So, around the time that the district website was saying that “A GO bond locks in the plan!”, the superintendent was providing these answers (shown in bold below) to questions from a member of the public:
I had a couple of questions regarding the bond language being considered.That sure doesn’t sound like a locked-in plan. Continued in part 8.
Suppose I wanted to be reassured that Shimek’s renovations will be completed as described in the FMP (neither more nor less). What language in the draft proposal would assure me that it will be completed as described in the FMP planning documents?
- The General Bond language is written in such a way that the projects described are linked to the Facilities Master Plan.
- Completion of the projects will require the Board seated at that time to issue the appropriate bond in the series (there are four projected)
Could the project be scrapped entirely if the bond passes and the funds planned for it according to the FMP be reallocated to other projects?
- The Shimek project could be modified if the Board seated at the time the bond is issued determines that the scope of project warrants changes to the Facilities Master Plan
Could the Shimek renovation be changed so that a 300-student addition could be added to the building that would be paid for with bond funds(I’m aware that's not practically feasible on that plot of land!)?
- If the Board seated at that time determines that the Facilities Master Plan should be modified to call for a 300 seat addition at Shimek they could modify the project
4 comments:
No, that sounds a good deal like "give us a great big wodge of money and we'll do with it as we please."
I vote Amy above gets the Commenter of the Century award. She nailed.
Thank you Chris for your honesty about this issue. It's complicated, and the Go public has been harsh, inaccurate (I feel) in simplifying this issue as a Save Hoover issue. It is more about an issue of our stewardship of the public money for the next years. Thanks for bringing a more thorough analysis to this complicated issue that some would like to boil down, at the expense of our kids' schools.
We should be taking out bonds after a bond vote that lists a specific set of projects to be done instead of this vague bond language that locks in very little. I would be much more comfortable with that.
It is a better guarantee we are approving, then paying for exactly what is listed. In addition, only things with a clear, convincing and immediate need will be approved if the public actually knows where the money will be spent.
Post a Comment