Dear Editor,
I have a few questions about the current discussions about putting a bond proposal on the November ballot. Just for the record, I am a CCHS parent.
1. How much will the actual election cost? Is it an amount that the district can afford to risk? If the bond measure fails, will something significant have to be cut to pay for the election?
2. How much of the $70 million is needed for health and safety reasons. I know I have read that water fountains and bathrooms are being worked on this summer. If that is the case, is there an immediate need for the bond issue? What else is on the list that either will not last the 20 years of the bond issue or could be funded otherwise? What else is on the list that is really needed immediately?
3. I noticed that the natatorium has been mentioned. Isn’t the issue here the ongoing energy and maintenance costs, not the capital improvement costs?
4. Is there state funding available for any of the work, especially the work connected to the Americans withe Disabilities Act? What about federal funding?
5. The proponents of putting the measure on the November ballot seem to be certain that they can get the votes out to support the bond? Do they have any specific strategies planned for that?
6. What do teachers, school staff and students say the schools need? Is that information available anywhere?
Personally I support a bond measure, even though I was taught growing up that you save up to pay for big expenses rather than taking out loans. I know that the funding mechanisms for schools do not allow this. I do think that it is worth it to take a deep breath and be sure that November is really the right time, and that the bond proposal is the right proposal.
Christine Ferreira
The one part of that I can answer instantly is that the Natatorium is not on the list projects. Re-creating that space to be a mulit-use building has been discussed, but no one is talking about re-opening the pool.
I thought I saw that Jim Clark mentioned it in something. Maybe I am wrong.
Christine, you are absolutely correct. In his article, which is posted on this site, he does, indeed, mention restoring the natatorium as either a pool or multi-purpose room. And, of course, we have a candidate for school board, Robert Zurgulis, who is calling for the natatorium to be re-opened as a pool and is collecting signatures (I understand that he has collected 500 to date) on a petition to present to the board.
He is also calling for a candidates forum to be held at the natatorium and for the building to be opened to the public so that the community may see the current condition of the building.
So, I would say that there is support and discussion for the pool in the community. The consideration will be whether the district will be able to sustain the operating expenses of the facility going forward. Mr. Zurgulis believes he has found a way to do that, but it remains to be seen.
Thank you for your very thoughtful questions–I think they raised very good points about the bond issue!
Sincerely,
Debbie Hamme
I would love to see a city and school District partnership no the natatorium. Maybe Mr Clarke can he site that.