Actually, Kendall, there's good news on the tax front. I spoke to Dean Mack yesterday, and he reported that because interest rates have come down so significantly since the District's bond broker had estimated tax rates, they re-did the estimates. The new estimates are $350 for a $500,000 home and $700 for a $1,000,000 home.

I hope that voters understand that the bonds will not be sold all at once. The schools will be built over a period of years, with the first school coming on-line in 2015 and the final school completed in 2019 or 2020. The bonds will be sold over time as the schools are built. Taxes will go up incrementally over the next two years, then hit about 70 cents higher per $100,000 of value after that.

We really need this bond to pass now so that we can solve our over-crowding problem in the most cost-effective way possible, and provide an excellent learning environment for our kids' futures.

This MISD school bonds ballot issue seems scatter-brained to me. They need $200 million of bond authority RIGHT NOW to take advantage of low interest rates, but they want us to know the bonds will be sold over an eight-year period. How does the District's bond broker know what interest rates will be over the next eight years in order to estimate tax rates? You can only accurately estimate tax rates if the bonds are all sold NOW.

I was at the Board meeting where the 21CFPC report was considered. Carrie George warned the Board NOT to emphasize overcrowding because Islanders might insist on solving the overcrowding problem first, then considering the rest at a later date, which is the way it should be.

The Board is asking for $200 million authority for a loose set of projects with no specific planning because they claim they don't have the funds to plan. Even the list of projects hasn't been well thought-out since it doesn't include the administration building, which the District says is falling apart. It makes much more sense to focus on the problem at hand -- overcrowding. The Board should withdraw the megabond ballot issue and first ask the voters for bond authority to solve the overcrowding problem with additional funds to plan for the rest of the District's projects. Then the Board should come back to the voters ONLY when they have a plan for the megablock and the rest of the District's projects.

Here are some points:
1)When the bond was first proposed, the proponents claimed that 650 students were in portables, and this could be made into a new elementary school. However, they did not reveal that many of these students are also in portables at IMS, and so the actual number is down. (There are seven portables, maximum occupancy 30 so around up to 210 students in IMS portables)

2)Mr. Watson, in an earlier comment you stated that the current projections show enrollment on the conservative sid, but the projection from the 2008 study shows 4'118 (for the medium forecast), whereas our current FTE is 3'951, down 89 students from last year. Many concerns voice were of common spaces, but this could be solved through alternative options, such as additional buildings.

3)The bond is shown to probably include a master plan for the "mega-block", suggesting a rebuild soon -- especially when the district site suggests another decade or so. A replacement bond should be proposed, except for just $40 million for only the acquisition of new land (like some members suggest now) and a new two-story elementary school. This would solve our immediate problem, allowing for a more transparent, inclusive, and exhaustive debate. Claimed modernization of the high school science department would be nice, but shouldn't sneak its way onto the bond with the more pressing issues.

This school board meeting should be video-recorded for terms of transparency -- like the City Council meetings.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about the April school bond. My post today on my personal blog on the topic discusses this: http://whatifitfails.wordpress.com/ and the recently published District News outlines the bond and need. You can find that document here: http://www.misd.k12.wa.us/news/districtnews/Dist%20News%20March%208.5x112012.pdf

Unfortunately, there is no article on this blog to refer you to that factually outlines the components of the bond. Might be something you'd want to add Kendall.

The misinformation is being provided by the boosters. There are no "components" of the bond. There are SUGGESTED projects that can be changed at any time. Islanders should read the actual Bond Resolution #592 which is on the District's website (scroll down to read multi-page resolution):

http://www.misd.k12.wa.us/board/agenda/documents/Rev.FullBoardPacket.pdf

The resolution provides (pp 3-4): "If the Board shall determine that it has become impractical to accomplish any of such Improvements or portions thereof by reason of state or local circumstances, including CHANGED CONDITIONS, incompatible development or costs substantially in excess of those estimated, the District SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH SUCH IMPROVEMENTS and may apply the Bond proceeds or any portion thereof to other portions of the Improvements, TO OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, or to payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds, as the Board may determine after holding a public hearing thereon pursuant to RCW 28A.530.020" (emphasis added).

The bond issue creates a slush fund with suggested projects that this or future Boards can change at will. Since the bonds will be sold over seven years (and Board members are elected every two years), three or four Boards will be making decisions.

Years ago, the City's $19.5 million Community Center bond issue came with detailed plans and a scale model! This $200 million bond issue comes with an unplanned suggested list of changeable projects.