If the surveys are any indication, Peters Township residents don't want to pay for a proposed $53 million high school renovation project or even see the need for it.
Of the 1,483 responders to a Peters Township School District survey asking whether residents would support an expansion at the high school, a resounding 62.51 said “no” while 37.49 percent responded “yes.”
The second question of whether responders would approve a referendum on a future ballot to increase taxes by about 9 mills to finance the project, was met with an even more overwhelming 72.69 percent “no.” Answering “yes” to the increase were 27.31 percent.
The district is currently investigating holding town hall meetings to show the public the condition of the current high school. No date has been announced.
A decision by the board is expected in late December or early January as to whether to submit a referendum question for the April ballot. Survey results were released Tuesday during a meeting of the board’s building, grounds and transportation committee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I have DIRECTLY paid the school district, IN CASH this year, more than my taxes would go up for this project. The pay-to-play fee MAXIMUM IS ONLY FOR ATHLETICS. Even that maximum payment does not include the lowest paid coaches salaries we are paying for too! The district has the nerve to say Athletics is not favored when they impose an upper limit payment for athletic participants but other students can pay fees endlessly!!!!!
So if your kid is in two sports for $180, add at least $200 for coaches fees and $10 each for the several clubs they are in, that is well over $400; which does not include the 30 to 50 bucks for various booster fees and REQUIRED fundraisers that if you do not sale you eat the cost. (Of course booster fees are 'optional' but your kid can not then participate in team dinners or get the team t-shirt that is required to be worn before every game, if you do not join!)
I am done feeding this district and township more money for ball fields with lights and sound systems!
Darn right-"no to a tax hike."
The district finds it really easy to spend my money on non educational items and yet is prefectly comfortable NOT providing the daily classroom resources for the educational needs of my own child.
Why would I give them more to spend inappropriately? If we had a different administration or school board I might feel differently, but from what I have seen over the past two years, NO WAY!
November 3, 2011 9:05 AM
Could not agree with you more. Remember to vote Tuesday and remind all your friends to vote also. Send another message NO to current board member running for school board. Enough of people spending our money that do not have a clue!
5 school board seats open.
5 people running.
no choice.
glad to see some new people on the board.
when can we get rid of the three stooges?
Budget cuts, pay to play, but we can afford to hire a director of human resources. This women is an attorney who will make well over 100K with benefits. NZ now has her private attorney on the district's payroll.
Regarding a building renovation, they can't maintain the existing building why would anyone think they could take care of additional space?
Weren't there two board members who voted against the new ball field? Who were they? They (if currently running) and Gregg will have my vote. Yes, there are five slots and five will be placed but, vote for only the new...and send a heavy message to the old.
This says it all....
"The district finds it really easy to spend my money on non educational items and yet is prefectly comfortable NOT providing the daily classroom resources for the educational needs of my own child."
I am sick of hearing "...but we can not spend capital improvements money on classroom items". They are still borrowing the money for un-necessary capital improvements. WE still have to pay it back, don't we?
Every single sitting board member also voted in favor of the policy for the new graduation requirements for THE CLASS OF 2013. They have NOT enforced providing the promised resources for the kids to complete these requirement and according to the current TEACHERS CONTRACT they are not required to provide online classes UNTIL the FALL of 2013 AFTER the class of 2013 graduates! That is a fact. I saw the contract with my own eyes, page 46!
At the risk of repeating myself (again) please look at who on the school board is in charge of the education committee. Need I say more? I think she has the education and sport committee mixed up, you think? Realizing 5 canidates for 5 seats, let's show the no confidence vote. Do not put an X her name on election day and show her how unpopular she really is. I think she was last in the primary also?
Budget cuts, pay to play, but we can afford to hire a director of human resources. This women is an attorney who will make well over 100K with benefits. NZ now has her private attorney on the district's payroll.
Nice how they got over on us with this one. I for one have had enough of the charades! It will be even worse if Cindi G. is voted board president! Just wait
You know, I wondered about hiring a new HR person too. A couple of other local school districts just got rid of their main HR person to save money.
It doesn't matter if we have a new HR person or not if the ultimate calls on HR still come from the same places--and they will. Just another person to buffer and blame.
It was St. Clair who go rid of their HR person to save money. But again, that is St. Clair and they have a Superintendent who can communicate and lead.
Post a Comment