Kansas.com KSN
«
»

The Bond issue: Up to $370 million, all sports intact

Aug. 12, 2008 @ 7:34 a.m. by Joanna

by joanna

If you missed it, check out Lori Yount’s story today on the Wichita school board upping the bond issue total to $370 million, going against a proposal to cut out pools and tennis courts and actually, ACTUALLY, setting a date to vote — Nov. 4.

I personally think it would have been a mistake for the school board, which obviously wants to pass this bond issue, to take out these specific sports. I never understood why those sports were targeted, anyway.

I know this is a huge amount, but as I’ve said before, I’ve been in almost all of Wichita schools, and something needs to be done. Check out previous blog posts on this subject at this link and this one.

I know anytime we’re asked to spend more money (although it doesn’t sound like it’s a ridiculous amount to me) that we automatically are suspicious, but it only seems right that kids living in Wichita should get the same — or at least similar — opportunities as those in the suburbs.

What are your thoughts?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 12th, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. and is filed under Bond issue. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  • bbfan

    Good job school board! If it defeated by people that don’t want our schools to be any better, then so be it. At least you guys didn’t back down to them and water it all down before the vote. Good job on boards part. Now its up to all of us to get out and vote!

  • Outsider

    Good to see the school board show some intelligence.

  • Deeg

    Absolutely the right thing to do! I can pack a lunch for a week or skip going out to eat a couple of times a year to pay for the bump in taxes…this is not an insufferable amount people, suck it up! Vote a long overdue YES on this come November 4th, restore some pride back in our City League schools and watch the positive impact it will have on our children and their future!!

  • sportfan

    Upgraded sports facility repairs and maintenance are long overdue. It is outrageous that kids at some schools choose not to go out for sports because of the poor quality or lack of quality facilities. I am thinking of West High’s “track”, East High’s “tennis courts” and the lack of pools at a few of the schools. All public schools should have equal “playing fields” and I support a bond that achieves that. I do not support a bond that wastes our money. Do we really need a nine lane track at NW? I don’t know too many colleges that have that! Adding a technical high school? I don’t know how much thought has gone into that brainstorm. Let’s quit thowing money away!

  • Fballfn

    well done now lets pass this thing !

  • Joanna

    Just an fyi to sports fan: the 9-lane track was paid out of capital dollars and was, to the league’s way of thinking, smart considering there’s nine schools and it can run all the City League meets there and do it with fewer heats. Seems like a good idea to me, logistically speaking.

  • sportfan

    A 9-lane track paid out of capital funds when West High’s track is in the condition it is?!?!?! Equal and level playing field for all schools should be what this bond is about. NW won’t need a 9 lane track if West has to co-op with South for track. 2 heats, if needed, in the few relays that require it, doesn’t require the City League Championship track meet to go that much longer. This is for one track meet the entire year! This only forces all city championship meets in the future to only be held at this one site. What about Heights? They have very nice track now that it has been upgraded. Are they now not allowed to have the Championship meet? Money better spent would have been electronic timing for all the schools to use at the few school sponsered meets of the season. That would eliminate all hand timing errors especially since the Championship is the last meet to get seeding times in for the Regionals. This type of mismanagement of capital funds is one of the primary reasons why we need a bond to improve the athletic facilities.

    My question is whether this is the best bond and at the best chance of passing? Or are we settling because it is “something”?

  • Joanna

    sportsfan,
    I’m definitely no shill for the school district, but sometimes I see things said on the blog that might be a little off. So, I’m responding.

    Northwest had a track that was akin to East’s track. Capital funds paid for it to get a new one.
    Southeast had a cinder track, like North’s and West’s, and it’s being built through capital funds.
    Heights got it’s track, replacing its cinder track, several years ago.
    As for the electronic timing, I don’t believe that all schools need it. Correct me if I’m wrong here.

    The league did buy a timing system that it not only uses at its meets but it can use them at meets outside the city and earn some money for that (Maize does the same thing and the City League “rented” someone to run it and the system.) The regional you were talking about happened in 2007.

    I’m not sure what you mean about West having a co-op with South for track. The reason a school would co-op is because it doesn’t have enough athletes to make up a team, thus would get with another school for the regular season. The City League used to do it with gymnastics, until the sport finally died. But that’s not an issue in track, where West and South have enough kids to warrant coaches.

  • Commish

    Joanna:

    Glad to see the Board did not bend to those who do not care to become knowledgeable. I have no problem respecting a decision different than my own when I know they did their homework and came to a different conclusion. It seems to me that so many have got caught up with the amount of the bond issue. Your paper does not help when I see headlines something like “record size bond issue” time and again. Everything has to be put in perspective. I would suspect that other large metro school districts would not consider $370 million as an outragously excessive amount. All depends on your needs, conviction of your taxpayers and your ability to pay. Case in point: Goddards bond issue was passed at $83.7 million. Goddards assessed valuation for 2007 was approximately $200 MILLION. Wichita, USD #259′s assessed valuation in 2006 (it was surely more in 2007) was a little over $2.4 BILLION dollars, or, 12 times the size of Goddard. To equal the financial committment of the Goddard taxpayer the Wichita bond issue would be have to be $1,004,400,000. To add to the proof of the resolve of the Goddard taxpayer the Goddard district does not enjoy the benefits of large corporations as taxpayers in our district. Goddard is primarily housing and farms. We do not have your corporations who get taxed at 30% of assessed and have no vote. Residential is taxed around 11% if I recall. The Maize district is half the size of Goddard in land but over $300 Million in assessed value. Can you say New Market Square? Wichita desperately needs this bond issue, not to compete with the suburbs but to give the kids of #259 at a minimum decent facilities and opportunities. So voters of #259, pass the bond. Do the right thing. Invest in your future and don’t whine to the rest of us about your tax rates because the numbers show your district has some of the lowest mill levies around.

  • Joanna

    Commish, nice heartfelt response. I think people who are against it are very knee-jerk just because of the overall cost. But when you think about spending $42 a year on a $100,000 home, it seems worth it.

    And you make a good point about the surrounding areas. I like the info.