BCFT Blog

Hi, All … I’m back (did you miss me?) – I had to take some time off to deal with a few other things that needed attention and get over a bug that my darling granddaughter breathed on me.  (It’s a good thing she’s cute!)

I’ve been asked if the new elementary school was going to be my only topic of discussion on this blog, and of course, the answer is no.  It’s just the issue that is at the forefront right now, since the construction committee is holding weekly meetings and moving forward with their plans at a fairly rapid pace.

Today I’m bringing up a subject that I broached on the Baxter Bulletin StoryChat, back before the school bond election was held in April.  I nearly had my head handed to me on a rough-cut slab of wood when I did, and most likely will again, but it’s important that this information be made public. 

Back on April 1^st, in response to a letter to the editor from a citizen who asked the voters to “just vote for the bond issue … [w]e can kick tail about other issues later,” this was my reply:

With all due respect, Sir, that’s a very nice sentiment, but it just won’t work.  If this bond issue should pass next Tuesday, regardless of what compromises might be worked out in the future, the cost won’t be any different than it is today.

Say the bond issue passes ….  say the school board completely revamps the construction plan and pares it down to $25 million.  It will STILL cost us $41.1 million + interest for 30 years + any excess tax revenue that accumulates over that time period, because the millage rate will have been set at the election on April 8th.  The only way to change it (and reduce the millage rate or construction bond) after that point would be to hold another election.

StoryChat posters responded with everything from simple outrage to declarations that I was lying to indignant claims that we were falsely accusing school board members of illegal activity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Frank & I were able to make it to Monday night’s new school construction committee meeting, as promised.  A few committee members were absent, though I couldn’t tell you which ones – I recognize most of their names (as published in the paper a few weeks ago), but am not 100% sure which faces to match them with.