While I endorse good quality education, I do have questions. I have read many blogs, that tell me that Ark City is decling in population.
If this is so, does it mean that all the families that are moving out of town are leaving their children here to be educated, while they live elsewhere?
If the population is decling, what is the necessity of expanding our schools?
Wouldn't an upgrade of exiting facilites be more prudent?
Maybe the consolidation of some of the schools which show a decline in student population?
Where are the additonal students coming from that require espansion?
I support the bond issue, but would like to see more justification, for the allocation of funds, and a timetable for the projects, and in which order they will be addressed. Yes, I am a homeowner, and I feel the increase in taxes is worth the end result.
What is going to be the cost to tax payers? It was initally reported to cost $70 per year on property tax, now they are saying $35. I would like to get the strait info before I vote yes for anything, but ths seems to be the way our little town operates! Disinform, divide, and conquuer!
__________________
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." == Winston Churchill
I believe that's $70/ year for a $100,00 home. The average home in AC is worth $50,000 so their taxes would be 1/2, thus the $35/year. You would just have to pro-rate the amount based off your property tax value.
Ok Patrick, and John Sturd, lets get going here, fill in the blanks for us. What is the bottom line on this school bond issue? The voters should know exactly what this is going to cost, no hidden fees etc. You can see from my earlier post, I am in favor of helping our students, present and future, but I would like to know the truth of the matter before I cast my vote.
Ok Patrick, and John Sturd, lets get going here, fill in the blanks for us. What is the bottom line on this school bond issue? The voters should know exactly what this is going to cost, no hidden fees etc. You can see from my earlier post, I am in favor of helping our students, present and future, but I would like to know the truth of the matter before I cast my vote.
The school system is NOT part of the city. They operate independently with their own board and their own taxation. The city tries to work with the school district whenever possible, but this is not a joint venture. In this case you folks know as much as I do.
John Sturd has been providing information as he did at the Ambassador's Coffee this morning. I believe there was to be a session at C-4 school this evening, and a public hearing next week at the Brown Center.
This is a HUGE issue. I haven't entirely made up my own mind on it yet. I recommend everyone attend the school meetings. I think more information is available at the Chamber of Commerce, as well as from John Sturd, and Steve and Christy Lundgren.
I would also suggest you contact the newspaper and ask them to report as much as possible on the issue. They generally only publish what they want, but every little bit helps.
For a town that turned down a new business opportunity (Lowe's) with the school district helping spearhead the charge on that one, now they want a bond issue which will raise our property taxes by the mill levy? 58 million and change for an increase of 52 students in our elementary schools over a two year period and a decline of 37 high school students over that same period while we are still paying for the last bond issue that supposedly addressed all of these concerns? When the last bond issue was proposed didn't they have the foresight to add on to the schools to account for larger student populations that might have occurred? If so, why are they coming back to the well again? I can all too well remember just a few short years ago when USD 470 had the chance to build a new sports complex by the high school along with Cowley College and chose not to do so because the stadium at Curry Field was "tradition" and one of the board members at the time stated that she "wanted to be able to rock her grandbaby on her knee at Curry Field and show him where his daddy played football." Well, she got her wish. I personally think the money would be better spent in building one new elementary school in the area and closing the neighborhood schools. You would save considerable money in utilities and manpower costs as you would not have to duplicate all departments as you currently have to do with multiple schools. If you add on to existing neighborhood schools and the population demographic of the area changes what do you do? Bus students there? If you're going to do that anyway, then just bus them to one central location and save on fuel costs and be done with it. The HVAC systems were some of the first items that got hit by the axe during the last bond issue...hey, we had to pay for those glass block walls by the libraries and main offices somehow, right? The buildings and systems they say are deteriorating, isn't there anyone there to maintain them? Start putting in state of the art equipment and not perform any preventive maintenance on it and see how long it's going to last... talk about money down the drain...literally. My kids seem to be doing just fine there and I would vote for an amended version of the bond issue, one that does address the issue of good HVAC systems and spruces up the buildings, but that excludes adding on right now or the sports complex.
Dr Jean, I notice that the Traveler thinks building a new school on the South Entrance of Arkansas City is a good idea. I'm curious just how many students live south of the Arkansas River Bridge and how many we actually bus from town? Our South entrance has improved but the addition of an elementary school seems like an absolute no-brainer improvement. Just curious what you think?
Sorry about the delay in responding to the "south" school idea.
A new elementary school south of Madison and west of Summit would be my preference, but really anywhere north of the river would be a great location.
The $14 million suggested as the cost of a new school in that area seems realllllly high to me. Wichita is planning elementary schools for $10 million and they would likely be for 400 kids.
The transportation of 80-90% of the students to IXL with most of them living between the river and Madison seems like the perpetuation of a logistics problem as well as a financial burden.
There seems to be a desparity regarding the actual costs involved here. The school board wants the bond issue, first its 60 million, with 25 million intrest, with our population as it stands, we can't afford the intrest with the tax levy as it is proposed.
I also have a quandry regarding the residents who are allowed to vote on this measure, considering that not all registgered voters are property owners, which would (correct me if I am wrong)mean that people who have no finincial intrest in the long run, would be spending money that they don't have, but may or may not be willing to comitt my money.
I seem to recall, no personal knowledge, that there are funds left over from the previous bond isssue, as well as payments on that bond, because it is still not paid for. Again, correct me if I am wrong, I am on a personal fact finding mission here.
If we bus 80-90% of the students to IXL, why are we doing it? Are we trying to justify the existance of a money pit, which is a diminishing return? Does the ADA money justify the expenditure? Wouldn't the ADA money be the same in a school in town?
Wouldn't it be more feasable to transport the 20% to a city school, using one bus rather then 4 or 5 on a daily basis, and how may runs per day, with kindergarten classes being half day.
If, as has been said before, the city's population is declining, the parents will be taking their children out of our schools and placing them elsewhere, taking the ADA money, and monies from the tax base as well.
These are a few of the questins, and comments that I have, that I would like answered before I commit my self and family to the long fincinal road ahead.
