District 6 didn’t need tax increase for BEST grant

Oct 23, 2012

District 6 didn’t need tax increase for BEST grant

I initially approached the question of 3A with an open mind.

But when I read the measure’s description I made up my mind real quick.

The repayment cost for this is outrageous!

Worse, going into debt could have easily been avoided.

The actual cost of the new school to taxpayers is $14.5 Million (Plus our indirect share of BEST funds that offset other discretionary spending.) Of that only $8.2 Million is needed for the school. 43% of the 14.5 Million would go ENTIRELY to interest!

Wouldn’t it be nice for 100% of this tax increase went to the kids instead of creditors?

I don’t know about you, but when I want to make a major purchase, save for a few months instead of whipping out the credit card only to be stuck paying the bank for — in this case — 20 years!

That means the students attending the new school would be in their 30’s when the debt is paid off.

District 6’s annual spending went up by an estimated $7.2 Million this year. It’s up over $10 Million from the years before. That means District 6 COULD have saved $8.2 Million for the last two years, and STILL increased regular spending by over $2 Million each year.

They chose not to save a penny. Instead they are asking taxpayers to flip the entire bill!

Had the District saved wisely, we wouldn’t be on the hook for needless interest expenses. Had they saved even a little, repayment obligations would be reduced substantially.

Voters deserve an explanation for this poor planning, and straight answer in real dollars about what the alternative repair costs would be.

I urge my fellow Weld County residents to join me in voting “No” on 3A.

Sincerely,

R.J. Flugar

Share on Facebook