Frankly, I think the District 51 School Board must take residents of Mesa County for fools. Less than three years ago, we voted for a $109 million dollar bond that will remain on our property taxes in perpetuity. We will never, ever pay it off.

And now we’re likely to be asked to vote favorably for an additional $211 million dollar bond that may also require repayment for as long as we have property. Didn’t we know in 2004 that we actually needed a total of $320 million dollars? Do those espousing this new issue think it’s somehow more palatable for taxpayers to vote these exorbitant amounts of money into existence as piecemeal expenditures? Do they believe that maybe, somehow, we’ll feel it less if we approve bond measures every three or four years? Or, do they believe that just maybe voters are simply unaware and won’t realize that these additional bonds mean additional lines on their property taxes? And, then of course, what happens in a few years when even that amount proves insufficient? Does this imagined need ever reach a point where the coffers are full and clutching hands are no longer extended?

History in this county shows the manner in which this issue is likely to be framed will suggest that voting against the bond means we’re voting against education, against our children, and against the future. Guilt may drive many people to vote for something they can’t afford, or they
don’t want. I submit that what the rhetoric will more likely reveal is that those who vote against any further bond issues for the school district believe sufficient monies already exist. To wit: For every new home built in Mesa County, builders are now required to pay a school dedication fee, and many of those reported 600 additional students each year will be living in homes for which their parents will be paying their share of the $109 million dollar bond issue from 2004. At some point, there just has to be a zenith. Just as importantly, too, is that the money we have already
voted in is being spent so cavalierly (eg. the $1 million dollar “investment” in the Mesa State’s fieldhouse renovation project) that it is an insult to ask for more.

And before I’m called Mr. Crabtree, I’ll share that I have two children who have gone to school in Mesa County and I am a stout believer in the value of education. I also believe in paying my share. My taxes last year for the two school bond issues for School District 51 were just short of $3,300. I think that’s plenty.

You know what those in favor of these additional bond issues never seem to discuss is that, as property values in the county rise, our taxes increase proportionally to the appreciation, equating to more revenue. We also don’t hear too much about the amount of state funds that come into the county in support of education. Last year’s tax notice stated that absent those very state
funds, the mill levy would have been 91.36. Based on that number, I calculate my share of state money coming in last year at $5,270. My contribution last year to School District 51? Nearly $8,600. Certainly I’m not that much of an anomaly. The School District should be able to rely on the taxes we’re paying, the state funds that the district receives, and the additional monies to be received by the influx of new students – from both their parents and the resultant increase in state funding.

I encourage all voters to stop this ludicrous request for yet another bond issue and demand accountability for that which has already been approved. When my money is being spent to repaint lockers because students simply can’t learn in environments where lockers have chipped paint, it’s time to suggest that maybe a line item accountability would either show a true need for funding, or there’s more than enough already in the coffers.

RALPH HAMBLIN
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Friday, June 13th, 2008 at 9:46 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.