Information on City Business
Advertisement
Point of View
What do you think about a proposed ban on smoking in public places such as restaurants, bars and workplaces?
As much as I hate government interfering with our lives, I love the smoking ban. Going out in Lawrence is so nice without smelling cigarette smoke at your table while eating.
Question of the week
A group organized for the purpose of promoting and supporting fatherhood by raising awareness of the value of fathers in Douglas County is being formed. It hasn’t been named. Which name would appeal most to you?
Top ads RSS
- LPNs/RNs Private Duty $250 Sign-on Bonus LPNs up to $23 ...
- YOU FOUND IT! $500 SIGN ON BONUS Massive product demand ...
- CNA Full Time 6AM-2:30PM Great Place To Work Competitive Pay ...
- SECURE YOUR FUTURE! High earnings, creative freedom, and lifetime security. ...
- Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites Is looking for friendly, ...
15 October 2007
at 5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BWhitten (Anonymous) says…
I hope this will answer some of the questions that have been floating around on this forum.
To bring in new retail it takes population. Hy-Vee, Price Chopper, etc. like to see a population of approximatley 10,000 before they are interested in your city. That type of retail would really help the City's tax base. Also, something that has been voiced is an Economic Director. This position would be helpful, but it cost money and it does not give the City a guarantee that new retail would be brought in, but it would give the City a fighting chance. To bring in an Economic Director, it would require taxes to go up (which people say they can't afford), or cuts to the budget. Whatever is cut from the budget, will without a doubt, cause someone to complain that it was important for them and we shouldn't have made that cut. To get the population to 10,000, it will take improvements to the infrastructure. Individuals are always complaining that sewer, water, and electric in new developments should be paid for by the developer, and this I would agree, but to have the developer pay for everything would cause the price of the lots to run the same as prices in Lawrence or Johnson County, where they already have the amenities people are looking for, such as full time fire/medical, parks, grocery stores, nightime entertainment, etc., and they pay the same price for the lot. We are caught in the small town growing pains. What can we do?
15 October 2007
at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BWhitten (Anonymous) says…
If Eudora decides to leave everything the way it is, and doesn't allow for growth, there will still be immediate needs for the City that must be addressed sooner than later. The middle interceptor line, which is a clay line, is 60 years old with a life expectancy of 40 years, so we are already 20 years overdue. Improvements must be made to these lines. This is not for new development, but to take care of the houses that are already in Eudora. The improvements would need to happen even if the population was only 3300 and growing, so you can't just say let's stop and do nothing. The KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) have indicated we need to have a back up 3-phase generator (they're not asking, they're telling) for the sewer plant. This would allow the plant to continue working in the case of a power failure. This carries a price tag of approximately $250,000.00. Eudora also needs a bar screen ($65,000.00) for the plant to help reduce the trash (for example, diapers or toys, etc.) that get into the plant. These items wear out the pumps and create dirty sludge. The sludge that the plant produces can be used on farmer's fields, but if the sludge is full of trash then the farmers do not want it, and it has to be disposed at a land fill. This comes with a high price tag. Currently, we have approximately $315,000.00 that needs to be spent on the sewer plant. We could spend around $800,000.00 now (estimation only—the hard numbrs have not yet come in) to perform the upgrades to the plant that is needed. This would be setting up a lagoon to take the sewer when the power is out, eliminating the need of the generator (price tag of $250,000.00)and also will help during peak flows. Along with this, the head works (piping) would need to be re-worked to get the sewer into the lagoon, at the same time that the head works are re-done for this, the head works would also need to be set up and ready for plant expansions (looking into the future) to prevent us from spending even more money. If you look at the whole picture, would it make sense to spend the $315,000.00 now on something that would just get us by, or go ahead and spend the $800,000.00 that will carry us well into the future?
15 October 2007
at 5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BWhitten (Anonymous) says…
As for the 3% increase for utilities, this is to allow us to try and keep up with the cost to operate the water, sewer, and electric departments. I personally felt that the 3% now is better than raising it 9% in three years. If the 3% creates an excess of funds in the utility budgets, then eliminate the increase the next year. If anyone has ideas on how to do this differently, then please let me know.
The storm water fee is a fund that is used to finance storm water run-off projects. In 2012 this will be mandated by, I do believe, the Federal Government that every municipality has this in place. It is required to not only have a plan, but a way to finance it. It comes down to $2.00 today or $6.00 in the future. If anyone has ideas on how to fund this differently, then please let me know.
The trash can situation was created when Weldon Trash Service informed City Council that they were having a lot of work related injuries due to the lifting of old cans (the new cans are lifted by hydralics on the truck). To lesson the chance of injuries to his crew and to try and keep our cost down, I chose to vote “yes” to the $2.50 rate increase in an effort to keep cost affordable. Trash cans are cheaper than increasing work comp fees. If you feel I made the wrong decision, then it would have been beneficial if you would have contacted me personally with a different solution prior to my decision.
I hear people talking about the pool and the effect this will have on our personal budgets. This was an issue that was put to vote, and the people were the deciding factor on this. If you didn't want the pool/recreation center, then you should have run a campaign against it. The purposed increase was 3 mills, and a 1/2 cent sales tax. I do believe the mill increase for the entire city was under 3 mills. (Good job Council/Mayor and Staff).
15 October 2007
at 5:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BWhitten (Anonymous) says…
What the City currently needs are people who are willing to step up, help out, and do the legwork to get all the facts. I'm learning this position as I go, which I have said from the beginning. I have to rely on the experts we hire to give me the proper information so I can make an informed decision. If anyone has good information to add, please by all means, let me hear it. A good decision is a well informed decision.
I continually hear that we need to get better educated people on the council. I totally agree. I have always said, that if anyone can find a person that has an education in running a city, the love for Eudora that I have, and someone the Mayor would appoint for my seat, then I would be a fool not to step down and let them fill my seat.
Once again, my email address is whitten@sunflower.com. Please feel free to contact me any time for any reason.
15 October 2007
at 6:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Probably the most informative post I've ever read on this site. Thank you, Mr. Whitten. You, my friend, are in a thankless position; being asked to make decisions that will effect the future generations of the city. Just because all of the facts are not “knowable” doesn't mean that you don't have to make the decisions, and I feel like you and the council do the best you can with the information you have. For whatever my input is worth, I feel like right now is a time that we need to push “all in” so to speak to plan for the future. Will it cost more? Yes. Will it cost more not to plan for the future and apply band-aids to all of our problems? Probably. There are two kinds of risk, sink the boat and miss the boat. It's difficult to decide what is riskier, doing nothing or laying out a progressive plan for the future. - I'm afraid if we miss the boat we'll be slowy sinking for years to come.
15 October 2007
at 7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EudoraBoss (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Whitten, I for one think that you are doing a great job. The present council is A LOT better that our past ones. The last one in particular. There was one council member that seemed to get pleasure in causing problems and working on his own agenda rather than doing what was best for the city. Now we have a council that consists of upstanding citizens and business owners in the community. What a concept, elect people to make business decisions who actually have ran businesses themselves. Although I don't personally agree with all of the decisions that you and the council make, I think you are doing what is best for the city as a whole.
Thank you for informing people about these future costs that we are about to incur. I think it is important that people know what they are going to HAVE to pay for before they vote for something that they don't have to. Too bad this information wasn't made public before the pool was voted on. In today's economy, if people knew what future expenses they were about to experience, maybe the vote to pay more taxes for a new pool would have been different.
Thank you for the job you are doing. I think we need to start a write-in campaign - bill whitten for mayor.
15 October 2007
at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
Thank you Bill. I tried and many did to let people know about things down the pike for us as a city, before the pool vote. They for some reason thought we were telling fibs and now it is being told by you (Thank you).Now we face the new school bond and i,m scared it will pass due to lack of information. Most on the forum think $104.00 a month more with all we have now and a new school is not true. If you do the math, it is true. We all have to pay more, that is a given. The city has to have money to make improvements.BUT we do not need a new school now. We can add onto our schools we have and get by with flying colors for 10 to 15 years very easily. This would alow us to do some things this city needs very much in the way of utility repairs and get ready for a building boom down the road when the market comes back. It will be 2 to 5 years before home building will boom and businesses will come in.I go to the council meeting as much as i can and i try to stay somewhat informed, not the best, but pretty good.I will be getting vote no school bond signs out soon with our group.
15 October 2007
at 8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
part 2 ) We all need to work together and stop the school bond and then aproach the board to cut the cost and add on instead of building new , for now. This city can be awesome with the right people helping to repair it. Bill, you still need to think about running again, you care about the city and it`s people. This forum ends up being a battlefield for some and those who dont try to stay informed. Some are just here to gig others and well, that sucks. We need people like yourself to let everyone who doesnt attend council meetings know the scoop and whats happening now and in the future. .Money is tight nowadays and the more we can afford to spend to keep the city in good shape, the better off we are.Tax`s will never go down, but if we keep the problems in check, we can minimize the increases. Education as i said before is very very important , but the school building doesnt educate, our great teachers do that.
15 October 2007
at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
You have to have a place for the teachers to teach. I personally have seen some of these creative teachers literally in closets trying to do their jobs-come visit!
The growth Mr. Whitten talks about comes from good schools AND good teachers. Your no vote is going to take money from the teacher's salaries. We have a lot of young teachers, we will lose these teachers without competitive salaries. Saying no doesn't fix our problems so the district will need to reallocate their funds to do this. There will be turnover-not a good plan for educating our students. We need incentives to keep our young, energetic and talented teachers in Eudora.
15 October 2007
at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
The board should not have included sallary issues with the bond issue,they are totaly seperate things. I agree they need more money and benefits.That was a mistake by the board, 2 differant issues,should not be combined.The smart ideas we have would increase the pay if done right.By adding on and refurbing the old parts, you save and it can be done……
15 October 2007
at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
mattg) If we add onto Nottingham and refurb the old part, this would cure any space shortage correct ? WHY build new now ? If we can add enough space to go 10 years down the road and cut cost`s , would that not be a great idea and save money ? Is nottingham not a great centraly located school ? Just answer those and i will reply back in the morning. I have to sleep…Phone calls and this, i am wore slick , sorry.
15 October 2007
at 10:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mattg (Anonymous) says…
Take a tour of nottingham sometime and you'll understand why that isn't a good option. The library is squeezed into the hallway. The playground is 15 feet from church street, the busiest in Eudora. The toilets are so old that they can't even be repaired. The school continues to grow, and there is only so much farther it can expand.
Why not let the school district build a new school, especially if they can keep the mill steady. Then let the district sell Nottingham and possibly laws field as commercial property; bring new business and life into the town that could alleviate a LOT of our tax burdens. If we could have a few more businesses right off of K-10, we would bring revenue from non-eudorans into the town; that would greatly help our situation.
15 October 2007
at 10:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
I agree-they are two separate issues, but money has to come from somewhere. To solve the dilemmas we are facing if the bond fails will require the board to move money around to solve problems. That means less available for salaries, reimbursement of classes that we must take to continue teaching, less opportunities for professional development through workshops and less money for classroom supplies. So, yes they are two separate issues, but the money must come from somewhere and therefore what is available will be directed to solve these dilemmas. Therefore, in a round about way-one will be directly affected by the other.
I have been around many years and have many concerns about the “health” of Nottingham. Asbestos is still in that building, to address the plumbing will mean we will need to tear up sections of the building to get to the pipes underneath it, traffic is a concern and will continue to be one. I hear many concerned about the traffic at 14th and Church-only way to alleviate some of that traffic is to remove it. That building has been added to and added to-I miss the days when you had room to get all of the students in a grade level together in one spot to listen to a book or a guest speaker. We no longer have it or a library that students could set down in to hear a story without the constant commotion traveling through it. We have kids on the floor to learn proper keyboarding-not an ideal spot.
I dread the next few weeks. I dread the negativity that is going to come out over the next few weeks. I know we all have a voice and the freedom to use it, but we all still have the responsibility to treat each other with respect regardless of how we plan to vote. We still try to teach our kids to treat each other with respect regardless of how they look, behave, or talk-I hope that many remember that over the next few weeks and regardless of how the vote ends up, we are still a community.
16 October 2007
at 6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
mattg ) OK, the toilets would all be new if refurbed. The library could be change while refurbing it. I have walked nottingham and it is old yes, but ready to be torn down no..
Stop by the school tonite and look to the south of it. Imagine the width of it and add on about 125 foot of new building. Imagine the old part all refurbed. Imagine the millions saved and yet a nice large modern school. Now imagine selling the school to the post office like they want to do. Large trucks going in and out, constant flow of traffic in and out. Yes if they would sell it as retail sales space, that would be awesome, but that isnt what the board has in mind. Let me ask you something else. The new school they want will sit on 26 acres as planned. Why 26 acres ? Wow you can build a Wal Mart on 26 acres. Why do they want it on some of the best retail land available in the city area and with a historical home on it ? The land they want to use will be right smack in front of a new strip mall Hoover and Wilson plan to build starting next spring.Humm easy for predeters to lurk and snatch our kidos ( not a good place) Down the road a new school will for sure be needed, yes i agree, but it is 10 to 15 years away. It should be thought out better and placed in a good location off the main streets and not on a lot of 26 acres.(dbmskr)All of your concerns will be met with the addition and refurb.The pay increase is up to the board and teachers, sorry it really isnt a voting issue.A no vote will allow groups to get with the board and help plan for a better future. The plan now was made up before they asked for help and they wont change it or they would put off the voting untill spring at least.People have went to board meetings and tried to get changes, but it hasnt happened. I am sorry to say the board is set on this plan and no changes.
16 October 2007
at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
I agree, the board is set. They asked for public input, got plenty through community groups and their phone survey, plus made some changes from concerns brought up at several of the community meetings they are having, and this is what everyone that has been involved in the process has come up with including several teachers that live the need on a daily basis. I can't imagine us continuing to teach in that building while they tear the entire thing a part to refurbish it, which is exactly what you propose. Not enough time in the summer and not enough time to pull out all of the asbestos, old plumbing under the building, and remodel the entire core of the building to make the spaces bigger while adding on to the outside, moving the playgrounds. I think that could also add dangers for our students along with possible predators up close to them working in our building. I'm not always in agreement with what the board plans, but I have to say, it's nice to see Nottingham finally at the forefront of a project.
Every idea that is put before the public will have pros and cons. There are valid points on both sides. People will have to decide on their own what they feel is best for them.
16 October 2007
at 7:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Wilson and Hoover are building a strip mall for sexual predators? huh. DCCCCmoneywatcheudoraboss (all “three” of you spell poorly, by the way), Nottingham is across the street from a strip mall.
Which board meetings did “people” go to to get things changed - I just want to go look at the board minutes - public record - to see what changes were proposed and what the board said about it. Just the dates will be sufficient, thanks.
16 October 2007
at 8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paperweight (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Whitten why does Eudora buy the electric and resale it to the residents? Why can't we get it directly from Weststar or whoever? I have never understood this and have never seen it explained so please if you can explain this. I don't know but from what I have seen I think it would be cheaper on all the residents if something else was done. Is there any way possible for us to get this direct and not have to buy it and resale it as it is done now? I know I would feel better about other issues in town that need to be accomplished if I didn't feel I was being taken by the city on my utilities. Thank you
16 October 2007
at 8:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
Greenman,
Since you are being so critical: huh. Should be Huh. You also should add a semi-colon after poorly. I'm sure people are typing fast and yes, it does bug me when people have typos, including myself, but I don't think it's fair to be so critical. That's when things get personal.
16 October 2007
at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
Do any of you even have kids in the Eudora School District? Do any of you ever spend time in the buildings? Other than “walking” through them?
16 October 2007
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
I was commenting on a post from last night from DCCCCeudorabossmoneywatch - but thanks for the tips.
16 October 2007
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
Thanks Bill Whitten for a very informative post. I think the website idea is a great one. Alot of valid points are being made but I still have to go with my budget and my constraints and I have to vote no.
When I saw the modulars go up at Nottingham I knew what we were facing. I happen to walk to Nottingham everyday and some interested citizens should go take a look at the CHAOS at dismissal time. After seeing this, some simple solutions can resolve it–-common sense being high on that list. Eudora has a bus schedule that parents can use to their benefit to help alleviate the chaos . Parents who walk with their kids and have to cross Elm St. are at risk. (con't)
16 October 2007
at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
I have children in Eudora. I know they are running out of space and I also know that we are growing in population. I don't understand why they didn't build correctly the first time, but…. I still wonder why we can't add on either. There is lots of room around both West and Nottingham to add additional classrooms. I think it shouldn't be a fancy design like the High School. That wasted space of an angle with all the brick and glass probably could have save the district thousands of dollars. Let's not go fancy, but practical. I try to live within my means and am leary about such a large debt. I wish it was broken into parts so we could accept and not accept certain parts. I'm all for additional classrooms. The high school definately needs an auditorium. That should have been built the first time around. I do not think we need turf on the football field. I also think additiional bleachers would be cheaper than a whole new football stadium. We do need a soccer field. Why not make a soccer field and also add bleachers like Lawrence High has there. I know it's not fancy, but practical. As I've said before, I'm still waiting on concrete evidence that the state will pay 38% of the bond. That'd be a terrible surprise if that wasn't true.
16 October 2007
at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
Maybe add a crosswalk, street light, additional crossing guard or something. Isn't the new proposed location going to be even worse? It's a two lane old highway and I'd think it'd be very inconvenient for kids and parents to walk to school. What's going on with the old ball field north of Nottingham? Maybe the district could buy that from the city and add a car pool lane, parking lot, etc. One thing is there is a new bank going into that empty lot and they might be willing to allow school patrons to park in their lot before 8:30 a.m. I think waiting 10 minutes to leave the school or going to school is better than suffering monthly from additional expenses of the new school.
16 October 2007
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
Those of us walking West on 14th st. have other dilemmas. The cars are parking on both sides of the street and most cars leaving have to wait on you to duck between cars, some are irrate and let you know it.If I happen to walk to 14th and Elm (no painted crosswalk) I face disgruntled drivers as well. These drivers want to get to Churh St. before the crowd and tend to halfway turn east at the stop sign, so if you are needing to go West you have to zig and zag around that car. If I continue west toward Main, the school zone ends before the next stop sign and the drivers speeding down Main St. very rarely slow down.
16 October 2007
at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
The parents pulling into the football parking lot should pull in at the southern most driveway to help alleviate the congestion on Elm St. The police have been there at times but that just stops some from parking on Elm St. (no parking posted). A crosswalk would be helpful. I asked about a crosswalk last year and was told that it would cost $14-$17,000 to conduct a study. Study what—the need is there. I am being a little cynical here, but, I believe it is suppossed to be chaotic to further the need for a YES vote. The children's safety at dismissal time is not being regarded.
16 October 2007
at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
Parents should check to see if their Nottingham students can ride the bus to a less congested pick-up point. Maybe a shelter can be arranged to the East of Church St, to arrange another drop off point and alleviate parents having to be at Nottingham. These are just suggestions and the need is there to lessen the load of traffic at dismissal.
I come from the era of walking to school and walking home. I went to school in a modular unit and had to walk home for lunch —even in inclement weather. I do not like it that kids are in modulars but parents should dress their kids for the conditions regardless of the circumstances.
16 October 2007
at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
Regardless if the bond passes or not, we still need to protect our children at Nottingham and add a crosswalk. If the bond passes, we'll still have one to two school years left with the current conditions. If they really care about the childrens safety like they say they do, this needs to be addressed. One accident with a pedestrian and they'll wish they did something. This is probably a joint city/district issue.
16 October 2007
at 9:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
There are simple solutions to some of these problems but the most important factor is common sense—try to find your way out of the chaos and use the resourses that are already in place. The drivers really do get upset. Last year I was walking west on 15th and a disgruntled parent almost hit us, another parent came to our rescue and then was reported and now picks up her child at a less congested area. This parent did nothing wrong but let me know what was coming from behind and let the driver know that they should slow down and give the peds the right of way. I praise her everyday when I face the chaos. Bless You C. She found a way out of the chaos.
16 October 2007
at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
If I lived on Peach St., I would probably try to sell my home now. It'll be the same thing over there. Just a different neighborhood.
16 October 2007
at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
barnhardt (Anonymous) says…
I live on Peach Street at the proposed exit site of the new school. My neighbor and I spend our summer months yelling at cars to slow down as our kids play outside. This street is posted a 30 mph zone, however the average speed on this street is 40 to 45. Peach Street already has a major issue with traffic.
The last thing Peach Street needs is 400 more cars a day driving 40 to 45 mph.
16 October 2007
at 9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
I've been wondering what the residents in that area have been thinking.
16 October 2007
at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
Where's the updated posts?
16 October 2007
at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BWhitten (Anonymous) says…
Paperweight here is an attempt to explain it.
The current contract with Weststar will be up for renegotiation in the year 2013.
Right now, the City is in a group called Kansas Municipal Utilities (KMU)
and Kansas Electric Cooperative (KEC). These are groups of cities joining together to get better rates on the utilities (buying power). Right now, if we were to give up the electrical to Weststar, we would have no control over the rates and lose our group buying power. For example, DeSoto, Kansas did this and I think they pay around 7 cents per kilowatt hr. for residential and additional charges at times for fuel sur-charges, peak usage, etc. which would increase the price some. We pay around 8.5 cents per kilowatt hr. for residential. So if you only look at these numbers then why not sell it to them? The City buys it for around 5 cents per kilowatt hr., this is 2 cent less than what DeSoto folks are paying for their electrical, so we are able to make 2 cent per kilowatt hr. instead of Weststar putting that 2 cent in their pocket. Looking at this, it still seems like it would save us money if we were to sell it. The City of Eudora uses a lot of electricity in street lights, the waste water treatment plant, City Hall, the new community building and pool. Do you see where I'm going with this? The City would have to pay the going rate at 7 cents for all of its usage. Some of the electric that the City would be charged for by Weststar, to run lets say the waste water treatment plant, could be at an even higher rate than the 7 cents that DeSoto is paying due to the fact that it is 3 phase (more power). By the City owning its own electrical system, it allows us to get it at around 5 cents per kilowatt hr. for everything the City uses. To look at all the numbers above, I feel the City is money ahead by staying with our own electrical system. To add to this, Weststar services Topeka, Lawrence, and other outside bedroom communities. Legislature is always making rules that directly affect the big electrical companies, and legislature works out of Topeka, who do you think would get their electric back on first in the situation of a big ice storm? Probably not Eudora. The way we are currently set up, if we have damage in Eudora, our crews are right here to work on it with the help from other municipalities that are in the KMU and KEC groups. Our problems get fixed starting the day of the damage not two or three weeks later.
If this is hard to understand please get in touch with me and maybe I could explain it better over the phone 542-2600.
17 October 2007
at 5:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MoneyWatch (Anonymous) says…
(greenman) Plain and simple. You need a hobby. Something to keep you out of forums. You have nothing to add.
17 October 2007
at 9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Actually, DCCCCMoneywatchEudoraBoss, reading your idiotic posts on here used to be a hobby of mine and then I decided that someone needed to at least try to refute the things you basically just make up and present as facts. However, after many efforts to engage you in logical dialogue regarding issues in this community I've finally come to the conclusion that you lack the mental capacity to effectively take part in such discussions. I wish you well. The forum is once again yours.
17 October 2007
at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EudoraBoss (Anonymous) says…
greenman, you are the reason that forums like this one end up being gossip columns. I never called you names or criticized you and I certainly have not posted anything that is not fact. I can't speak for the other two that you named, but I see no reason to be so mean in your posts toward anyone. Although it is none of your business, I am a college graduate so I certainly have at least a little education.
17 October 2007
at 7:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DCCCC (Anonymous) says…
EudoraBoss ) Sorry he can`t tell we are three on the oposite ends of the isues at times. I enjoy your input, it is very vital to keeping people in the know. I do use facts and try to paint a picture of the outcome, but it may not be clear enough for some. The bond will raise our tax`s this is a fact. If we were to refurb and add onto our existing schools at less than half of the proposed 40 some million , it wouldnt be a bandaid , but a real fix for at least 10 to 15 years.After that time if enough growth has hit us, then look at finding a good location for another school.Do we need 26 acres to build a gradeschool ? I think even you would think this is out of line.West elementry sits on less than 10 acres , and plenty of extra space to add on.I have spoken to teachers (wont say names) but even they are suprised by this bond and how it is going to be used.Of the few i have spoken to, they feel it is too much and not a good plan for the city and district in a whole.Space is what is needed and it can be done fast and great with add ons and refurbs. We are talking more than a paint job on Nottingham, a fix up and get rid of anything that is bad.There is not much money to be had out there, but we can use what we barrow smart and have some darn awesome schools and get that much needed raise for the awesome teachers we have. They are getting the short end now and i and all of us want them to be rewarded for the AAA+ job they do for our kids.Saftey is also a BIG issue. This will be included in the ideas and refurbs.I hope you will join us and help stop the bond and sit down with the board this winter and get a new great paln going. Stop in the shop sometime and chat. I will have the signs ready the first of next week to hit the town. vote no school bond signs.Anytime you dont agree, please reply back, it`s good to hear both sides. Thank you
17 October 2007
at 8:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mattg (Anonymous) says…
Everyone keeps saying that “taxes will be raised, thats a fact”, yet no one has yet to prove to me how. I'm willing to listen, but WHERE are they getting raised for the school bond? The mill is NOT being increased. Property values will most likely go up a little, but as I said in another thread, they are going to go up whether we get a new school or refurb the one we have. So where are taxes going up w/ regards to the school bond? Do you ALSO feel they will be an additional $51/month as does moneywatch?
17 October 2007
at 8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
1. The school bond and teacher salaries are completely different issues. Unless, of course, you choose to call the teachers who post on here liars.
2. A “10-15” year fix IS a bandaid when it comes to public buildings. When what is proposed would solve the problem for at least four times that long your solution of spending half the amount of the proposed bond issue for only a half the amount of the time to benefit from it looks awful wasteful (sorry, I'm using common sense and logic again - as well as your figures, I know a few of you don't appreciate that).
3. I don't spread gossip - heck, I don't even know any gossip in Eudora. I'm too busy running my business and living my life…however, if you know anything juicy, email me off-line!
4. I will recognize you, DCCCCEudorabossMoneyWatch, by your limp. Because you keep shooting yourselves in the foot with your faulty logic and unsubstantiated claims.
5. While it has been fun poking you with a stick, it's gotten far too easy. Please come up with some new material, I'm getting bored.
Out.
17 October 2007
at 9:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EudoraBoss (Anonymous) says…
“2. A “10-15” year fix IS a bandaid when it comes to public buildings. When what is proposed would solve the problem for at least four times that long”
You must not have been here when we built the “first” new high school. We were told that this WAS what we needed, was designed to “build on” in the future and we wouldn't need a new school for a “long” time. Then all of a sudden, a few years later, “building on to this school would cost WAY too much, it's not designed to be built on to.” We have been told that all of these “new” schools would solve our problems for “years” to come. As soon as they get another new school, they will be looking to build or buy something else.
We have a school on the west side, with no sidewalks on a major street. It was also “not safe” to bus kids from the high and middle schools to the football field, however, no one cares that there are “no sidewalks” on a major roadway in and out of town for the kids to get to school. Now they are proposing a new school on another major road in and out of town and guess what, you guessed it, no sidewalks for the kids to get there. Plus dumping all the traffic onto Peach Street, the busiest street on that side of town.
The school district already owns enough property downtown that provided schools for many decades and is “paid for.” Surely it wouldn't cost $2,000,000 to remove the old structure there so that a new learning center could be built there. And here's a concept, that property already has roads built all the way around it and would also bring traffic to the dying downtown business area.
Enough is enough, no more foolish spending. VOTE NO to the bond, force them to save money, not build fancy buildings and stadiums. We are broke, we can't afford anymore.
17 October 2007
at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Read the above post from greenman and then the post from Eudorabossetc. and the first person to pick out at least three flaws in logic wins…………………………………………..a new school !!!!!!!
17 October 2007
at 10:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
Greenman-I thought you were out-. You love us, I think we are kinda getting to ya. You can't stay away.LOL. Those of us that have our feet, family, friends and future in this town know exactly that this blog has- alot of heart, and this is where we can unload that heart. I know what some posts are going to say before I read them because they are written with alot of thought, purpose and heart. Those of us that have been here through the whole school bond business before (numerous times) have learned to question because the LOGIC they bring to us never makes LOGIC 5 years later.
17 October 2007
at 10:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
I'm sorry, I meant to say I was out, except for posts that make no sense and are detrimental to the future of the community. That was my mistake and this is my apology. At least I admit when I am wrong…
Could the reason things look so clear NOW about what should have been done five years ago is because - it was five years ago!
Good lord, if I could go back and second guess every one of the decisions YOU made five years ago would I find any mistakes? I know you would in my life. Does that mean that people should quit making decisions about the future? I hope not. Someone has to plan for the future, and it's sure not going to be people who sit around and complain about the past.
17 October 2007
at 10:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
We could have built on to the present middle school rather than build the new high school-but did you really want middle and high school students in the same building? The school downtown only held two grade levels and would not be able to hold the number of students we have in those grade levels now. Building the high school alleviated some of the space concerns at Nottingham and West by shifting 3rd and 6th grade over. It has been only a few years and look how much our buildings are crowded now. Rebuilding on the old middle school plot-is it big enough, what about grass for the kids to play on? Where do we put the programs that use it now? Traffic to downtown-I'm not sure it can adequately hold the amount of traffic Nottingham sees now, plus without a doubt, you will have someone who will complain about the traffic being in their neighborhood, children walking throughout the area, traffic blocking those that want to get to downtown, etc. It does not matter where the school is, there will be someone who finds fault.
I would also have to disagree that anyone would suggest that the district and those at Nottingham would purposely make a situation “chaotic to further the need for a YES vote”. That is the furthest from the truth and as a teacher at Nottingham I am appalled to think that somone would suggest that we would put children in harms way. As a staff we spent hours trying to think of a solution for the students to safely transfer from the modulars to the building without cars flying through the parking lot. Our safest solution for the students was to close off that entrance which meant reopening the entrance from the football parking lot. As a consequence that added to the congestion on Elm Street, but atleast the kids are not dodging cars walking from the modulars to the building. It took years just to get the crosswalk guard at 14th and Church. We do worry about our kids and Mr. Lauer along with several other staff members spend their days outside watching out for our students. We also encounter the same opposition as you do from impatient drivers. We'd love to walk them all home safely, but we can't.
17 October 2007
at 11:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EudoraBoss (Anonymous) says…
thiisiknow - that is exactly the point. Greenman has obviously not heard the stories that the school board has told us in the past couple of decades. Wonder how many farmers in the district can afford to spend more with the price of fuel these days. Those of us that have been here have heard all the “logic” before, everytime we “need” a new school.
I wonder how many people remember the story about our historical high school at 10th and main being “unsafe” structurally for students. Then when they tore it down, there were skid loaders running around on all 3 floors. Really looked unsafe then, didn't it. Too bad the historical society didn't get to take over that building and preserve it. Some of us remember when we actually “had” school downtown, the downtown was busy every morning and every afternoon. Sure there were traffic issues, but it also brought traffic to where this town started, the businesses.
With all the spend, spend, spend, going on in this horrible time for the economy, sometimes you have to say no. There are things that can be done a lot cheaper that building new fancy schools in areas where they don't belong. Those of us that have been here for decades have heard the stories before and we know how much these new schools keep costing us. Enough is enough.
18 October 2007
at 6:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DCCCC (Anonymous) says…
First thing is Tax`s will go up. Even if the mill doesnt, your value go`s up and with the new bond replacing the old one , your tax rate will go up. Call the county appraisers office and ask if your tax bill will rise. .second.a 10 to 15 year plan is not a bandaid . Is the new high school and JR high just a bandaid ? Had to redo that whole mess within 7 years after it was built ? Been there done that. This new plan sucks !!!!!!!!! third . Replacement of plumbing and removal of asbestous is part of refurbing Nottingham.Plenty of space to the south to add on and make it an awesome and great located school. Close 14th st on the north and flow traffic to the north a few blocks to remove the clustermess at 14th and Church st.We who have been through this whole school issue as stated above know the mess we are about to be thrown into and we dont like it.
Just another issue to come up. Read todays paper. 46 acres is now being printed as the new land total over off of Peach st. Is this right ? The district site and the board at meetings i went to said only 26 acres were to be purchased. 46 acres, hell i could build a Wal Mart on that. Remember a NO VOTE on the school bond will give us all a chance to get the board to think smart.Owh, moneywatch , call me this evening or stop in about that other deal.I figured it out :-) It was easy. vote no school bond Look for the signs in yards next week.
18 October 2007
at 7:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
EudoraBoss (Anonymous) says…
DCCCC, I posted this post under another topic on August 27th, trying to get your attention to quit saying “26”. It has ALWAYS been 46 acres.
Posted by EudoraBoss (anonymous) on August 27, 2007 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Board approves site for new elementary school
Thursday, July 12, 2007
During their July 12 meeting, Eudora Board of Education members voted unanimously to approve the purchase of land in northeast Eudora for the proposed new elementary school. The property is approximately 46 acres of undeveloped land located south and west of the intersection of 10th and Peach streets.
(from newspaper story July 12th)
18 October 2007
at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
Does anyone know the program that they are supposedly saying the state will pay 38% of the cost of the school. If this does not happen, our taxes WILL go up in a big way. I can't get an answer from anyone about the details on this to check it out and make sure we are not just being told that. I feel this is a huge key as to whether our taxes will go up or not. can anyone help me on this? It is not on the bond web site and I haven't gotten a straight answer from the board or district. Can someone else help dig on this to find answers?
18 October 2007
at 9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
dbmskr— In my post I did not complain about the parking lot being sectioned off at Nottingham . That was a good and solid decision to protect the students . My complaint was about the chaos at dismissal time. NOT enough thought and very little energy has been put into the process to make it work better. What I was trying to emphasize is–the parents that are driving to pick up students should and could be told to enter the football parking lot at the most southern entrance. That would help to relieve the congestion on Elm St.This is a very simple solution. Block off the closest (north) Elm St. entrance and you will have drivers using the southern etrance on Elm St. Those cars waiting in line to pull in further down Elm St. and allow for peds to cross more safely to waitng cars or walking home along 15th.
Elm St. is a big problem and it has not been addressed. A large number of parents have to cross that street and you have line traffic, north traffic and exiting traffic. Those driver's exiting look to the south to see clearance and then pull out only to have walkers in their path. it is dangerous!
18 October 2007
at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thiisiknow (Anonymous) says…
Seriously–—question–—Does the school property (at the Elm St. side) of the parking lot, stop at he end of the parking lot? If it does end and Elm St. is not considered school property, then the school board should demand a traffic moniter. If it is school property then I would like to see a staff member out there directing the flow on Elm St. That would show me how serious the school is about the safty concerns .
18 October 2007
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mattg (Anonymous) says…
*sigh*. STILL no one answers in what way the taxes will go up. Moneywatch says $51/month…where does that number come from? i'm definitely leaning towards a yes vote, but I'm not 100% convinced yet. Yet just saying “call the county and ask if taxes will go up” is skirting the question. The School Board ferverently states that the mill won't go up.
Whining about property values going up is also not a good argument…they are going up one way or the other (not to mention you could then theoretically ask more for your house if you try to sell).
18 October 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
paperweight (Anonymous) says…
In this housing market you would be lucky to even sale let alone ask for more. Think about it now you know if this passes your taxes are going to increase. How much I am not sure anyone can honestly answer that because the price will increase as it goes along on building, it always does. VOTE NO!!!!!
18 October 2007
at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
I've almost made up my mind on how I will vote. Usually a bond issue doesn't pass the first time around. Then everyone goes back and rethinks the situation, and we can all come to an agreement. I can say that my child is thriving in this school district. I have only the one child, but there are 15 other children that live on my cul-de-sac. I care about their future as well. I'm just not quite sold on this particular bond proposal.
18 October 2007
at 3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mattg (Anonymous) says…
So paperweight, your saying the taxes will only increase from my property values increasing? That WILL happen whether or not the school bond passes.
Or is there some other way that taxes will increase that I'm just not seeing and everybody else does?
18 October 2007
at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Mattq, not to be flip, but I really think this forum is the last place you should be looking for the truth. While the information distributed by the board and administration, in person and via there website, is often criticized on this forum, it is at least in print and has a name behind it - in other words, there is accountability and credibility.
From what I have seen on this forum, all the opponents of the issue have done is be critical of the established need and plan to meet the need and make vague arguments about the possible impact of the issue on the community. In other words; opinions with no accountability or credibility.
Seems that most all of the posts on this issue have a bias one way or the other (mine included). So while it is a good place to argue the merits of the plan, it's probably not the best for collecting facts.
I'm choosing to go by the information that can be verified and has a name behind it. I'll look at the opposition's information with the same eye when it meets those criteria.
18 October 2007
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mattg (Anonymous) says…
While I agree with you on the credibility issue greenman, I'm just trying to understand this extreme opposition to something that, as far as i can tell, isn't going to effect taxes any worse than they currently are. No one seems to be able to say why taxes will go up as a result of the bond…only that property values will increase.
From my standpoint it seems:
1) The only tax increase that will come out of this will be from property value increases. Either that or the school board is lying about not increasing the mill.
2) In the long run it could actually make taxes lower, since nottingham could be sold for commercial property which would invite businesses and lower the tax burden on residents.
18 October 2007
at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
thiisiknow, you did say “I believe it is suppossed to be chaotic to further the need for a YES vote.” Therefore, implying, atleast to many of the teachers at Nottingham that we would be selfish enough to create a dangerous situation for our students to promote the bond issue. That is very disheartening. I like your idea and wonder if you have taken the time to speak with any district representatives-Mr. Lauer, Mr. Kobza, or our school resource officer-about your concerns and ideas. Posting your concerns on this forum does not guarantee that you are gaining the attention of the people who need to know your concerns. I would understand if you have directly sat down with one of them and expressed your concerns and they blatantly blew you off, but after working with all three of these men, I doubt that would be the response.
It is disheartening to think that anyone would suggest that we are not looking out for the best interest of our students. We are always looking for volunteers, so if you have the time, maybe you could help with putting your plan into place. The teachers are responsible for watching their children until they are outside of the school building, which means we cannot stand on the street while the traffic is accumulating, but we would welcome the extra hand to help us out.
18 October 2007
at 6:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if parents who pick their kids up after school have ever thought of coming 10 minutes after school is out instead of getting there early just to get a good spot. It just seems like if you get there early enough to be first in line you are only making yourself frustrated by waiting longer than you would have to by coming just a little later. Less time in line, less traffic right at 3:00 and you'll probably get wherever you are going at about the same time and be happier when you get there.
I'm guessing this will be well received.
18 October 2007
at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
The shuttles are a nice alternative too. Shuttle your child to the school closest to your home. The shuttles come in after the rest of the school has dismissed. So the shuttle parents are the only ones waiting. That's how it works for me.
18 October 2007
at 9:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DCCCC (Anonymous) says…
An answer to some questions. If this bond does not pass and a new school is not built. … . .
#1 The old bond comes off. This will allow your tax amount to drop quite a bit aprox ( $350.00 a year) on a $125.000.00 home. ……………………………… …..
#2 It also will keep the operating exspences down , thus allowing your tax total to drop… … … … . ..
#3 The district says it will not raise the mill. OK if this is so, how will they pay to operate and build it ? Simple, do not raise the mill the first year as quoted. Wait to raise it the second year after it is added to the yearly budget, then it will go up. How much ? Who knows… …
#4 Nobody can give a to the T total on how much tax`s will increase. Using simple to understand math with a set home value will get a close estimate.it could be a bit low or a bit high. It will be close though. … … … .
(46 acres.) to build a school on. West is on les than 10. Nottingham less than 5 acres. This is reason #1 to vote NO. What is the board planning on doing with the extra land ? Who is going to make money off of this land sale ? Is it at fair market price or inflated in this slow economy ? I think we need to stop this bond, form a larger group with some town leaders to help the board set up a longterm plan that most will agree on. .greenman, teddy, eudoraboss, minnie3 ,moneywatch , and many more could be included. All of us have issues with this plan and the only way to get it right is to have input from all of you and town leaders.Not everyone was able to make it to the board meetings, so we need to stop this bond and get some more people involved to be sure it is right for the city in a whole. It will take ALL of us to do this, not just a few. We ALL need to help on this.this will make our city even better and bring people together to do things as a town, not a special intrest group.We are open to any new ideas to help the city.
18 October 2007
at 9:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
DCCCC-do you really believe the board is only after their own special interest and to put their name on a building? Many on the board have donated their time for many years to improve the quality of education for our town's children. They must be doing something that this town agrees with because they continue to be elected vote after vote. They give of their time and took the plans for a new bus barn/district office off of the bond because they want the focus to be on the needs of our children. This “special interest group” made up of teacher's, citizens, and the board has the town's interest at heart in this proposal-space for the teachers and students, traffic away from 14th and Church, athletic needs, preschool needs, technological needs-and the need for preparing our students for the 21st Century by planning for outreach programs through Johnson County Community College and programs that allow our students to graduate from high school with half of their college courses behind them.
I wish that you and your group would have volunteered their time when the district asked for input and attended meetings where the district has explained their reasons for designing plans the way they have. I know there always has to be a devil's advocate to look at the possible negative effects of the bond passing, but you are predicting what you think will happen-I know it would be a shocker, but the board could actually be telling the truth with their figures. They do back it with facts and with the best interest of our children at heart.
18 October 2007
at 10:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
teddy (Anonymous) says…
dbmskr: You seem to know the most about this bond. Do you have any facts about the 38% being paid by the state? I'm looking for detail and haven't received any information about this yet. No call back from the board. Seems like someone else would be concerned also. I've always been leaning toward voting for the bond, but really have this huge question about this program. Is the money already set aside from the State? How will it be paid? Need detail info please!!!
18 October 2007
at 11:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
Hello, Teddy-
I will check into your question tomorrow and reply to you after school.
19 October 2007
at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
We won't realize the full effect of the old bond coming off because something will have to be done about the problems there already are in the district and that will require new money. So, we are faced with building something that will last as is proposed with the bond issue, or spending money to put band-aids (and that's what they would be)on the problems and then we will be faced with an even more expensive bond issue in the future.
And dbmskr, the reason the people against this bond didn't give input when they had a chance is because it is always, always easier to gripe about a plan that is proposed than actually getting involved and working to develop one. I was at the meetings over the past couple of years and input was received and the plan reflects that input. It's such a juvenile approach and attitude: “it's not my idea and it doesn't personally benefit me so I'm not going to vote for it”. And again, dbmskr, you are correct about board members. I can't imagine a more thankless job. To accuse those people who give countless hours of their own time and face ridicule at every turn of somehow doing something that they know will hurt the community is incredible. There names are on the plan. They stand behind it. That is so much more than can be said about the opponents.
19 October 2007
at 10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
It's not necessarily the property tax increase that I oppose with the new school. Eudora does not charge fees when you enroll your child every year. And they don't charge to ride the bus. I've heard horror stories from parents in Lawrence about yearly textbook fees etc. So I would expect to “pay” somewhere else along the line. I don't like the proposed location of the new school mainly. Although I will never have to deal with it personally, because I have a middle school student. If there was an architect that was willing work with us, it seems like we could build on/remodel the existing buildings. Plumbing can be fixed, asbestos can be removed. I didn't vote for the pool the first time, but I did the second time.
19 October 2007
at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
Building new is a known cost. What happens when you start getting into an old building and find out that it costs two or three times the amount of money to fix it? Or that it is so unsound that it can't be fixed at all? I'm not discounting the notion of building , in fact, the the proposed plan calls for adding on to existing buildings. Additionally, the middle school and high school were designed to be added on to. Now that's planning for the future. The types of spaces needed to properly and safely educate kids has changed - and that's a good thing. Nottingham was a good building and served it's purpose, and now it's time to move on. I'm sure there were those who would rather have repaved old K-10 and made it a three lane rather than build a new road that accommodates growth.
19 October 2007
at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
minnie3 (Anonymous) says…
A team of construction/building professionals would be able to give us the bottom line on Nottingham. The environmental consultants that have managed asbestos removal projects in schools nationwide, and the builders that remodel the century old homes in Dg Co. I would be interested in hearing a professional view.
19 October 2007
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
letitgo (Anonymous) says…
I'm on the fence about this bond. My question is why are we scattering schools all over town. Wouldn't it make sense to keep them in 1 general area. I have see the traffic on Peach Street flying down it. There never seems to be any police presence. There is only 1 stop sign, so that gives drivers a chance to pick up speed. What are they going to do to slow drivers down. I really don't want to see a child get hit, trying to cross peach.
19 October 2007
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
greenman (Anonymous) says…
From the meetings I attended where input was gathered over the past couple of years, I've gathered that there are at least a few reasons for locating the schools in different areas:
1. Although traffic will always be an issue before school and at dismissal, having locations in different parts of town alleviates it to some degree. Although there is inconvenience to parents with kids in multiple buildings, the overall effect with multiple locations is reduced congestion.
2. Land availability.
3. School buildings in an area have a positive effect on property values in that area due to increased traffic (commercial) and convenience (residential). The reasoning is that one area of town should not have a monopoly on that benefit.
4. Different locations for different age levels is preferrable for safety concerns.
I know you could argue the merits of these considerations. I beieve, however, that it should be emphasized that there were definte reasons for all facets of this proposal.
19 October 2007
at 10:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dbmskr (Anonymous) says…
Hi, Teddy-
I'm sorry for not responding earlier this afternoon, this is my first time home today. I see that greenman has posted the information referring to where the 38% state funding can be located under the “Schools” section of the forum.
Have a great weekend!
22 October 2007
at 10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
formerfarmer (Anonymous) says…
DCCCC
I'm glad you think taxes will be so much cheaper if the bond issue does not pass. All the additional mobile units that will be placed outside to house the students that we do not currently have space for, are not cheap. They have to be bought or rented. The utilities are 2 to 3 times more expensive that a well built permanent structure. Fix old Nottingham, but it won't add 1 square foot of additional space, won't relieve the crowding at the middle school, or provide class or auditorium space at the high school. Won't provide space for Vo-tech students.
As far as the salary issue goes for teachers, it will allow the district to free up money currently being spent on a technology lease to be put back into the general fund that provides money for teacher salary.
Many people gave their time to address this issue at the forums that were held. I was there and did not see you. Why didn't you come at that time and add to discussion instead of throwing around inaccuracies and personal opinions at this time.