Editor:
There have been some questions about the wording on the ballot for 3B. I admit I had to read the language carefully three times, and Im a retired attorney. Much of the last paragraph is legalese required by state law. If 3B passes, the voters are authorizing the Re-1 Board of Education to borrow money to build a new high school by selling bonds and to repay the debt by increasing property taxes in an amount necessary to repay the principal and interest on the bonds. Some people have commented that the board seems to be given unlimited power to raise taxes. However, the first paragraph of the ballot question states the limits on the debt ($21,250,000), the maximum repayment cost ($37,100,000 for principal and interest) and the maximum amount that District taxes can be increased in one year ($1,855,000).
Other concerns about the wording of the last paragraph are with the first three lines that would permit any funds that might be left over to be used to help capital needs in other district schools. One question about this language is, Why should there be excess funds? There could be excess funds if the cost of borrowing is less than originally anticipated when the BEST grant was awarded or if the actual costs of building and equipping the high school are less than estimated when the grant was awarded.
Another question is If there are leftover funds, why not pay off the debt and retire the bonds early? My understanding is that grant funds can only be used for capital needs, not to repay debt. What a blessing it would be if there were leftover funds to address some of the well documented needs in the other schools with any excess grant funds and bond funds that are probably at or near their lowest level ever.
Judy Schuenemeyer
Cortez
Via email