by Paul Motylinski
How does this change anything significantly? (School Board to vote Monday on revised levy impact)
There are still several issues that need to be addressed with this request being made of the taxpayers; issues such as reducing the millage, and the short and long term cost risk. Below are issues that need to be closely reviewed, addressed, and considered in order to achieve a millage reduction and a clearer path to this levy passing.
Why are three buildings needed for grades K-5?
One building for grades K-5, or two separate buildings; one for grades K-2 and one for grades 3-5 will be less costly to design, construct and maintain than three separate buildings, even if located on the same property. The new facility plan for grades K-5 is not efficient cost-wise. Significant cost savings can be realized by reducing the number of buildings, without sacrificing the safety and delivery of education, and still maintains the same number of grade levels between one or two buildings versus three buildings.
New or renovated educational facilities are more important than upgraded athletic facilities. The current athletic facilities are more than adequate for now. Priority needs to be focused towards the educational facilities’ needs and not the athletic facilities’ needs.
What maintenance has occurred at the existing middle school athletic facilities?
Having been to the athletic facilities at the middle school, it appears to me that maintenance has been largely ignored. Illustration of care needs to be shown towards the existing athletic facilities before asking the taxpayers to fund new; otherwise, history will quickly repeat itself. The existing high school athletic facilities are wonderful in my opinion. The field turf and track surface are brand new at the football stadium, and the baseball and softball fields are more than adequate. There is no need to spend taxpayer dollars unnecessarily.
The immediate needs pertaining to capital building improvements appear to be the current LECC, LPS, and LES buildings. I have attended several functions at all three buildings and it is obvious that these buildings need to be replaced with new ones. I have much respect for the administration and staff for delivering quality education given the antiquated state of these buildings. Regarding the capital building improvements for the LIS, LMS, and the HS, either place this scope on a future ballot for permanent improvements if upgraded athletic facilities take precedent over updated buildings, or eliminate the entire scope for the upgraded athletic facilities. If safer buildings and delivery of quality education are the priorities, then the scope for upgrades to the athletic facilities is expendable.
Why risk combining the operation portion of the levy with the permanent improvement portion?
The Loveland community has largely supported the levies placed on the ballot over the last approximately 20 years. I do not want to hear that services will have to be reduced or eliminated since the entire levy did not pass when a stand-alone operation levy will have a much better chance of passing instead of combining with the permanent improvement portion.
<
p style=”text-align: center;”>
