Use what we have before passing mill levy

Use what we have before passing mill levy

Sept. 19, 2000

GUEST COLUMN
By Brian Wilson

I feel I need to act immediately and express my concerns with the article about "Re-1 will ask to retain mill levy increase." I was amazed at the audacity of the administration and school board’s continued tax-levy proposal.

I am a parent with children at Pleasant View School. As some of you may recall from recent articles in the paper, we ap-proached the board in July to help us find a long-term solution to our low enrollment numbers. (There are currently 14 students at Pleasant View School). We were told that as parents we needed to solicit and build our school. We subsequently spent many hours in doing so and held a successful open house.

At the July meeting the board stated that the district’s overall enrollment was down and that Pleasant View’s low enrollment was no different than other schools’. We presented the idea of changing busing boundaries, which would increase our enrollment and alleviate overcrowding at other schools.

We were denounced profoundly (and told) that there was no overcrowding at the other schools and no busing boundaries would be changed.

Now, to the issue of the tax levy continuing as stated in the paper and currently submitted by the board.

First, the administration and board told us that enrollment in the district was down for the 1999-2000 year. I called the administration office on Sept. 8 to see what 2000-01 enrollment numbers were, and they told me they were down also.

Why do we need to do a major expansion on six schools in the district if enrollment has dropped for two years and the trend may continue?

Second, the district has a staffing criteria which states that if a building’s enrollment falls below 14, the building will be closed. Why should taxpayers close, or think about closing, a very nice school that is already paid for? The Pleasant View school is not being utilized to its fullest capacity. The cost per student, and district expense, would be better utilized if the Pleasant View school building had more students. At least the board needs to look into other options to ease the supposed overcrowding instead of wanting to tax us more.

I do support the tax, for one year, to keep the building up to standards. But I can’t justify spending taxes on expanding six schools when for the last two years district enrollment has declined, and when a current building is not being utilized to its most efficient capacity. Maybe in three to five years, if enrollment has increased in the district, I would support the mill levy.

I urge you to not support the mill levy extension as it is currently written. I hope you attend the school board meeting on Tuesday, Sept. 19 at 7:30 p.m., (or any other on the first and third Tuesdays of each month) in the basement of the administration building, to voice your opinions as well.