Why I'm voting NO on Nov 4

I reviewed the informational presentation for [the Oct 21] meeting and came away with serious concerns. Here’s what stood out and why I believe this bond is not in the best interest of our community right now.

1. STAFF REDUCTIONS AND LARGER CLASS SIZES. The presentation identifies that one outcome of 'efficiencies' would be increased class sizes and reduced staffing. For example, on page 49, the bond claims that by consolidating buildings they will be 'right-sizing CLASS SIZES to the ideal goal of 23 to 25 students' (from smaller numbers currently in some schools). If class sizes are going up, that means each child receives less individual attention.

2. INCREASED BUSSING/TRANSPORTATION BURDENS. On page 41 of the presentation, DCSD predicts that moving to fewer middle schools will increase eligible bus riders and actual bus usage. The new scenario estimates about 1,242 riders vs. 878 current riders, meaning ~400+ more students will need transportation.

Page 44 adds that bus traffic could increase by as much as 70% in certain configurations. More bussing often means higher costs, more logistical complexity, and potentially longer rides for students. If those costs and burdens fall on taxpayers or families, it’s worrying.

3. UNCLEAR LINK BETWEEN THE BOND AND PROGRAM FUNDING/SCHOOL CLOSURES. The presentation clarifies that some schools (e.g., Jefferson Middle School) are slated for closure 'regardless of whether or not the bond passes.' Additionally, the slide mentions 'discontinued programs' alongside closures even though the bond is described as a capital/facilities measure (not one primarily dedicated to operating/program funding). That raises questions: If this bond doesn’t fund programs, why is the prospect of programs being discontinued being used as justification? In short: If closures and program cuts are baked in no matter what, and if program funding isn’t clearly linked to the bond, then the rationale for asking now is less convincing.

4. TAXPAYER BURDEN AND TIMING CONCERNS. The document states that the proposed bond would add $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed property value to the tax levy. With uncertain enrollment trends (the district projects a slow decline in student numbers) and increasing maintenance/facility pressures, committing to a large capital project now may lock in long-term costs without enough certainty of benefit.

If enrollment drops or programs are cut, how will the district adjust? The presentation shows declining enrollment (page 7) which suggests that the timing is risky.

5. LACK OF COMMUNITY BUY-IN/EVIDENCE OF STRONG SUPPORT. The community survey results show significant resistance to some of the consolidation options: e.g., only ~54.6% found the consolidation from 3 to 2 middle schools appealing, but 45.4% did not. For reorganizing to one high school/one middle school, only ~10.99% found it appealing while 89.01% did not. These numbers suggest that a large portion of the community is skeptical or unconvinced—and yet we are being asked to vote yes now.

Voting NO is a way to say:

• 'Let’s hold off until there is clearer data on student numbers, costs, benefits, and community consensus.'
• 'Let’s ensure that program funding and school closures are transparent, justified, and not used as scare tactics.'
• 'Let’s protect smaller class sizes and avoid burdening taxpayers prematurely.'

On election day, cast a NO vote on the bond referendum until the district can provide more clarity and stronger community alignment.

Thank you for caring about our schools and our community’s future.

[Posted with permission.]