Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

larrycroix#210492 writes:

in response to w.h.moore#247501:


You are correct, capital projects are not maintenance and operation. That is why these Capital Projects are not included in the School Support Levy which is used to supplement the General Fund, but are in a totally separate levy.

The 60% + 1 requirement does not relate for what the money will be used for, but to how it will be obtained. If these capital projects were to be funded by a bond, the bond measure would require passage by 60% +1. This is a levy and only requires passage by 50% +1. The other major difference is that with a levy, every penny collected from the CK taxpayer will be spent on capital projects. If it were funded by a bond, the taxpayer would be paying interest to the bond holder.

This is not a School Support Levy, but is a Capital Projects Levy.

Personally, I pushed for a levy instead of a bond so the taxpayer would get the most for his money and CKSD would be able to establish trust and confidence on the part of the taxpayers that they were, in fact, being good stewards of the public trust and treasure. We are fortunate that we were able to structure a five year package of projects that could be accomplished by the incremental funding of annual tax collections instead of requiring the lump sum up-front funding that would come from a bond.

OK, I understand.

While I understand your reasoning, I think this is exactly the reason many voters are so angry with our various governments. You seem to be following the letter of the law and at the same time violating the understanding the voters had when the requirement for passage was lowered. This is the reason I voted against the 50%+1 and would do so again if I had the opportunity.
