....and most importantly, this will give a tangible boost to the quality of science education for our kids!
Posted 7 March 2014, 11:51 p.m.
The day after the vote, the district posted [this page] with links to the bond resolution and the breakdown of costs, plus a ton of other information.
This bond is:
- reflective of what most agree is the greatest need at Wa-Hi,
- responsive to the clear will of the voters to run these projects in smaller phases (made clear by multiple surveys),
- supported almost unanimously by the numerous community members in attendance at the decisive Tuesday board meeting (the ONLY objection raised was that the bond wasn't large enough)
- now supported by the chair of the facilities task force
.......given all of this, I don't see why the community would not unify behind this. It is what the vast majority of voters said they wanted.
Posted 7 March 2014, 11:32 p.m.
You raise good questions, mspinks. The district has been working to secure private money for the track. My understanding is that the track fundraising is nearing completion. My other understanding is that the next bond won't be run until after the Edison bond is retired, which, according to the district's website, amounts to $1.25 per $1,000 (which is a significant amount).
Posted 7 March 2014, 7:25 a.m.
First, barracuda, I do appreciate your earlier indication that you are at least open to possibly supporting this bond. When you say, "they didn't hear us, I guess," I'm not sure who the "us" is. 53% of us wanted the whole package last year. 81% indicated in surveys that they would support phased projects, just like this one. Almost everyone acknowledges the science rooms are inadequate.
So, when critics want the Board to listen to "us", does that mean the 19% who want to do nothing?
As for contacting the Board, I have attended most of the meetings, including the decisive one on Tuesday where many people spoke and the ONLY objection to this bond was that it was too small. So since everyone who showed up at the meeting thought this bond was just right or not big enough, how could the Board justify waiting a few more years and claim they were listening to the public. This is a compromise in favor of folks who want to do less. The task force's objection was that this bond was too small. The Board overruled them in favor of you.
Posted 7 March 2014, 7:19 a.m.
The financial details will undoubtedly be laid out for the voters, as they were with the last bond. Remember, this bond is in response to critics like yourselves who said the previous bond was too large and too expensive and that the district should focus on its greatest needs, most notably the science classrooms.
So, that's what they did.
The 53% of voters who wanted the comprehensive bond, like me, are disappointed to have to make this compromise and to set aside our hopes for more progress sooner at Wa-Hi.
So, this compromise is for you, the 47%, and your first reactions are to wonder publicly about some secret plot? Very disappointing. I would suggest you raise your concerns with the district and get some answers first before you start spreading speculative rumors. This is first and foremost about kids, so it deserves more responsible dialogue from adults like yourselves.
Posted 6 March 2014, 10:17 p.m.
My recollection was that the science building renovation was in the $10-$15 million range as part of the $68 million total cost. But renovation had two significant downsides: first, students had no adequate place to go for science during the year the building was being worked on; and second, even a renovation of that building didn't allow for certain features, such as raised ceiling heights, that would be ideal for science classrooms.
Simply put, a new building allows it to be done right, and with minimal educational disruption. It also creates surplus space in the old science building to be utilized as the other buildings get fixed sometime in the future.
Posted 6 March 2014, 6:30 p.m.
Myinput, the task force doesn't disagree with the project; they just want to do more and to wait a bit longer to put together that larger proposal. The district has listened to and agreed with the task force recommendations in terms of the various projects that need to get done. The conflict here has to do with how to present the project phases to the voters, which is really the job of the Board to decide based on their numerous surveys and listening session.
Posted 4 March 2014, 9:43 p.m.
This stand-alone science building proposal is a good compromise with the 47% who voted "no" on last year's comprehensive bond. In surveys, voters prioritized the science building and said they would support a phased approach to doing the whole project.
Most importantly, if this proposal passes, there are a whole lot of students who will benefit a whole year sooner in their science classes.
I respect the views of the task force, who recognize the needs at Wa-Hi are far greater than just this one building, but this is at least something we can do NOW. We should pass this smaller bond, let the Edison Bond expire in a few years and then come back with a bigger phase II.
Posted 4 March 2014, 9:37 p.m.
Heck, I even agree with namvet on this issue. This editorial was well written. The Council needs to revisit their decision.
Posted 18 February 2014, 9:31 p.m.
That is interest, barracuda. I didn't know that. Without that law, I wonder, would we really abandon the parks in Walla Walla because they aren't money makers? I want to live in a country/state/county/town where my government (i.e. the citizenry) understands there is value to funding the arts, parks, and cultural events. Maybe it's just a tiny portion of the budget, like what we do for PBS, but these investments elevate us as a people.
Posted 18 February 2014, 9:21 p.m.
©2014 Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
Desktop site|Tablet version