Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)
The remodeling of the high school into a middle school will allow for construction of a larger high school, which we still think could be constructed for 2,400 students (that’s 600 students per grade) until space demands require construction of a second high school in roughly 10 years. That was always part of the district’s long-range planning for its west side piece of land – and our proposal would not change that. That size is consistent with previous editorials regarding this issue – as is the phasing. Of course, west siders want their own high school and will likely turn out against this proposal because of that.
There are plenty of reasons why we think voters will reject the Nov. 6 referendum, but the failure of the district to recognize the community’s desire for one large high school is perhaps the greatest among them. For those reasons, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE NO on Question 1 to authorize borrowing $96 million.
Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)
Although [the STAR] believe[s] the vote will be a symbolic one because [the STAR] believe[s] question 1 will go down in flames, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE YES on question 2 to support borrowing $3.325 million for a swimming pool.
Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)
Did the board make the same requirement when the district’s other athletic facilities were constructed? Did it require an exceed the revenue cap question when gymnasiums were constructed to pay for heat, lights and equipment? No. So why then would the school board require taxpayers to pick up the tab associated with the operation of this facility?It’s a question the board needs to answer – and until then, [the STAR] urge[s] voters to VOTE NO on Question 3.
Posts
