Nederland Bond

[smitty]

Don't drink the kool-aid myself.  Wouldn't last long.  I think the people are realising that the message is they are going to have to pay a tremendous amount of more taxes over the life of the bond.  Don't need a good spokesmen to understand this.

There was no message from the messenger, just my opinion, that's why I asked what others thought.  It was the TALKING POINTS from Dorr, that's all I heard.  How's the kool aid taste?

[adminbaberuth]

Just watched Part 1.

Mr Shaw is polished and rebutted quite nice. Mr Bruney stayed on message, somewhat stiff but made his points.

Nothing new in this 1st part that hasn't been covered in the press or here on our board. On to part 2, thanks brubaker for posting.

[GoBigNed!]

Thanks for posting these links, brubaker!  I enjoyed watching Bruney's response to the first question, so I made it a point to watch it again.  ;D

[adminbaberuth]

Mr Bruney  scored some points on closing Langham. Reducing elementary schools from 4 to 3 could cost jobs. Mr Shaw was correct in stating we have the same amount of students so teacher ratio should keep those jobs. Mr Bruney obvious rebuttal was the potential loss of custodial and cafeteria workers with one school closing. It wasn't mentioned but I guess you would lose a principal and assistant principal if close a school.

On to part 3

[GoBigNed!]

Mr Bruney  scored some points on closing Langham. Reducing elementary schools from 4 to 3 could cost jobs. Mr Shaw was correct in stating we have the same amount of students so teacher ratio should keep those jobs. Mr Bruney obvious rebuttal was the potential loss of custodial and cafeteria workers with one school closing. It wasn't mentioned but I guess you would lose a principal and assistant principal if close a school.

On to part 3

The assistant principal positions at the elementary campuses are not not full-time administrative positions.  The elementary assistant principals are also teachers.  I don't know how the district will work that out, but I know they would not be out of a job completely.  I do not know about the other positions.

[adminbaberuth]

Part 3

I would like to thank both men ,and I don't know either one, Erik Shaw and Gavin Bruney. They both took time out from their jobs to get involved in our children and I commend them.

This will be close vote. I can see both sides. Someone told me today they would support the bond if it was only the high school being demolished and a new one added because more students are at that location.

[Guest Brubaker]

Mr Bruney  scored some points on closing Langham. Reducing elementary schools from 4 to 3 could cost jobs. Mr Shaw was correct in stating we have the same amount of students so teacher ratio should keep those jobs. Mr Bruney obvious rebuttal was the potential loss of custodial and cafeteria workers with one school closing. It wasn't mentioned but I guess you would lose a principal and assistant principal if close a school.

On to part 3

I think it's conjecture to think jobs will be lost at this point.  We still have to feed the same number of children and will have facilities to house the same number of kids.  Noway to say for sure that we will lose jobs, all conjecture at this point.  The more solid arguement is that we will not lose teachers in this move.  Even stronger is that we will be able to pay teachers more.  Even stronger yet is Bruney's contention that he will put more money into the maintenance budget... that money will come from somewhere.  Where will it come from... teacher pay cuts, teacher reductions, extracirricular activity cuts so we can keep pace with the Far East?  I threw my CARE mailer away, what did Bruney and Dorr's talking points say?

[Guest Brubaker]

Part 3

I would like to thank both men ,and I don't know either one, Erik Shaw and Gavin Bruney. They both took time out from their jobs to get involved in our children and I commend them.

This will be close vote. I can see both sides. Someone told me today they would support the bond if it was only the high school being demolished and a new one added because more students are at that location.

It's the newest of our facilities, that would be irresponsible in my opinion.

[GoBigNed!]

Part 3

I would like to thank both men ,and I don't know either one, Erik Shaw and Gavin Bruney. They both took time out from their jobs to get involved in our children and I commend them.

This will be close vote. I can see both sides. Someone told me today they would support the bond if it was only the high school being demolished and a new one added because more students are at that location.

  What about the 1000 elementary students who are currently in portable buildings due to overcrowding at the elementary schools?  The main building at the high school will be gutted and reconfigured.  I have seen some before and after pictures of other projects from the architects that will do the work at the high school, and it will look brand new.

[adminbaberuth]

Mr Bruney  scored some points on closing Langham. Reducing elementary schools from 4 to 3 could cost jobs. Mr Shaw was correct in stating we have the same amount of students so teacher ratio should keep those jobs. Mr Bruney obvious rebuttal was the potential loss of custodial and cafeteria workers with one school closing. It wasn't mentioned but I guess you would lose a principal and assistant principal if close a school.

On to part 3

I think it's conjecture to think jobs will be lost at this point.  We still have to feed the same number of children and will have facilities to house the same number of kids.  Noway to say for sure that we will lose jobs, all conjecture at this point.  The more solid arguement is that we will not lose teachers in this move.  Even stronger is that we will be able to pay teachers more.  Even stronger yet is Bruney's contention that he will put more money into the maintenance budget... that money will come from somewhere.  Where will it come from... teacher pay cuts, teacher reductions, extracirricular activity cuts so we can keep pace with the Far East?  I threw my CARE mailer away, what did Bruney and Dorr's talking points say?

Where's the freaking money coming from to replace the turf field in 10 years, $400,000 to replace it to be exact.

I can see the Bulldog logo at midfield replaced in 10 years with the below logo.

[Guest Brubaker]

James, I have read all your posts, and I think you should just go ahead and vote the NO on the bond.  You have spent a lot of energy beating this horse to FREAKIN death as you've put it.  If you haven't gotten good answers, then vote NO please.  This 2% is a burr in your backside, just vote NO.

[adminbaberuth]

James, I have read all your posts, and I think you should just go ahead and vote the NO on the bond.  You have spent a lot of energy beating this horse to FREAKIN death as you've put it.  If you haven't gotten good answers, then vote NO please.  This 2% is a burr in your backside, just vote NO.

Bru

James has already signed on for the bond. Like buying a car, it's normal to have buyers remorse.

[smitty]

I concur!

Just watched Part 1.

Mr Shaw is polished and rebutted quite nice. Mr Bruney stayed on message, somewhat stiff but made his points.

Nothing new in this 1st part that hasn't been covered in the press or here on our board. On to part 2, thanks brubaker for posting.

[smitty]

It's always good to see which side loses it's cool first when the tough questions are asked.  The heat is getting to them.  They'll even devour their on.  James has said he'll vote for it.  Come on to our side, James.  We are as cool as the other side of the pillow.  ;D  ;D    ;D

PS - James, I'll answer your question:  They'll have to come back with a 3rd bond issue to pay for it. 

James, I have read all your posts, and I think you should just go ahead and vote the NO on the bond.  You have spent a lot of energy beating this horse to FREAKIN death as you've put it.  If you haven't gotten good answers, then vote NO please.  This 2% is a burr in your backside, just vote NO.

[smitty]

James, I think the 5% is exclusive at this time to Nederland because of the small tax base.  Other districts, say Port Arthur, it would be a higher percentage because they could absorb more than a 5% loss. 

Now if 5% is correct, and home values fall, and Ned can't pay it back, then what?  Whether or not it includes a merger, well, the State says that is an option.  I hope my home value keeps going up.  But over the life of the bond, is this realistic?  Are we trying to take on this much debt with the hope values never fall?  Has this even been addressed?

It's always good to see which side loses it's cool first when the tough questions are asked.  The heat is getting to them.  They'll even devour their on.  James has said he'll vote for it.  Come on to our side, James.  We are as cool as the other side of the pillow.   ;D   ;D    ;D

PS - James, I'll answer your question:  They'll have to come back with a 3rd bond issue to pay for it. 

James, I have read all your posts, and I think you should just go ahead and vote the NO on the bond.  You have spent a lot of energy beating this horse to FREAKIN death as you've put it.  If you haven't gotten good answers, then vote NO please.  This 2% is a burr in your backside, just vote NO.

I'm good with where I'm at thanks. You got to remember too I never got an apples to apples answer concerning this -  show me one school district in America which had to merge with another due to 5% fallen home valve and bond sales. So both sides have not answered some of my questions. I guess you have to vote on which side you feel has shown over the course of their lifetime the most passion, commitment, and concern for our schools. To me it is very clear who has spent their entire life serving our community and it is very clear who has not. Pretty easy vote if you ask me.

Preserve History: Heck, if they can move out of Texas Stadium, Yankee Stadium, etc,,, you get the picture, they can tear down a few elementary schools.

All I wanted out of this was an answer to a few questions and I never got one.

[PN-G bamatex]

Just thought I'd offer something into the record:

Look at PN-G's so-called "renovations" under our bond. You know what they were? Roof repairs for every school in the district except the middle schools, and only partial roof repairs at the high school (only the sections set to remain were repaired, understandably). At PNE, the new roof is already leaking, and we've got fresh mildew growing in the instrument room at the high school from last weekend's rain. At Taft, there is a room that has been nicknamed the "waterfall room" because water pours down the windows every time it starts to sprinkle. This comes only weeks after the roof repairs were affected. We're in the same boat over here. These buildings are just being "rehabilitated" every few years, and, as we all know, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the boat finally sinks.

Is this from the current bond?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I forgot I had posted in this thread.

Yes, this is from the current bond. I believe the district did it like this because, even while this bond was on the table, they were already talking about the next bond (tentatively scheduled for 2014) in which they would completely replace the elementary schools. Although the plans weren't final, it was a safe bet, and really still is, that the bond would be approved by the school board and again at the polls, and the schools would be replaced within the ten-year lifespan of the "cheap" roofs. Considering this, it was a viable strategy for our school district until the roofs started leaking. From what I understand, our school board has already contacted the contractors and they are coming out to fix the problem soon.

Nederland is in a different position then we were with our bond. Y'all are trying to get everything done in one bond, whereas we were spacing things out, so this particular strategy may not work for you.

[smitty]

I hear the PN-G people are not real happy with the amount of taxes the now have to pay because of the bond issue.  People in Nederland need to take note.

Just thought I'd offer something into the record:

Look at PN-G's so-called "renovations" under our bond. You know what they were? Roof repairs for every school in the district except the middle schools, and only partial roof repairs at the high school (only the sections set to remain were repaired, understandably). At PNE, the new roof is already leaking, and we've got fresh mildew growing in the instrument room at the high school from last weekend's rain. At Taft, there is a room that has been nicknamed the "waterfall room" because water pours down the windows every time it starts to sprinkle. This comes only weeks after the roof repairs were affected. We're in the same boat over here. These buildings are just being "rehabilitated" every few years, and, as we all know, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the boat finally sinks.

Is this from the current bond?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I forgot I had posted in this thread.

Yes, this is from the current bond. I believe the district did it like this because, even while this bond was on the table, they were already talking about the next bond (tentatively scheduled for 2014) in which they would completely replace the elementary schools. Although the plans weren't final, it was a safe bet, and really still is, that the bond would be approved by the school board and again at the polls, and the schools would be replaced within the ten-year lifespan of the "cheap" roofs. Considering this, it was a viable strategy for our school district until the roofs started leaking. From what I understand, our school board has already contacted the contractors and they are coming out to fix the problem soon.

Nederland is in a different position then we were with our bond. Y'all are trying to get everything done in one bond, whereas we were spacing things out, so this particular strategy may not work for you.

[PN-G bamatex]

I hear the PN-G people are not real happy with the amount of taxes the now have to pay because of the bond issue.  People in Nederland need to take note.

Just thought I'd offer something into the record:

Look at PN-G's so-called "renovations" under our bond. You know what they were? Roof repairs for every school in the district except the middle schools, and only partial roof repairs at the high school (only the sections set to remain were repaired, understandably). At PNE, the new roof is already leaking, and we've got fresh mildew growing in the instrument room at the high school from last weekend's rain. At Taft, there is a room that has been nicknamed the "waterfall room" because water pours down the windows every time it starts to sprinkle. This comes only weeks after the roof repairs were affected. We're in the same boat over here. These buildings are just being "rehabilitated" every few years, and, as we all know, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the boat finally sinks.

Is this from the current bond?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I forgot I had posted in this thread.

Yes, this is from the current bond. I believe the district did it like this because, even while this bond was on the table, they were already talking about the next bond (tentatively scheduled for 2014) in which they would completely replace the elementary schools. Although the plans weren't final, it was a safe bet, and really still is, that the bond would be approved by the school board and again at the polls, and the schools would be replaced within the ten-year lifespan of the "cheap" roofs. Considering this, it was a viable strategy for our school district until the roofs started leaking. From what I understand, our school board has already contacted the contractors and they are coming out to fix the problem soon.

Nederland is in a different position then we were with our bond. Y'all are trying to get everything done in one bond, whereas we were spacing things out, so this particular strategy may not work for you.

Not happy? The only mention of taxes in our district was to point out that they fell .05% ($00.05 on every $100), even with the bond. Now, we have a large industrial tax base, so we aren't in a position to take a massive hit when a bond comes around in the first place, but still, to have one bond passed and another in the works and have a tax break is unprecedented.

Again, we're in a different position than Nederland is, so we can't really compare the logistical or financial aspects of our bonds, only the construction and comparable conditions of our districts' schools.

[smitty]

Well, friends I know in Port Neches say their taxes are sky high.  But if your's fell, then great.

I hear the PN-G people are not real happy with the amount of taxes the now have to pay because of the bond issue.  People in Nederland need to take note.

Just thought I'd offer something into the record:

Look at PN-G's so-called "renovations" under our bond. You know what they were? Roof repairs for every school in the district except the middle schools, and only partial roof repairs at the high school (only the sections set to remain were repaired, understandably). At PNE, the new roof is already leaking, and we've got fresh mildew growing in the instrument room at the high school from last weekend's rain. At Taft, there is a room that has been nicknamed the "waterfall room" because water pours down the windows every time it starts to sprinkle. This comes only weeks after the roof repairs were affected. We're in the same boat over here. These buildings are just being "rehabilitated" every few years, and, as we all know, you can only fix the leaks in the hull so many times before the boat finally sinks.

Is this from the current bond?

Sorry for taking so long to reply to this. I forgot I had posted in this thread.

Yes, this is from the current bond. I believe the district did it like this because, even while this bond was on the table, they were already talking about the next bond (tentatively scheduled for 2014) in which they would completely replace the elementary schools. Although the plans weren't final, it was a safe bet, and really still is, that the bond would be approved by the school board and again at the polls, and the schools would be replaced within the ten-year lifespan of the "cheap" roofs. Considering this, it was a viable strategy for our school district until the roofs started leaking. From what I understand, our school board has already contacted the contractors and they are coming out to fix the problem soon.

Nederland is in a different position then we were with our bond. Y'all are trying to get everything done in one bond, whereas we were spacing things out, so this particular strategy may not work for you.

Not happy? The only mention of taxes in our district was to point out that they fell .05% ($00.05 on every $100), even with the bond. Now, we have a large industrial tax base, so we aren't in a position to take a massive hit when a bond comes around in the first place, but still, to have one bond passed and another in the works and have a tax break is unprecedented.

Again, we're in a different position than Nederland is, so we can't really compare the logistical or financial aspects of our bonds, only the construction and comparable conditions of our districts' schools.

[smitty]

Dude, I may have to if this bond passes.  So, dude, you are one of the ones that equate more money equals better education?

Dude, are you one of the ones that think school district will no longer exist when/if this bond fails?  Dude, what color is the kool-aid they are serving you?  It must be good.  But remember, the result is always the same.

James, I have read all your posts, and I think you should just go ahead and vote the NO on the bond.  You have spent a lot of energy beating this horse to FREAKIN death as you've put it.  If you haven't gotten good answers, then vote NO please.  This 2% is a burr in your backside, just vote NO.

Let me correct you, It's not that I haven't had any good answers, I haven't had any answers, none. 10 years from now, when there is not money for it, explain to me then how it's only 2% when you have zero in the bank. Look Brudo, I'm in favor of the bond but I still don't like a lot of the details involved. So tell me again why I should vote no.  ???

Dude move if you dont like it. Geez dont you have a life other than trying to ruin things for kids in your area. Go be a greeter at Walmart.  ???

[Guest Brubaker]

Is the 5% drop considering before or after the tax value of my home just went up 20% in the recent valuation from Jeff Co?  I know everybody I've talked has said the same thing, Jeff county is raising the tax value of most homes, not sure if it's exclusive to Nederland.  Anyway, just trying to stick to the facts.

[player66]

Smitty, it sounds like you are the type that will jump off the roof of a building if it passes. The sun will rise the next day after the election I promise. Just drink you kool-aid with mushroom tea

[smitty]

At least you got the second sentence right.  Now if you can only convince the other pro-bonders of this.  Like I've said before, I don't drink the kool-aid.  It's a one way street. 

Smitty, it sounds like you are the type that will jump off the roof of a building if it passes. The sun will rise the next day after the election I promise. Just drink you kool-aid with mushroom tea

[smitty]

Bru, I feel for you.  I too just got screwed by the evaluation board.  A non-elected board, I might add. 

You make a good point.  But let's look down the road a little.  After these refinery improvements are done, can this constant 20% increase be sustained?  Remember, nothing goes up forever.  What happens if the bubble burst?  What effect will this have on Ned's ability to repay the bonds.  Also remember, Nederland has a small tax base.  And it's my contention that if this passes, the tax base will get smaller.  Business' will want to go or relocate to places that have lower tax rates.  It's only common sense.  And when this happens, the burden falls more and more on the home owners. 

Is the 5% drop considering before or after the tax value of my home just went up 20% in the recent valuation from Jeff Co?  I know everybody I've talked has said the same thing, Jeff county is raising the tax value of most homes, not sure if it's exclusive to Nederland.  Anyway, just trying to stick to the facts.

[Guest Brubaker]

Nederland is pretty much tapped out on land, so my guess would be property values will hold or go up if we have a school system that people seek out as people move in and out of the area.  I honestly don't think there's anyway for home values to drop 25% or more needed to cause some of the issues CARE is raising.  We're in the greatest econonic recession since the 1930's and my home value went up 20%.  In my opinion, IF we pass the bond, we assure ourselves of the long term value of our homes.  Pass it not and you could be right Smitty, we'll be headin down the crapper.