell it out so we can discuss. If the comments you are referring to are opinions ... there is no false or true. If they are facts ... I did not see any facts stated by Mr. Breseman that are false.
As far as RTA goes, I hope you are not believing anything distributed by their smear campaign. This group is driving a wedge into the community and they are sowing hatred. What a shameful group they are.
Now stronger than ever VOTING NO!
By
Anonymous, at 3:32 PM, October 18, 2006
Enrollment is below the district's published projections and that’s to be expected given the obvious softness in the housing market and the over inflated assumptions that were used by both the school board as well as several taskforce members. We debated this topic at length and I presented an alternate enrollment projection (T.F. Model C**** see enrollment charts in the links area on the main page) that assumed slower growth. I was attacked on all fronts during this presentation but at the end of the day no one refuted the basis for my numbers other than to say that I was being conservative which was true. I then submitted the information to Dr. Mary Fasbender immediately following this discussion. Anyone who wants to claim that alternative options were not presented needs to review the facts. I’ve attached a copy of the email correspondence with Dr. Mary Fasbender and the Enrollment charts that I present for your review. Check the facts and VOTE NO on November 6th.
By
Candidate, at 9:48 PM, October 18, 2006
As a “yes supporter” in the last referendum, I have been disappointed.
I am surprised that the School Board has proposed a new referendum. After the referendum was defeated in the spring, and with down-turn in housing I do not understand how the School Board can justify a new referendum. I have been asking questions around the neighborhood and have learned quite a bit about our situation.
As citizens, this referendum raises serious concerns about the integrity of the School Board and Dr. Fasbender. The campaign for the last referendum was positioned by the School Board and Dr. Fasbender as being tax neutral. In retrospect, that was too good to be true. Since I have started to look into our actual situation, I have been shocked to learn that our taxes could actually go down, by as much as 30%, if we do not pass a referendum in the near future. This was not presented to the community by our School Board as an option to the community. Instead, looking back at the last referendum, it appears that the School Board was creating a need for a new school; and a reason to keep taxes high.
Our elected School Board has been chosen by the community to oversee the school in the interest of the citizens. I am now concerned with the integrity of the School Board. I am starting to question everything we get from the School.
Needless to say, I am not naive anymore about our school. Just because the Steve Todd and Luara Domoto claim the school is at capacity does not make the statement "true". I have learned that school enrollment is virtually the same now (2006) as it was in 2002. In 2002, we did not hear cries from the school that it is overcrowded. In 2002, we did not have a school board searching for mobile classrooms. In 2002 we did not condemn children to converted "janitor's closets". If the numbers of students have not gone up since 2002, what has changed in the building to create over-capacity?
As a former “yes supporter”, I am happy now that the last referendum was defeated. I will vote no, because I do not believe that the school board's intentions are aligned with the community and it is not evident to me that the School Board and Dr. Fasbender truly have the best interest of the community in mind.
By
Anonymous, at 4:43 PM, October 19, 2006
If the Board really wanted to ease the alledged overcrowding, they would propose to expand the existing buildings. Those buildings are designed to be expanded. We can afford an expansion to handle another 200-250 children without raising taxes. After the vote in March where people said a resounding "NO" when they promised no increase in tax rate, the Board is now proposing to raise taxes and cannot even tell us exactly how much.
Do they really think this will pass? Aren't the Board and the YES people the ones who are sacrificing the best interests of the children by making only ludicous proposals to the community?
Get real D46. Do what taxpayers can afford. We don't need a new building now. We don't need more taxes now. We don't need a community swimming pool now on the proposed land purchase. Do something reasonable and do it for the children.
By
Anonymous, at 7:08 PM, October 20, 2006
I voted yes...and will do so again. Why? Becuase I believe a new school will help everyone...including the taxpayers that will benefit from housing appreciation.
I like the ideas concerning the new school. I hear that it will include a community center and swimming pool. That would be great.
By
Anonymous, at 9:36 PM, October 20, 2006
Dear “Swimming Pool Anonymous”:
The funding required to construct a swimming pool is not part of the $25 million dollar referendum. If you believe that a swimming pool is a good idea, you will need a new referendum.
I heard from a neighbor that the swimming pool fantasy was also brought up by a citizen at the last school board meeting. Who is responsible for the propaganda? On one hand we are told that we will get a swimming pool if we vote on the referendum. On the other, we are told that if we do not vote for the referendum, we will lose our band, science and art rooms. I guess our expert propagandists are covering all the bases. Hey, we should be happy about this. At least taxpayer money is being well spent on a talented propagandist. Adolph Hitler would be impressed!
What is happening to our community? The level of lies and deception seems to be over the top. The information used to support the referendum is ridiculous. We are in the most significant downturn on new housing development in the last 50 years. Our population is likely not to grow. It may stay the same. It is very likely it could decline.
On another related subject, I am also getting mail from an organization calling itself the Regional Taxpayer Authority. What is this about? Besides being a poorly written and unprofessional piece, the venom spewed form these newsletters are a toxic hazard for anyone opening the envelope. I am a relatively new resident. What have I gotten myself into here? I am considering moving to Washington DC…at least the politicians there can make up lies that are at least reasonably believable to the common citizen.
I recommend that the Regional Taxpayer Authority should hire the same propagandists used by the school so their misinformation could be presented in a more professional and logical manner.
The citizens of this community should be ashamed of this situation. Should I move?
By
Anonymous, at 10:55 PM, October 20, 2006
I was told by a District 46 Board member that a pool is part of the referendum...you need to get your fact in line!
By
Anonymous, at 11:01 PM, October 20, 2006
Thanks, and whew! Now I know the source of the swimming pool information.
Should I feel better now? Our School BOD is claiming that we get a swimming pool if we vote 'yes'. I need to read the referendum proposal again, I must have amnesia. Washington DC is looking better and better.
By
Anonymous, at 11:06 PM, October 20, 2006
I thought this was a referendum on building a new school for over crowded classrooms?
Think about all of the homes that have been built since 20002 and the student count has been flat.
It now seems that the real reason for the referendum is to build a kingdom with a swimming pool.
I belong to a local health club. I pay almost a $1000 a year for my family to use their facilities.
Please tell the people who want a pool and have everyone else subsidize their swimming privileges to join a health club and pay their own way.
By
Anonymous, at 8:58 AM, October 21, 2006
How can you add onto a school who is borrowing electric from the existing JR high? How can you just add on and then have 4th graders mixed in with the 8th graders? Is this your solution? You are penalizing this school board for being pro-active instead of reactive. And to think that putting up mobile classrooms as a solution is just plain dumb. GO ahead and try selling your house when your school district is housing mobile classrooms. It is a buyers market and lowest interest rates in a long time. SB857 saves the taxpayers an enormous amount of money. Wake up people and stop voting no just to vote no. GET THE FACTS STRAIGHT.
By
Anonymous, at 12:44 PM, October 23, 2006
Wrong FACTS - SWIMMING POOL NOT IN THE CURRENT PLAN - ONCE AGAIN YOUR WEBSITE SPEWS MISINFORMATION.
By
Anonymous, at 12:45 PM, October 23, 2006
LuLu comments....God help you for thinking that Mike Breseman is an asset to your community. He has driven away a reputable builder that will cost the community greatly. He undermines people to get "his" way, doesn't listen to reason, has an obsessive-compulsive personality, all you need to do is watch him in a meeting - watching him sitting in a fetal position was not a pleasure to watch. He has given the school property in the Terra Cotta subdivision - 15 acres- that the builders didn't even know about - and not enough acerage to build a school - wants segregate his community from the rest. I can go on and on - but not enough space.
By
Anonymous, at 12:52 PM, October 23, 2006
12:52pm October 23,2006
You really have a great deal of hate in your heart. Have YOU considered asking for God's help to release that hate and enable you to think a bit more clearly?
By
Anonymous, at 2:02 PM, October 23, 2006
God has nothing to do with this!!!!
By
Anonymous, at 2:47 PM, October 23, 2006
Still angry?
By
Anonymous, at 4:27 PM, October 23, 2006
How can you say the swimming pool is not in the "current plan"? What a deceptive choice of words.
In fact, the swimming pool is promoted by the YES group's leader to be on the land purchased by D46. They had an architect draw it up, budget it, and then they presented it to the D46 Board on 8/15. One board member openly endorsed it. Check the Board minutes for 8/15.
These people did not spend this kind of money planning the pool as some "future" project. Make no mistake about it, the pool is part of a not-so-hidden agenda.
By
Anonymous, at 7:22 PM, October 23, 2006
Ok ... enough on the pool that is wanted.
I thought we are all so concerned about our children. Aren't we? Some of you sound like my kids screaming at each other and no one listening.
Lets all take a breath. Please.
Now lets see the Test score that have still not been published in District 46 to show how are kids stack up. It is slowly being revealed that District 46 Kids are behind the curve. Math is one of the areas that these kids are behind. But where are the test scores to show us how we stack up.
Please show me where the Current Data can be found. Everything i have found online is old data.
By
Anonymous, at 11:18 PM, October 23, 2006
ISAT scores will not be released until after the election. D46 even refuses to have a presentation on the Terra Nova Test results from last year. Many parents have asked for a presentation. Doesn't hurt to ask D46 again if you're interested.
By
Anonymous, at 11:43 PM, October 23, 2006
Test scores, good topic! First 2 weeks in November our children are taking the Terra Nova tests again. We have not heard what the results of last year's testing for the school were and we won't find out until after this year's testing is over with. Here is my suggestion: let's not do this Terra Nova testing anymore if nobody is evaluating the results in a timely manner. Save our kids these 2 weeks of agony, we will gain 2 weeks of instruction time instead. We also will save the money for the testing material, I'll bet it is in the range of $20,000 or perhaps more. This administration and board should concentrate on academic achievement and not on selling a referendum for a new school that is not yet needed. Vote NO!
By
Anonymous, at 12:03 AM, October 24, 2006
Good point Cosmo!
I'm glad someone mentioned the time wasting, agonizing, confidence destroying, Terra Nova test that did nothing for the students. D-46 dropped the ball on managing the admin of that test. I blame Dr. Mary Fastbender for this one. Too much focus on district revenue and not enough on education excellence.
VOTE NO!
By
Anonymous, at 11:45 AM, October 24, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home