[Vision2020] Vote NO on the school levy

[Shelly]

Visioneers,

I believe Moscow Tax payers need some questions answered so we can make
common sense decisions regarding the proposed school levy which we will be
voting on at the end of this month.

1) How many members of the CQE voted to promote this levy to pass and how
many voted against it?

2) Was UoI approached for any available, possible building sites for a new
high school? If so, who decided they were not appropriate building sites?

3) What has been the selling price for other blocks/parcels of undeveloped
farmland (comparables) in the Trail property area?

4) How much value is going to be added to the adjacent land of the new high
school property when the infrastructure is added? At whose expense will that
be? Who will profit from this? Can residential developers piggyback on these
new city services paid for by MSD taxpayers? Development is inevitable in
Moscow, But why should the tax payers subsidize it?

5) Will the Trail land site be appraised? Will the appraisal be available to
the public? Will it be appraised at it's current zoning or at an "assumed"
zoning change?

6) Is the Trail property zoned as agriculture? Is the going price for
agriculture dirt between $2,000.00 and $2,500.00 per acre pending it's
production?

7) What portion of the Trail 40 acres is in a flood zone, flood plain or
wetlands? What is the cost to raise the proposed building above the flood
plain? Are there any rules against building in a flood zone, flood plain or
wetlands? If not, what is the added cost to build in such an area? In other
words, will there be 40 "useable" acres of the Trail property? Also, is
there any flood land or wetland in a close proximity to this Trail property?

8) How much of the 40 acres of the Trail property will be utilized "solely"
for the "building only" of the new high school? What are the plans for the
remaining acreage? Are those plans included in this levy?

9) Who is "funding" the CQE in their promotion efforts to pass this levy and
who has been spearheading their campaign? According to state campaign laws,
can a school district campaign "for" a school bond/levy election?

10) Was the bid for the "renovation" of the present high school to "fix it"
or "re[place it?" Could the cost be any lower? WHY is the cost of building a
new high school LESS than fixing the old one? Are they bidding it as though
they were gutting it and not re-using anything or to simply "improve" the
existing structure? Most people, when they have a leaky toilet, replace the
toilet, rather than gut the entire house to the walls and do a complete
remodel.

11) Although the Facilities Committee voted in October of 2001 to replace
three of the district's schools, (West Park Elementary, Russell Elementary,
and the High School, the Matrix Report contains data that contradict those
choices. The Matrix Group conducted a "physical analysis" of each building
using a nationally recognized "Building Condition Evaluation System." This
generated a score for each building, measured against the following scale:

100-80 No renovation necessary

79-60 Minor renovation needed

59-40 Major renovation needed

39-0 Replacement recommended

The buildings received the following scores:

McDonald Elementary 87 "No renovation necessary"

Junior High Field House 70 "Minor renovation needed"

Junior High (main building) 61 "Minor renovation needed"

High School 60 "Minor renovation needed"

Lena Whitmore Elementary 52 "Major renovation needed"

West Park Elementary 49 "Major renovation needed"

Russell Elementary 46 "Major renovation needed"

Thus, according to the district's own consultants, none of the districts own
buildings is in the 0-39 range where replacement would be recommended. Three
elementary schools are in the 4-59 range where "major renovation" is
indicated. The High School is at the bottom of the 60-79 range where "minor
renovation" is indicated. 

Please note, also, that according to this data, "three" elementary schools
are in greater need of renovation than the high school, Whereas the
Facilities Committee voted in August 2002 to propose a bond levy in
September 2003 for the HIGH SCHOOL ONLY.

http://www.moscowfons.org/condition1.htm

12) Where has all the money gone from the previous tax money collected? AKA
maintenance and operating levies? Wasn't it supposed to go to "fixing" the
deteriorated high school?

13) What percent of this levy will cover "increased costs" of repairs and
insurance?

14) Was the cost of the "security fence" (required in the Trail land
acquisition) added in to this levy?

http://www.moscowfons.org/trail_2.htm

15) Will the Trail property that is "gifted" to the school district become
the school district's sole and separate? Or, will the Trail Foundation still
own the dirt and have control OVER the school district?

16) Who pays if the building cost goes over budget? I am reminded of the
1912 building.

17) How much of the 20 million-dollar levy is going towards books and
computers and greatly needed teaching supplies for the high school? NOT FLY
RODS AND CAMPING TRIPS AND LIFE JACKETS FOR THE UPCOMMING RAIN SEASON!
Remember we are on some wetlands here.

18) Why would we want a Mercedes (and the cost to maintain it) when new
spark plugs in our Volkswagon would work just fine? Do we, as a community
need to expend our collective tax dollars just to "keep up with the Jones?"

19) Are MSD tax payers willing to pay for extending city services to this
new site, which likely will include a half mile connector street (from the
end of East D Street to Mountain View Road) at costs exceeding $1 million?
Are tax payers willing to pay for subsequent improvements to D and F Streets
and North Mountain View Road needed to address safety issues related to
increases in auto, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic? Are residents of
northeast Moscow ready for traffic congestion and safety concerns?

http://www.moscowfons.org/miller_letter.htm

20) Where can I get signs, banners, posters and flyers to VOTE NO ON MORE
TAXES.

Phil Roderick,
gone "fly" fishing

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050406/6f3c912f/attachment.htm