It's unfortunate that the discussion about Jeffco Public Schools' tax increase proposals, measures 3A and 3B, has been clouded by the controversy over the citizen "free speech" comments in the Tabor Notice mailing . However, bottom line, a vote for both 3A and 3B increases the total school mill levy to 52.4 mills, or $1,042 per year in school property taxes for a home valued at $250,000. A vote against both decreases the total school mill levy to 36.75 mills, a difference of $311 per year in school property taxes for a home valued at $250,000. After some research, my conclusion is the taxpayers deserve a break, and the district's issues are not about not having enough money.

Why I'm voting No on 3A.

This is the third permanent property tax increase requested in the last nine years, while enrollment has declined every year during this period and is projected to continue to do so. Raising taxes every four years to compensate for lost revenue from decreased enrollment is a ridiculous financial plan. I'm voting No to send a mandate to the Board of Education - I want excellent education for all Jeffco children, and what's needed is an overhaul.

We need a new vision, aligning resources with excellence. What we're currently getting from our school system is:

1) 1 of 4 Jeffco students does not graduate,

2) 20% of Jeffco schools are rated below statewide average on State Accountability Reports, and

3) the number of high performing schools (in state accreditation) has dropped by 30% (109 in 2006 to 67 in 2007).

Contrast those statistics with the Cherry Creek School District, which spends about the same amount as we do per student, and has a similar socio-economic makeup (25% of Jeffco students are from minority groups, 24% are eligible for lunch subsidy--for Cherry Creek, 35% of student are from minority groups, 20% are eligible for lunch subsidy). I don't claim Cherry Creek is the pinnacle of achievement, or the best model for reform, but for similar public investments, they reported an 89% graduation rate in their 2006 annual report, they have NO schools below statewide average, and 85% of their students plan to go to college.

Even though Jeffco enrollment has declined for 8 straight years, and is projected to continue a steady decline, expenses continue to increase, most notably in salaries and benefits which increased almost $24 million over the last year, more than the projected budget deficit of approximately $15 million this year. There are 12,122 staff positions (from the 2007 annual report) for 80,534 full time equivalent students - that's one staff position for every 6.6 students! Troublingly, only 39% of all Jeffco staff positions are teachers! (4,751 teachers, 1 teacher per 17 full time equivalent students). By comparison, Cherry Creek School District allocates 65% of staff positions to teachers (based on full time equivalents). Quality education can be delivered by motivated teachers - not by a bloated Jeffco bureaucracy with over 60% non-teaching staff.

The district's financial sky is not falling, either; district Jeffco does NOT have to make drastic cuts in current services while it's being overhauled. The projected $15 million deficit for this year is merely 2.3% of the district's $655 million operating budget, and there are numerous inefficiencies that can be eliminated.Another way to meetthis year'sneedswhile restructuring -- the proposed budget includes a $20 million annual transfer to the capital fund, ON TOP of the hundreds of millions raised through bonds. That is a discretionary transfer. Stop it. Additionally, there's a current $172 million operating fund reserve (according to the district's annual budget) to tide things over while a long term plan to streamline Jeffco's administrative overhead is developed and implemented.

In sum, I'm voting No on 3A because our children deserve better. Eliminate the administrative overhead, teach the kids, and deliver the educational reform and student performance you promised at the last bond request before soliciting continuously higher taxes.

Why I'm voting No on 3B

The district's capital requests are not credible. The district will have spent almost $1 billion dollars on capital expenditures from 1999 to 2010 (This one billion dollars does NOT INCLUDE this new $350 million request in 3B, nor annual operating expenses during this period). Despite this enormous investment by the taxpayers, Jeffco claims to have still more "critical needs?"

Further, the Denver Post, 9/27/08, reported Dr. Stevenson said citizens identified $7 billion in capital needs in 2002, and that Jeffco is dutifully making progress toward those. However, the math doesn't add up.

Based on Jeffco reports, taxpayers spent approximately $25,000 per student to build the brand new Golden High School. If we multiply that figure by Jeffco's total enrollment of 80,000 students, it would appear we could build entirely new facilities for the entire district for $2 billion. So how can Jeffco spend half this amount during the last decade, have replaced only a small portion of the existing buildings, and yet claim to have up to $6 billion of remaining unmet needs?!

Worst of all, Jeffco's decision-making is done without any meaningful public or third party input or oversight. As an example, would you knowingly vote to spend $2.5 million to demolish and rebuild a high school serving 60 students in the heart of Jeffco? Well, that new facility was included in the 2005 capital budget, but because other projects were over-budget, it's been "rolled forward" to this new capital budget (Longview High School on the Warren Tech Campus). Voters deserve more detailed input on funding priorities, and deserve to have 3 rd party professionals oversee these enormous investments to assure prudent decisions are made.

To sum up, instead of the property tax relief we're scheduled to get, the district wants us to provide them another blank check. Jeffco has timed this request so that the bond tax burden doesn't drop, but is instead renewed. There is no capital needs crisis- we've already given them about a billion dollars for improvements, and they have $72 million in capital reserves stashed away for true critical needs. Until we, the taxpayers, have a real voice in what's being spent, and there's real transparency in how it's being spent, I'm not voting for any new bond proposals.