Mac schools will receive $7 million from state for successful bond passage
UPDATE: Wednesday afternoon --
The Oregon Department of Education has confirmed that McMinnville will receive a $7.1 state grant to accompany the $89.4 million construction and repair measure voters approved in Tuesday's election.
------
McMinnville School District voters were saying yes Tuesday night to a bond measure aimed at building new career education classrooms and a new gym at the high school and upgrading other buildings across the district.
In a fourth run of ballots at 3:30 a.m., the count was running 7,084 yes to 4,321 no, or 62.1 to 37.9 percent.
Success of the bond will likely bring the district a $7 million bonus.
The state promised grants to at least 10 school districts that passed bond measures this month. McMinnville was 12th on the randomly generated list, but since at least three districts in the top 10 failed to win approval of their measures, Mac schools likely will get a share.
The grant will come on top of the $89.4 million bond measure, which will provide a new, freestanding vocational technical center at McMinnville High School, replace the old gym with career pathway classrooms and build a new gym. It also will cover repairs and seismic and security upgrades at other buildings.
The bond is expected to cost taxpayers about $1.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or $300 a year for the owner of a home assessed at $200,000 for tax purposes, but typically worth substantially more on the open market.
It will not raise the property tax rate, however, as a previous bond measure of the same cost per thousand is expiring. The overall rate will remain about $2.80.
Comments
Joel2828
And the good 'ol government just got even deeper into all of our pockets.
GrizzlyWildcat
Actually, as the vast majority of people who were in favor of the bond know Joel2828, the government "deepness" didn't change at all; the tax rate with this bond does not move from what it's been for years.
More importantly, unlike most taxes THIS government spending is returned 100% to our community, and will enrich the lives of kids and by extension all the local citizens.
Where you see only "big government", the majority of McMinnville district voters see opportunity for kids, support for teachers, and growth for our community. Thankfully their more optimistic and civic-minded views prevailed.
Jim
I am taking a wait and see attitude on this one. The school district has a lot of money to manage and I for one am waiting to see how it's spent. The last remodel was nice but they didn't build the weight room as big as promised and the fancy new offices are occupied by everybody but the administrators. The bond 25 years ago they built a gym 10 feet to short and a wrestling room for a 2 A school. Also in the last building process they took out the baseball field for a parking lot and never replaced it. I heard the current administration say the football locker rooms will be remodeled we will see if that gets done. The Vo Tech building will take up half of the current practice facilities for soccer and football so where do those kids go? Is the 7 million for their latest land grab all being spent on one building? I will be very interested to see how this money is distributed.
Joel2828
GrizzlyWildcat, The reason I voted "No" (along with thousands of others, I might add) is that it seems to me like whenever the voters do say No to these bonds, about six months later the school somehow magically finds the money some other place and the project goes forward as planned.
Remember ten years ago when they threatened voters that if we didn't all vote to raise our own taxes their would no longer be any sports in schools? The voters called their bluff and said No. And lo and behold their are still sports available at the schools.
And by the way I think your comment that the "vast majority" of voters voted in favor of this latest one is just a little exaggerated.
sbagwell
There is no record in our comprhensive archives, which date back nearly 20 years and include every published word, of any blackmailing of athleltics at any point. If you are referring to a local option levy the district tried to float about 10 years back, it was not tied to maintaining or enhancing the athletic program, let alone saving it.
I took over as managing editor in 1997, and nothing of that ilk has ever occurred on my watch. The district has made modest cuts in athletics, as it has in other aspects of its operation, in tight times. But that's it.
Steve
Jim
Steve you are so quick to defend the school district I'm trying to figure out if you are on the News Register payroll or the school districts.
sbagwell
My mission is not to defend the school district. It is to correct material distortions of fact so readers are not mislead.
Criticism is fair game, but it needs to be fact-based. And it is just not factually grounded to maintain the district held athletics hostage in an effort to extort money from taxpayers. That never happened.
Steve
GrizzlyWildcat
School district budgets and spending are entirely transparent and publicized. Here's a link to the current budget: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxOKrVq3wS4ERFByQmxUZ0RvMTA/view
There is no place for money to "hide" and reappear. Money "magically found" for needed projects, without bond support, is just money that is taken away from some other need (librarians or teachers or sports).
Bond money can only be used for construction, so successful bonds open up budgetary resources for all the important non-building programs and personnel the district must fund.
And accusing Steve of collusion with the school district for simply pointing out inaccuracies is a petty response, indicative of an opinion that is more interested in an agenda than the truth.
Jim
It might seem petty to you boys but I am sick and tired of this school district treating athletics as a second class citizen's . If you knew all the politics that go on in this district it would amaze you. They just keep taking fields and space and don't care. Its a battle to hire coaches and keep them happy after they get here. If I wanted to close down EASA you would hear screams from all over the district. Take a ball field and they don't care. I was on the budget committee in this school district and if you think I have no clue where the money goes you're wrong. Steve wanted me to move to Texas because they support high school athletics down there. It's to bad we don't do the same in this town. So if you think I'm a band leader with out a music lesson your sadly mistaken.
Finch
How much more traffic, congestion, garbage, noise and disruption to those surrounding neighborhoods before McMinnville realizes that it's time to build another school. With the population moving to the north and west it's crazy to keep adding band-aids to the current old school. Additionally, this bond will keep them quiet temporarily but it won't be long until it all starts again "for the children".
Joel2828
sbagwell, It was Measure 30. A proposed statewide tax increase that promised the lions share to schools. The year was 2004. Below is a link to the voters pamphlet from that year. It's probably the tidiest collection of all that we were solemnly warned would go wrong if it didn't pass, but a quick google search for Oregon Measure 30 will also turn up loads of dire predictions.
I didn't take the time to dig up the "no more sports" warning but I distinctly remembering hearing about it throughout the campaign. Measure 30 didn't pass. People kept their own hard earned money instead of turning it over to the schools. The earth kept turning. The sky didn't fall. The schools are doing just fine.
http://sos.oregon.gov/elections/Documents/pamphlet/pamphlet-2-2004.pdf
sbagwell
Joel:
You said, "Remember ten years ago when they threatened voters that if we didn't all vote to raise our own taxes their would no longer be any sports in schools? The voters called their bluff and said No. And lo and behold their are still sports available at the schools."
That sounded to me like an indictment of the McMinnville School District, when you were actually referencing Measure 30, a state ballot measure from 2004 that the district had nothing to do with.
Measure 30 was aimed at raising an array of different taxes to boost funding for an array of different programs, including social service and law enforcement programs having nothing to do with education. And the education element made no mention of sports. It was just a plug for additional operating money to add teachers and reduce class sizes.
Local school officials never got involved in the measure or campaign, and I don't think anyone was too surprised when it got shot down, as most statewide initiatives do.
I don't see how Measure 30 can be tied to athletics, McMinnville, McMinnville schools or a local school construction bond issue proposed 12 years later. It was so obscure, I didn't even remember it.
Here's a summary:
Proposed by referendum petition to be voted on at the Special Election,
February 3, 2004.
Ballot Title
ENACTS TEMPORARY PERSONAL INCOME TAX SURCHARGE; INCREASES, CHANGES CORPORATE, OTHER TAXES; AVOIDS SPECIFIC BUDGET CUTS
RESULT OF "YES" VOTE:
"Yes" vote enacts temporary personal income tax surcharge; increases Corporate Minimum Tax; makes other corporate, income, property, cigarette tax increases, changes; avoids specific
budget cuts.
RESULT OF "NO" VOTE:
"No" vote retains existing personal income, corporate and other tax laws; triggers $544.6 million in budget cuts to education, healthcare, senior services, public safety.
Steve
Joel2828
sbagwell, I think you are twisting the words of my original post (and adding a lot of words too) to set up a nice straw man. I will say this: you did a great job of knocking the straw man down.
Joel2828
I also don't think you are offering a fair representation of what measure 30 was about and how it was attempted to be sold. It wasn't obscure, it was a big deal. You pasted the sterile ballot title but neglected to give any mention of the emotional, school based arguments for it (including athletics being cut) that were in the voters pamphlets and also flooded the TV and radio.
None of these details are very important to me. For me, the bigger thing is that some of your comments on here make me feel like you are a partisan for the school district.
Joel2828
Reading back over my last post, I wish I could go back and delete the last line. I know you're not a partisan for the school district. That was not fair of me to question your motives.
kona
The election represented a positive degree of sentiment with the voters of School District 40. Hopefully they can buy the Willamette Graystone property and use the excess money for more and better facilities. This is a great amount of money with a necessity for good stewardship.
scooter
Steve / Jim / Joel,
I do know that in the late 70's the district did directly threaten sports, auto shop, and other sought after programs if a bond didnt pass, for the 3rd time it didnt pass, the sky was suppose to fall.
Those kids still went on to have football, auto shop, home ec, ect... the issue the district now faces is kids of that generation are now voters, and their kids graduated around the time "Measure 30" came about so that generation was clued in on the dog and pony show of the 70's.
Is it right to hold grudge from 40 years ago, of course not, hence why i looked at this bond objectively and what it was and provided a yes vote. Know.
The reality is some in the city will NEVER vote YES on a school bond due to the experience they went through in the political realm or that their parents passed onto them about the non-transparency of the district back in the 70's
Don Dix
Scooter is correct -- sports were threatened -- and the grade schools DID eliminate sports on or around 1980. Basketball and football programs were taken over and operated by the Jaycees until the parks dept. stepped in for bball. Both sports are still available through means other than the school district.
I also recall the Jaycees had some difficulty obtaining the football gear ( pads, helmets, pants ) from the various schools. Maybe the district didn't want the public to be able to compare which entity did a better job of operation, but they were somewhat obstructive to the cause.