ems2430

Not hardly, Yanke Dawg. It will be much smaller. For perspective, PNGs press box will cost more than 5 times the amount ours will. As stated earlier, there are a lot of misconceptions being bantied about regarding this bond. For the facts, go to www.nederlandbond.com and click on the link that says "click here for the facts about the bond". It is a lengthy piece but very informative. [Hidden Content]

Those of you who are so adamantly opposed to any portion of the bond being athletics, consider this. This project effects many more students than high school football players. Varsity, JV, and freshmen players use the field. At those games, we have the cheerleaders, band, twirlers, and Westernaires involved as well as 8 to 10,000 fans. At other times, the two middle schools use the field with the band, cheerleaders, etc. How many students at this point - several hundred? Then the soccer teams - boys and girls , varsity and JV - use the field. How many more students? Of course, track takes over in the spring - high school and middle school? How many more students? In Nederland, all of the elementary schools participate in a track meet during the late spring. How many more? All students in our district use the athletic stadium at least once during the school year. Also, any seniors who oppose this please answer this question...WHY? Your taxes are frozen, you will not experience an increase and you get the benefit of improving the long term future of your community. [Hidden Content]

Wow, unusually quiet on here. Here are some more points to think about: Allegations that the process involved a small group of teachers and administrators are false. Group of 32 citizens conducted evaluations of facilities in 2007 and quickly realized that the work required was more than simple cosmetic improvements and that additional expertise was required to truly understand needs. Some have complained about the use of a consultant. If the District had not involved professionals, the cry would have been that the numbers were illegitimate, arbitrary and could not possibly pretend to know what the District really needs. “Where were the experts?†would have been the charge. Once it was determined by the committee that they needs were significant, a decision was made to involve experts. Why has CARE solicited the use of a consultant? NISD projected a tax rate of $0.18 to fund the debt issued during the last bond in 1998. Actual rate charged never exceeded $0.09. This demonstrates that district is not spending like crazy and that management of the bond was done with diligent observance of the need to respect the public treasury. Statistics show how businesses and home buyers look to the school system as a strong factor in the purchasing decision. Look at the following links: [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]. And as for those of you opposing the bond…you want to be a part of the leadership of the district but never attended one of the meetings that were a part of shaping one of the most significant measures in the history of the community. How did the original facilities get built? Pioneers that knew schools mattered. Here is another point not commonly know. The tax rate in 2005 was 1.55 per $100 of valuation. State of Texas forced school districts to lower the tax rate and shifted the taxation to businesses. Revenues have failed to keep pace and the district now has only $1.12 of revenue per $100 of valuation. When tax was $1.55 was the population of Nederland dwindling? Answer; No. So, why would new schools and a proposed tax rate lower than 2005 levels drive people from the community? Again, I respect everyone's opinion and right to vote. I just want to make certain that people vote based on facts and not speculation and information that is distorted at best.

Here is to clarify another question that I have had more than once today regarding the $400,000.00 amount in the bond for land purchase. $400,000.00 is NOT the current estimated purchase price of the land. If sold today, the lots would sell for $225,000.00 total, or $75,000 each as there are 3 lots. The district added considerable contingency for potential future cost increase as it is uncertain when this purchase might be consumated. Keep in mind that the STATE WILL NOT ALLOW A SCHOOL DISTRICT TO BUY LAND FOR ANY MORE THAN THE APPRAISED VALUE, so that in itself eliminates the potential for overspending, contrary to what opponents of the bond would lead you to believe.

Heck, if you drink one cup of coffee a day at $1.00 per cup, it will cost you almost $11,000.00 over 30 years. You can make anything sound bad if you try hard enough. Early voting starts today. Get out and vote!! [Hidden Content]

Good question and yes.

I am on the bond committee and have no affiliation with the district, no one in my family works for the district, and I provide no services to the district.

Sounds like someone took a page from the Paul Dorr playbook. Google "Copperhead Consulting Paul Dorr" and see what is at work to divide and destroy Nederland. These claims of NISD Admin stalling are pure political techniques...tried over and over again. People of Nederland need to get one thing straight, CARE is being pupeteered by a man that wants to tear down the public education system! He comes to a district to create chaos, misstrust and hatred among the community and leaves. In fact, you might be well served to ask to see the names of the people actively working to kill the school progress in Nederland by funding the CARE organization. Just as I would encourage you to look for the facts in this Bond, I would encourage you to look at the strategies that we can expect. Below is an excerpt from just one of those easy Google searches. Sound familiar...? So, when you get the postcards a day or two ahead of the vote, hear the radio ads, see "ghost author" letters to the editor, have another attack on the administration...and so on, remember that the person running the show has personally advocated home schooling and the dissolution of the public education system. See through this mess and support the Bond. www.nederlandbond.com Dorr, an anti-abortion activist from Ocheyedan, Iowa, is well known in levy campaign circles. He has vowed to end public education using any means necessary. He claims to have organized the defeat of more than 20 levy elections in Iowa, South Dakota and Minnesota, including recent campaigns in the Lyle, Orono, Blooming Prairie and Howard Lake-Waverly districts. His smear campaigns include twisted facts and innuendo. When he leaves town, he leaves underfunded schools and a divided and bruised community. Dorr has a pattern to his campaigns. He is hired by a local voter, drawing a fee of between $5,000 and $15,000, which is well below what he spends on the campaign. He arrives about four weeks before Election Day. Dorr’s first move is to tie up the school administration by asking for many hard-to-find public documents, including contracts with employees, architects, financial advisors and administrators. He also requests current and past budgets, budget projections, enrollment data and information about facilities, among other documents. He then publishes a newsletter in which he twists facts about the district and takes information out of context. This is mailed to every voter in the district, usually about four days before Election Day so inexperienced pro-levy campaign volunteers can’t respond. He also employs a smear campaign. He will imply that district officials accepted bribes. He will question whether school employees are involved in the campaign. He will hire questionable experts to challenge pro-levy data. He once famously accused an Iowa judge of bestiality. He will air television ads featuring his children while implying they are district students. He will join public meetings promoted by the local “vote no†organization in which he will hide misinformation by starting a statement with “I’m not saying this is happening here, but …†He will question every absentee ballot and question election judges’ relationship with school officials. Those who have undergone a Dorr campaign say his ugliest tactic is to polarize the district. His disinformation campaign inflames those who already distrust schools, making the vote not about the levy but about schools themselves. After a Dorr campaign, divisions that existed in the community before the election widen, leaving resentment and raw emotions. In most communities, these feelings are slow to heal. Not following you at all... Maybe I'm just ignorant but what does Dorr have to do with Nederland? Just a simple reminder to everyone to be prepared for the sure to come onslaught from Dorr and the CARE committee in the next couple of weeks. Stick to the facts, which simply are that continuing to throw renovation and repair dollars at outdated, overcrowded buildings will cost the taxpayers more money in the long run. If we renovate now, we will be looking at more repairs to the same facilities in another 8-10 years.

Good point. In the meantime, you have spent more taxpayer money for temporary fixes. Now where do we say the waste is?

Bingo! Someone who gets it, big time. The waste the bond opponents talk about truly exists when we add more renovations on top of renovations that have already been made (1997). The committee's belief is that continuing to spend our dollars on older buildings is where waste exists. Nice post, BondOn.

Smitty, doing renovations only was considered, but doing that only buys these buildings so much more time of useful life. If you only repair now, you will surely have to do more of the same in a relativey short period of time. As a taxpayer myself, I will not agree to that. We want a long term solution that prevents us contuing to spend money on old buildings; it is that simple. That is the crux of this argument and you certainly have your right to disagree, however, I believe that in the long run, simply doing renovations will cost the district more money. It is a simple philosophical, difference of opinion. Some say spend money fixing the old and others say stop doing that and start fresh.

No matter what entity you are talking about, be it your business,community, home, or schools, you must invest in their future. Failure to do so will result in deterioration of those entities. Folks, the bill will always come due, whether you want it to or not. If you wait too long, you may like the cost even less than you did when you could have taken care of it in the beginning. Don't be short sighted here and look to make costly repairs to facilities that are nearing the end of their useful lives and suffer from overcrowding in many instances. This is where wasteful spending exists; continuing to patch things over and over again and not addressing long term needs.

Give me a break, that bond committee is loaded with people who either work for the school, husband or wife of someone who works for the school, father or mother of someone who works for the school, heck it's got school superintendents and board members on it. How else do you think they are going to see it..... Plenty of people on there who are not part of the district as well.

Make that 2189 times, now I know for sure that is more times than voter turn out will be. James, I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right. All I ask is that if people vote, they make a vote with ACCURATE information. I hope that misinformation is not intentionally being spread such as the earlier post about the scoreboard being funded with taxpayer money.

Who said that renovation was never considered? The cost to renovate all four elementary schools was very close to the same amount to rebuild three new ones. You guys say stop the waste and actually, we agree on that point. If you spend major money renovating these older schools, then how much time does that buy you? Say it's 10 years. Then when you need repairs/renovations, what do you do? Go back to taxpayers for more money to fix buildings that or now 60 years old or better. The question becomes, at what pont are you throwing good money after bad. As far as the scoreboard goes, you are incorrect. I often wonder where information like this comes from. The company, Datatrak, bears the risk of sponsorships being filled up or not, not the schools district. The other side of that is if they manage to get more sponsorship money than aniticipated, they reap the rewards. I did take the time to verify this information this morning. NISD's only cost was for electrical set up and the slab that the sign sits on. The community is not misguided on this issue at all. When you have classes in partitions in the hallroom and have hundreds of students per day going to class in portable buildings, something needs to be done. Another factor is reliance on window units. Can you renovate this stuff? Sure, but at what cost? The numbers and this bond proposal were not just pulled out of thin air saying let's build new schools. This was studied for quite a while.

Bru, not really trying to reason with him, just want to make sure everyone understands the facts and thought process behind the bond.

Smitty, the money needed for repairs wouldn't be a cheap price tag either. Spending a large sum of money on old, outdated buildings that will have to be replaced sooner rather than later was, in our opinion, a waste of taxpayer money. Spend a bunch of money to fix them now; get about another 10 years of life out of them, and then ask the taxpayers for money to replace them just doesn't seem wise. As far as the economic downturn, remember that this money does not necessarily have to be spent immediately. The election simply gives the board the authority to sell bonds. I will restate, it is highly unlikely that all of the bonds will be sold at once. Also, taxpayers over the age of 65 will see no tax increase.

Smitty, if I follow your argument, it begs a question for me. When exactly would be a justifiable time to build new schools?

The maintenance people at NISD have been working to keep the schools up. The problem is there is little else they can do at this point. You cannot say that you cannot listen to the voices of folks who are only on the bond committee because they will only try to sway you to vote for the bond. That same argument can be made for anyone who opposes. I support the bond, and yes, I am on the committee, and yes my taxes will increase just like everyone else. The numbers regarding the tax increase that some bond opponents are distributing are just flat not correct. They try to sell to argument against the bond based on the fact that we all will have to pay a 0.49 higher tax rate for the entire 30 years. This simply is not the case. The rate reduces as bonds are paid down, but it makes a better argument if you inflate the numbers. Bottom line, the bond is for the kids, but it is also for the community as a whole. A school district plays an integral role in the overall well being of a community. Refusing to invest in the long term future of your community, while painful to some in the short term, is a mistake and the long term viability of your community (not just the kids, but everyone) will suffer.

Bottom line is that I hope people will be informed about the bond and then turn out and vote. Apathy has been a problem in some recent elections and I hope this is not the case this time around.

Another important fact that has not been discussed is that if you are 65 or older, your taxes are not effected. This question has come up several times. Smitty, I respect your opinion, but if buildings are not fixed and/or replaced it does effect the quality of education. Port Arthur has a school building that was not dealt with and that building is now empty, on the verge of being condemned from what I have been told, and does not meet the educational needs of one child.

You bring up a good point, NDNWarrior. Renovation was studied and looked at for this bond, however the cost to do this was just as much as the cost to replace many of the schools, therefore the decision was made to build new schools. The current schools are also highly energy inefficient and utilize window units to a large degree. It is estimated that energy savings alone will amount to approximately $19,000.00 per year, per campus.

These are all great questions and concerns and that is the purpose of the discussion, to be certain that people know the facts about the issues. Everything that has been mentioned here was considered, studied, and debated by the citizens committee at length. Regarding the economy, this too was considered. Passing the bond proposal does not mean that taxes go up immediately and/or all at once. Passing the bond, simply gives the NISD Board the authority to sell bonds at a time they deem appopriate. No doubt, the eceonomy is not good right now, but at some point, it will improve and things will look better. The numbers you keep hearing regarding tax increases are worst case scenarios and assume that all bonds are issued at once. It is highly unlikely that this will be the case and your trustees have stated as much. Bottom line, the needs of our schools have not changed for the better and they will not if we do nothing. Something will have to be done about the schools in NISD at some point. The cost for this will not go down in the future. It is a pay me now or pay me later proposition. Besides, a bond proposal with school construction will actually put a few people to work as well.

Regarding the turf,does anyone remember the significant concern everyone had at the beginning of last season regarding the condition of the field before the home opener against WOS? There were questions whether the game would have to be moved or postponed due to the condition of the field. We have also had comments from some of the soccer coaches that the field can get in pretty bad shape during soccer season as well, thus the reason for he turf. NISD staff estimates that the maintenance savings on a turf field comes to about $60,000.00 per year. Again, field turf and press box combined account for less than 3% of the bond proposal, but seem to account for 90% of the conversation. Also, the comment stating that this bond does nothing to educate children is off base. The remaining 97% of this proposal goes to either totally new or renovated schools. Disagree with the minor stadium upgrades if you will; you are entitled to your opinion, but to throw the entire bond out over that doesn't make good sense.

To answer your question, James, the high school is being completely redone on the inside in this bond issue and this should get the school through another 20 years. The hope and plan is that a new stadium could be constructed as part of a smaller, phase two bond in 8 to 10 years after all of the schools needs are addressed.