tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8895200797299787815.post-47411114542519992702008-04-04T08:54:00.000-05:002008-04-04T08:54:00.000-05:00Teresa, <BR/>Regarding the security of schools I am looking at it much like you. It is something the district could spend a lot of money on and it would provide no real security. I think it would be wise to move offices somewhere near the front entrances. Of course I want my child to be secure while he is at school. Reality is that he is in a very safe part of the world, in a very safe community. That's part of why we chose to live here. (There are many parents I know who will vehemently disagree with me on this point.)<BR/><BR/>The tax impact for me will be about $500 per year for 20 years for a $45M referendum. I haven't re-calculated for the new plan but I figure that if the $29M passes with rolling referendums to cover maintenance, and a phase two down the road, the $45 is conservative. I admit that coming up with an extra $500 is feasible. I am all for a referendum, and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm not willing to vote for a plan that doesn't address overcrowding on the westside, the deficits at the high school level for science labs, or special needs to a reasonable degree. <BR/><BR/>I am not at all concerned with which high school my child will attend; but I am opposed to splitting him at the 5th or 8th grade levels. As such, I would hope that any plan would set solid feeder paths, and the facilities be set to handle those feeder schools.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com