Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 79°F ~ Low: 57°F Tuesday, May 22, 2012 |
|
Property owner questions school district's process for selecting site for proposed new schoolPosted Friday, October 30, 2009, at 12:32 PM
From Ken Gieringer
Marshall When the school district requested sites for consideration, I called and spoke to Dr. Noah. I explained that representing ownership of land which has three-quarters of a mile of frontage on on Lincoln Street, the size and number of possible sites was endless, and that when the board (or whoever was to start their evaluation) would contact me, I would provide pricing of sites. That was the only contact that I, as the agent for the Gieringer property, have had with the district. I learned Mr. Crawford stated in his presentation to the district's teachers that the Gieringer property was never priced. This is a true statement, only because I was never given the opportunity to present any specific sites and prices. Mr. Crawford stated that information given to him said that the properties were compared on a cost per acre engineering study. Without any procing information, someone elected, by their actions, to eliminate the Gieringer property from any consideration. Speaking of costs, did anyone look for liens on the properties? A portion of the property you selected is in a NID that requires payment of $18,760 in the next 20 years. The portion of property outside the city limits are to be assessed an additional $16,318. It appears that this additional assessment of over $35,000 has been omitted from any presentation. Your administrative staff has been aware of these "extra" costs for over two months, yet this 15 percent in additional land acquisition was omitted from data given to Mr. Crawford for his presentations to the public. Years ago the neighborhood school system was taken away from the parents. A number of parents and voters have told you they want it back. I agree with them. A plan can be developed to vacate one school at a time, raze it and construct a modern structure in its place. You have the sites. You say the old schools are in need of replacement. Let's not invest more money in structures that have outlived their usefulness as you have stated. I believe the patrons of the school district would be willing to put up with the longer construction phase and possibly more expense, if the end result was a return to neighborhood schools. Editor's note: This letter was published in The Marshall Democrat-News Friday, Oct. 30. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
New School?  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to Residents of Marshall School District - Login As the April 6 election approaches, voters in the Marshall Public School District will have much to say about the bond issue on the ballot and the proposed new elementary school the district will build if the issue is approved.
Anyone who is interested in the issue can contribute an entry to this blog. However, only signed commentary will be posted as blog entries, but any MDN website user can post comments on the entries, just like on any other blog.
We recommend community members use the Letter to the Editor form to submit their views on the issue. Commentary posted in this blog will also be published in the newspaper. We hope to see a wide range of views, with reasons given for positions taken, questions asked and concerns respectfully expressed.
Anyone wishing to read articles about the bond issue and facility problems it is intended to address may wish to visit www.marshallnews.com/topic/mpsdbond09.
Hot topics Writer supports kids but opposes tax increase to build new school(20 ~ 10:20 AM, Apr 4)
Old school buildings no longer fit educational needs
Property owner questions school district's process for selecting site for proposed new school
New school should be added to list of Marshall's recent additions
New school proposal appears well-researched
|
Email link
Read comments (18)
Blog archive
Mr Gieringer,
The district has been aware of the sewer cost since August and it is calculated into the project cost. All of the proposed cites would have some sort of infrastructure costs (water, sewer, gas, etc...).
To simply say "call me if you are interested", is not how it works. As a public entity, the school board is not allowed to do that, they must follow bidding procedures as established by state law.
Well, isn't Mr. Gieringer's letter interesting.
My, my. And we, the citizens, were told at some point that the Gieringers weren't interested in selling their land. I will have to rack this old woman's brain of mine to remember who I heard that from, and where I was when I heard it. It's been a couple of months now.
Appears to me that some folks in higher up places wanted a specific site and, by golly, have done things behind our backs to make that happen.
Five property owners submitted offers for the school board to consider.
Citizens for the School Bond,
I'm not sure you are fully informed. At one time the school board did put out a call for property owners to contact them if they have land for sale.
I remembered that and did my research. Here you go. Read the last sentence.
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/113233...
AND -----
Just this past summer Mr. Noah stated that the Gieringer property was still available. Why did the school district not contact the Gieringer family for pricing information?
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/154974...
Tori,
Yes, a call for bids was put out for any interested parties. However, the school board is not permitted to make individual calls to solicit the bids.
It is the responsibility of interested parties to submit the bid.
Nothing was done behind anyone's back. The proceeding were completed according to state law.
I'm not stupid, Mr/Mrs/Ms Citizens for the School Bond. I understand the process necessary to buy property.
I asked why didn't the school DISTRICT contact the Gieringers, not the school board, as you just stated.
Again, apologies that the clarification was taken as an insult. It was not intended that way.
Neither the school district nor the board can contact individuals to solicit bids.
Why can you not understand what I am asking?
I asked why the district didn't CONTACT the Gieringers (not solicit a bid) after Mr. Gieringer contacted them in regard to his land being available. Wouldn't it be the polite thing to do to return that phone call?
Let's have some answers, please, as to which members of the school board and/or district decided not to pursue the Gieringer property without having any pricing information. And how did they know the Banks property would be less per acre if they had not spoken with the Gieringers?
These are legitimate questions which deserve answers. Until then, how can you expect the voters to believe anything we are being told?
Tori,
The method for submitting bids for selling the property is not to call the school board members or the school administration office and tell them to "call you when they want a bid." Mr. Gieringer had to follow the same procedure as all the other property owners.
To do otherwise could be construed as actions that are against the law.
It's that simple.
Are you a robot? You just keep repeating the same thing. It's apparent you don't understand what I am asking. I have asked the same question three times now and I have not received an answer. You're stuck on the automated submit a bid response.
I'll find another source to answer my questions to my own peace of mind. Until then, I urge others to vote no. You have failed in your obligation as a voice of your committee.
It appears that the frustration you feel is that you don't see a conflict of interest if a representative of the school district called Mr. Gieringer to discuss (read, solicit) a bid for selling his property.
Such action can be construed as a inappropriate action when it comes to the laws regarding bid solicitation.
And lest anyone think I take my encouragement for the no vote lightly, let me say that we have ten grandchildren in the Marshall district, a son-in-law and daughter-in-law who teach in the district and several nieces and nephews who are district staff. And we pay both county and city of Marshall property taxes.
You have given me much thought that there's a fox in the henhouse and he's been there for some time.
Tori,
Let's take a look at what you might spend to take those ten grandchildren, your son-in-law and daughter-in-law to the movies once a month.
The tickets will cost you $55.00 if all the grandchildren are under age twelve. The adults will cost an additional $16.00. That's $71.00 and that's just to walk in the door. Food is significantly more.
The school bond tax will cost you $5.07 per month if your property is worth $100,000. That's at the 80 cents rate so the cost may be even lower than that.
That is a great deal for your grandchildren -- one that has the potential to effect the quality of their education on a daily basis.
A correction: the $5.07 per month is if your property is worth $40,000.00. If your property is worth $100,000.00, your cost would be $12.67. Again, that's at the 80 cent rate so it may be less than that per month.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Gieringer had participated in at least one other of the bond issues by pricing a portion of his land. Even though his land was not selected that time either, he should be familiar with the process involved. Also, I would think in his job with the Municipal Utilities, he should understand some protocol should be followed. I'm a little confused about Tori citing a December 2005 article asking for potential building sites. That was almost four years ago. In reference to the June 23, 2009 article, Tori states,"How did they know the Banks property would be less per acre if they had not spoken with the Gieringers?" Did the Gieringers expect to bid in a phone conversation? If he were truly interested in selling his land, he should have decided how he was going to offer it and submit a written proposal accordingly. If he didn't get a call, he should have gone to central office early on and handed them a written proposal. The Banks site was announced as the site in the August 18,2009 issue of the DNC. If I had land, (which I don't) and I had been interested in selling it, I would have found time sometime that summer to inquire about why I didn't get a call. I wouldn't have waited until just before the election to insist I had been slighted. Sorry, no sympathy from me. It doesn't sound like a fox in the henhouse, but more like sour grapes.
Hey oneofmany,
I think it may be more than just sour grapes. Think of the taxes on all that land. I think the owner(s) is just trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works to save the tax money he will owe when the bond passes. He obviously found one sympathizer. I wonder if that person might have a vested interest in that property.
That property in question is much more valuable if it were developed into a housing area. I wonder just how interested they are in selling to the district to put a school on the property. Will they sell it for 9,000 dollars an acre? If so, contact a realtor and they will get their money rapidly.
Food for thought.
TODAY'S THE DAY! VOTE YES FOR THE KIDS.