[Masthead] Fog ~ 45°F  
High: 68°F ~ Low: 50°F
Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Marshall school bond issue: Committee officials speak to teachers as school bond campaign ramps up

Friday, October 9, 2009

(Photo)
Pictured is most recent design and artist's rendering of the proposed new elementary school. Changes have been made based on public input during open meetings in recent weeks, according to bond campaign officials, including the addition of a second driveway to the school, bleachers in the gym and lockers for students.
(Contributed image)
After spending the month of September holding public meetings and gathering to plan, the Marshall school bond committee has gotten its campaign to support the building bond issue on the November ballot in full swing.

Committee Co-Chairman Wayne Crawford and Campaign Subcommittee Chairman Cherri Williams addressed district faculty and staff in an after-school meeting Wednesday, Oct. 7, at Marshall High School.

The Marshall Board of Education is asking voters in the district to approve a $20.3 million bond issue to build a new one-story elementary school that will house grades three through five.

(Photo)
Cherri Williams, chairman of the campaign subcommittee for Citizens for the School Bond, talks to teachers and staff Wednesday, Oct. 7, about plans to distribute fliers door-to-door and put up yard signs in coming weeks. The $20.3 million school bond issue will be on the election ballot Nov. 3.
(Eric Crump/Democrat-News)
Crawford, who has already spoken to several local organizations, said he has not heard much opposition to the issue so far, but he has heard misconceptions about the plan still making the rounds, so he reviewed the basics of the building design and location and the tax situation that makes the bond issue necessary.

Regarding the timing of the issue, Crawford noted that financial advisors to the district and to Missouri Valley College, where he serves on the Board of Trustees, have described the current situation as "a perfect storm" for institutions, a convergence of financial circumstances and government economic stimulus programs have made borrowing extraordinarily cheap.

"They say bonding rates are the lowest they've ever been in history, as low as 2 percent," Crawford said. "This is one of those rare times where if you're going to bond, you better bond."

He said that although the ballot includes notice of an 80-cent tax debt service levy, the amount could be lower, depending on how much government stimulus money is available.

Crawford showed a slide with levy and debt service levy rates in area school districts. Marshall's operating levy is lower than any of the schools in the comparison at $3.06 per $100 assessed value, he said.

And comparing districts of similar size -- Boonville, Chillicothe, Lexington, Santa Fe and Sedalia -- Marshall is the only one that does not currently have a debt service levy.

Crawford addressed misconceptions about the location chosen by the school board, a 25-acre tract located on the east side of Business 65 just south of the intersection with Drake Road.

Crawford noted that five properties were put forward by owners or their representatives. Two properties that were considered during previous bond issues were not made available by owners, he said.

Of the properties the board was able to consider, the size ranged from 25 acres to more than 50 acres, and asking prices from $9,000 to $25,000 per acre. The board chose the smallest, least expensive site.

Board members have noted in previous meetings that the property they chose has the largest useable area of any they had to choose from.

Crawford said that while the school board has pledged to close one existing elementary school building if the bond issue passes, it has not yet determined which building will be closed. Responding to neighbors' concerns, he said the board has promised to dispose of the building properly.

"We will not abandon the school and leave it blighted," Crawford said. "It will be sold to someone who has a legitimate use for it, or it will be torn down."

Crawford noted that the school board had paid attention to feedback from the community and had asked architects to make several changes to the plan as a result.

The board shifted from an 800-student, four-grade school to the current 600-student, three grade school. The smaller building has a smaller price tag, which allowed the design to include features the community expressed desire for, including a second driveway to help relieve the potential for traffic congestion, bleachers for the gym so the facility can possibly be used for a wider range of events, lockers for student use and an energy-efficient ground-source heat pump system.

Crawford also responded to several questions from members of the audience.

One man asked whether the board had done a feasibility study of buying homes in a blighted area and building the school in town.

Crawford said he didn't think that option had gotten serious consideration because the cost of offering property owners fair market value and the cost of demolition would have made it impractical.

Another audience member noted that closing only one existing building might hurt the campaign.

"If you build for three grades and you don't close three buildings, you're increasing yearly costs and that's what'll keep you from passing this bond issue," he said.

Crawford acknowledged that annual costs might increase some, but he noted that the new building would be much more efficient than the old ones and it will be necessary to keep three buildings in order to ease overcrowding.

The Bueker Middle School annex and the temporary trailers located at each elementary school to house overflow from the buildings will be eliminated.

Crawford said the BMS annex had been there for at least 30 years, and several members of the audience said it had been there for 40. Trailers, intended to be stopgap measures, have been at elementary schools for 20 or more years, he said.

"The only people who can be blamed is us, because we didn't pass those bonds in earlier years and we're paying the price for it now," he said. "If you don't pass it now, you only exacerbate the problem" of paying high maintenance costs.

Crawford concluded by reminding teachers and staff how important they are to the campaign.

"If you people in this room do not believe in this, we will fail," he said.

Williams then told the group about coming opportunities to help.

She said yard signs and fliers have been made, and plans are being made for distributing materials and going door-to-door Saturdays in coming weeks.

Contact Eric Crump at marshalleditor@socket.net

Related stories:
www.marshallnews.com/topic/mpsdbond09


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshallnews.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

eric and or anyone that knows...can you tell me where i can come up with one of those "vote yes for kids" signs, for my yard? i see them everywhere just dont know where to get one. thanks

-- Posted by thisguy on Mon, Oct 19, 2009, at 12:50 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
I believe Cherri Williams is in charge of the signs. I'm not sure the best way to contact her. She teachers at MHS.

Citizens for...

If the school board and city are working together to ensure no problems with transportation, I would suggest they publicize those efforts and what plans are in place to deal with such an increase in transportation in that area.

There are many who travel on that stretch of road, in and out of town throughout the day, especially at the time of day when busses, cars and children would need to go to and from school.

-- Posted by s-ciaovostro on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 8:11 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Re: buses, Superintendent Craig Noah says: "We expect the fleet to remain the same size or perhaps increase slightly. We also anticipate less 'shuttling' of students due to less attendance centers."

In addition, all business owners will have an increase in property taxes also...right? (I asked in the other story about the average increase on commercial property taxes.)Thus raising the already high cost of living in this economy.

So every business owner, this includes landlords, will have to raise prices to cover this additional cost. So basically the average person will in essence be double paying, not just the estimated $11+/- a month. So not only does my taxes go up, but so does the price of everything including necessities such as the food I put on my table for the children to eat.

Oh one more thing, will the school district need to buy more buses to transport the additional children?

-- Posted by Scarpetta on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 5:11 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Superintendent Craig Noah has said he thinks the new location will help the district streamline its bus routes, making them more efficient. He has not specifically addressed the number of buses needed (I'll ask) but he has said he doesn't think the new location would increase busing needs very much.

There may not be a need for kids to ride their bikes or walk; many will still do just that. Either the kids want to OR their parents don't want them on a bus. So are they supposed to walk down the middle of 65 Highway? Although I guess they could walk in the yards, but that won't last long till people complain. Additional busing...smashing good idea I smell more cost.

Let me see oh yes the intersection of O'Dell and Morrow floods if it rains too hard. Will that be addressed or will that also wait till it is too late?

Oh boy then we have the 'nice new pretty school will look so great and bring people and business to this town' theory. If that isn't the biggest bunch of crap I have heard to date. Sure the school will look nice...THEN they get into town and you have the awesome run down hotel and the vacant run down old IGA building just down the road. So SURE it looks good on the outside but the further you go...yep still crap.

So in a nut shell: higher taxes...possible more overhead (actually likely)...bad location...bad timing...but a nice new shiny school to give new people coming into this town false hope.

Yeah...I don't think so.

*For the record I do think we need a new school, we just need a better plan of action.

-- Posted by Scarpetta on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 3:44 PM

There will not be a need for the children to ride their bikes or walk. Busses will be provided as transportation.

The school board is working with the City to insure that there will be no issues regarding transportation to and from the schools.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 1:31 PM

s-ciaovostro - I travel that road daily, and have yet to see it under water. They reworked the ditches and drainage system a few years back, and like I said, haven't seen it under water at all. I think they just haven't taken the sign down.....

-- Posted by outsidelookin'in on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 1:14 PM

We have a story out today (Oct. 13) about Marshall Plaza:

http://www.marshallnews.com/story/157826...

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 11:07 AM

Citizens for...

Could you answer any of my transportation concerns? I know Mr. Crump answered the driveway question, but what about the others?

In addition to those, there is a sign coming into town that reads the road is impassable during high water. How will school traffic work around that issue?

Still wondering.

-- Posted by s-ciaovostro on Tue, Oct 13, 2009, at 9:56 AM

themonsterinme,

As stated earlier, the school made a call for proposals for anyone interested in selling their land for the the new building. The Plaza property was never on the table.

The board explored the possibility of obtaining the property that the Plaza is located on during a previous attempt to get a school bond passed. At that time, the property wasn't for sale but a representative of the owners indicated that they might consider selling a SMALL PORTION of the property (not anywhere near what would be required for a school building) for an exorbitant price.

The work towards getting a new school building has been ongoing for the past decade. The community has been involved in this process since the very beginning. Surveys, public meetings, invitation for input have all been used to garner the community's desires for a new school. It is not something the school administration and board are entering into lightly or without significant community involvement.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 7:11 PM

Maybe we could buy the old plaza, it is an eye sore, but the 18 million we need for the school will go mostly towards buying that property provding that we could even find the many people that own it. We than could just pitch tents in the old plaza and call it a school because we wouldnt have any money left to build. The board did right by chosing the site they want to build on. Everyone else wants to jack the price up so much when you mention wanting to buy the land. Wow only if people werent so **** greedy. we could have had new schools now. I know times are tuff but its not going to get any better, we can wait year after year, while the price goes up or we can tightin our belts and do whats right, That is TO BUILD THE KIDS THE SCHOOL THEY NEED, NOT WANT!

-- Posted by mofireman on Mon, Oct 12, 2009, at 2:19 PM

OK, I personally think the idea of a school at the chosen location is a bad idea(my opinion)! I'm not saying a new school is a bad idea, just the location. I personally feel the Plaza is the best location for a new school, it's an eye sore and not very well maintained, again in my opinion ! I personally feel that you cannot justify the extra bussing and inconvienence that the location will be on the community, again my opinion ! I cannot believe that all involved on The Citizens for the School Bond can feel that it will not be an inconvienence for the community. It's as if the "Citizens" want this school so bad they don't have a care where it is! You say you want a better school for the kids but the way this has been crammed down our throats it is as if you just want it for yourself.

Now if this goes thru, and we get the bonds all paid and done with will this tax go away , or will we continue with the tax to operate the school as we have done with the tax for the Saline County Justice Facility? The tax was to build the facility,not to run it !! I have a feeling that once we start on this road to a newer and better school system, it will never end. I personally feel that we are taxed to death in this country and am not so eager to add another one just to build a school that we need (and we do need) any place they can get it ! Simply put, I don't like the location and will n ot support it for that reason !

-- Posted by themonsterinme on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 11:35 PM

Here is what I absolutely love about my hometown. You can't, in a 200 mile radius, find a more two faced place to live. Read some of these posts, "is this really for the kids?", "just fix up what we have". Kidding, really? No?

Repairs or remodels to exisiting buildings that have to meet new code for schools? After you go thru all four k-4 buildings I would estimate 3.5 to 4 million per school, and there is the 20 for the land and new school.

Anyone ever hear anyone in this town complain because we have no where else to eat but mc'ds and taco bell? Well we got burger king and killed it for about six months, dead. We now have an Arby's, busy busy, well not so much anymore. The fact of the matter is we live in this town, but we go to Sedalia or Boonville or Independence for entertainment. "there is nohing to do here!" Well thats because if there was it would scare the crap out of most people and they would just find some dandy excuse to not use it. I know this is off subject but really it isn't. We need a new school building, the kids need better surroundings and fearing the change that would come to our quaint little town is really a **** poor excuse for not supporting it. Remodels stink, you never know what your going to run into until your already into it, they take tim, more than you can calculate and they are costly. You can put lipstick on a pig. I'm sure most of you get my drift. The only thing you need to think about is your car if you say you can't be swayed. How many times would you rebuild the motor and replace the windshield before you just decided a new car would get you to your destination so much easier? Noone can answer that question with a negative answer. But then again, thats your vehcle, thats how you make your living. Well friend i say this...these kids are the future, the school they are in is the car and the teachers are the drivers, lets give them the vehicle they need to accomplish their goals.

-- Posted by thisguy on Sun, Oct 11, 2009, at 8:48 PM

aikman8,

I'm not the person you're addressing, but I've been at nearly all the school board and bond committee meetings about the issue, so I think I can answer some of your questions.

--"is there room for expansion at this school"

Not on the current site, but there is an adjacent site to the south that would accommodate another similar-sized school. School board members have been informed by the owner that the land might be available in the future, should the district be interested in it. And the board does plan to pursue a new K-2 school as soon as the new bond is paid down enough. The board's stated goal is to replace the oldest schools as soon as possible.

--"is there going to be a seperate bus driveway at this proposed school?"

The plan calls for separation of bus and car traffic near the building, but originally all traffic would have entered school grounds through one driveway and later followed different routes around the building. After hearing public concern about traffic congestion the district asked the architect to add a second driveway near the south property line. I have not heard whether cars and buses will be assigned to different driveways.

--"were you not aggressive and went to look for potential properties?"

The school board issued a public invitation to any property owners willing to offer their land for sale. Five did.

--"$25 an acre?"

That was an apparent typo in one comment. "52 acres for $25.082 per acre" should have read "52 acres for $25,082 per acre" but that property was not selected by the board. The asking price for the selected property is about $9,000 per acre for 25 acres.

For more information:

www.marshallnews.com/topic/mpsdbond09/

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 8:59 PM

Concerned about transportation:

Who is responsible for paving new roads for this project?

Who has to pay for the cost of the new roads?

Will there be new lanes?

Will there be turning lanes from both directions (north and south)?

Will there now be traffic signals on that part of Business 65?

How will those children who walk or ride their bikes to school get to the new building?

Just wondering about these answers...

-- Posted by s-ciaovostro on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 8:50 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
Driveways from Business 65 to the school are part of the cost of the project, financed by the bond. The city is responsible for maintenance and improvements to Business 65, as I understand it. I'm not aware of any plan to add turn lanes or traffic lights, but I'll check with the city about that.

ok, citizens for the school bond, answer this, whoever you are (i haven't been on here for awhile, have you acknowledged who you are, by the way?)... $25 an acre? really? yes, that's a no-brainer, but here's my question - is there room for expansion at this school, has that been thought out, is it possible to buy more land at such a cheap price that connects to this acreage? are there options to buy surrounding land in future years? because obviously just catering to a few grades and not really addressing your original argument that the old schools are bad and shouldn't be used, which they will still be, you're going to have to expand and bring in these other grades in a few years. is there room at this proposed new school site to do this? that would be the simplest way to do things instead of building other campuses. i have asked this several times but never see an answer. we don't necessarily have to expand there, but has all this been considered and communicated with the public?

something else i haven't seen on here ... is there going to be a seperate bus driveway at this proposed school? obviously if you build a new school at what now is beyond the edge of town, you're going to be bussing in a lot more kids because simply a lot more will qualify distance-wise to be eligible to ride a bus. that sounds like a lot of congestion to me. has this been planned for?

i'm not trying to rag on you guys, i think a new school is very much needed, but there ARE legitimate questions that need to be asked, and it appears to me that this is a rush-rush obama-like job - this appears to only have been brought up over the summer and rushed to the ballot without a very good explanation of things - you have tried, yes, and i applaud you for that, but this is something that needs to be given more time for planning and explanation.

do you really think that after THREE failed attempts at this in the last nine years that all of a sudden you could rush it through again in a few short months? that screams of bad leadership from a new school administration out of touch with things.

another concern is that you have mentioned several times that "those were the only properties offered to build a school on" ... paraphrasing there ... were you not aggressive and went to look for potential properties? you seem to be putting this off onto others as an excuse of that's all that was offered. you very well may have researched this well and looked for properties, but that hasn't been shown to us - a sign of a rush-rush job. don't just sit back and wait for offers, why didn't you actively pursue and look for other land options instead of sitting back and accepting offers? i may be off-base on this, but it hasn't been articulated well by your side.

$25 an acre? really? that is indeed a great deal for the school district, but demo-news, that sure sounds like a great story there, to tell us who the great citizen(s) are who offered that land out there at such a give-away price. located next to a so-called country club, in an area of future growth for this town ... who and WHY would someone do this? do they own a bunch of other land around there waiting to be developed, will they financially benefit greatly from basically giving away 25 acres? i'd like to know, and i think those are legitimate questions instead of being poo-pooed away by naysayers on here who try to throw out the "do it for the kids and if you don't you're a bad person" card. i'm all for the kids, but just want it done the right way, not a rush-rush job trying to wham it through like what's going on with "amateur hour at the white house" right now.

totally agree that we need new schools and this attracts new businesses and people, but once again, i don't like the # of grades this will cover, don't particularly like the location and having kids on the highway on buses, and in this economic environment with a rookie president and clown congress dying to raise our taxes and make us pay ... you don't have exactly the best environment to get this through. that was the very first thing i thought when i saw you were going to try to push this proposed new school through again - not the right time! even with the very low bond rates.

i'm all for new schools, but right now, i'm voting NO, unless you do a better job explaining things and showing us why we should vote yes. a few yard signs and having the demo-news as your voice doesn't convince me.

by the way ... red dog ... would love to hear more of your old stories, that was good reading, from stuff back in your day. i never knew that about the middle school field, please don't think your stories are boring - that was the most interesting stuff i've read on here in quite awhile. please feel free to post more memories.

-- Posted by aikman8 on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 8:31 PM

peopleamazeme:

The link to the current three-year plan for the Marshall Schools shows that the third objective is as follows:

3. The Marshall Public School District will provide age-appropriate facilities which enhance the learning process for children.

a. The District will continue to provide clean, safe, orderly and accessible facilities.

b. The District will communicate the need for 21st century facilities to all staff and district patrons.

c. The District will research and develop plans to construct new facilities as student needs arise which promote articulation and collaboration for multiple levels.

The current plan does just what you have asked for: confirmed the need for up-to-date, quality building for the best education for our children.

As for the remaining buildings, the school administration has indicated a willingness to discuss any ideas about how to configure them. If you want them to all be K-2, let them know that when they call meetings for the purpose of gathering public input.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 4:29 PM

People, please, GET A GRIP!!! This is not about us, this is not about politics, or pettiness or the rich vs. the poor in this town. And it's sure not about money; our personal costs will be minimal.

This is about our KIDS, the future of this town. My kids are well out of elementary school, but I was embarrassed when they were there; it was a shame to see the environment they were expected to learn and grow in.

I personally don't care where the new school is at (and no, I don't live in that area; and no, I am not one of the upper-class of Marshall). I just want something for our community, and our kids, to be proud of. And something that will help the economy of this town. No business, or family for that matter, is going to look at our current schools and choose to move here.

I repeat...GET A GRIP PEOPLE!!! It's not about you for a change

-- Posted by k_m on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 2:17 PM

Shouldn't we have updated the CSIP and then flowed that into configuring our school buildings to meet those goals?

I think the committee would have better luck discussing their research with the public than saying everyone else is doing it. (Just a thought.) Also, has this research included information on the effects of having students transition between buildings or the best grade spans for student achievement?

I probably just missed this but if we build a 3-5 building will we make k-2 buildings in the three elementary buildings that are kept?

Interesting website:

Educational Trends Shaping School Planning and Design: 2007.

http://www.ncef.org/pubs/saneschools.pdf

-- Posted by peopleamazeme on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 1:09 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
In response to comments by citizens during public bond committee meetings, the school board has directed Superintendent Craig Noah to initiate a study into the feasibility of returning to multiple grades in the three remaining older buildings. The new school, if approved, would be a multigrade school in any case. And yes, the remaining buildings will house K-2 grades.

WonderJim:

It sounds like you're interested in finding out the impact of school facilities on student learning. Here's some research I found with a few simple searches. All of the studies I was able to find showed that inadequate facilities can significantly effect student achievement.

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/schoolhouse/C/stor...

http://www.21csf.org/csf-home/publicatio...

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/documents...

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/eri...

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/...

http://www.sagusinternational.com/downlo...

http://www.designcommunity.com/discussio...

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/eri...

There's plenty more out there if you want to look for additional studies.

-- Posted by fvsol on Sat, Oct 10, 2009, at 12:38 AM

peopleamazeme:

The research you desire has been going on since 2000 when the first bond was proposed. The architects on this particular project specialize in school buildings. They have done the research necessary to come up with the best proposal for the situation. Additionally, a group of district teachers were consulted and had input on the design of the building.

The school district does have a vision, mission, and goals clearly defined in their five-year plan. This plan is reviewed and updated every five yaers. That's what the CSIP Committee is doing now.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:44 PM

One way that a new building enhances the children's education is that quality teachers want to teach in quality settings. The teachers who are doing wonderful work in settings with mold in the walls are to be commended. But it is important to note that many teachers leave the area for better settings than what our schools have to offer.

If your house was falling around your ears, no one would find it strange that you want the situation to improve. Our children spend 8 hours a day in buildings that were built at the same time that some of our great-grandparents were raising their families.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:40 PM

Has anyone researched the configuration of buildings that best serves student learning or the effect on our youngest students making a building transition every year?

I believe we should make decisions by researching the topic not because everyone else is doing it.

Also, shouldn't the CSIP committee have developed the district's mission,vision, and goals first? It seems logical to me to have these in place before deciding to build a building.

-- Posted by peopleamazeme on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 8:10 PM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
The CSIP process is a periodic one, so committees past have developed district goals. Here's the most recent CSIP report:

http://www.marshallschools.com/dist/csip...

"Red Dog" you are sooooooooooooo right. I remember those days also. I think we might know each other.

-- Posted by waterman7622 on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 7:57 PM

A quality education (like the one we are striving towards in Marshall) would have taken care of your punctuation errors, Selmac.

-- Posted by hat full of sky on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 11:13 AM

Also, if anyone is forming an opposition group to campaign against the bond issue, please let me know (marshalleditor@socket.net or 660-886-2233) so we can provide coverage.

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:55 AM

So far, we've received 5 letters to the editor on the subject of the bond issue and proposed new school, 3 pro and 2 con.

http://www.marshallnews.com/blogs/1464/

We would welcome more thoughtful statements on the issue from a variety of perspectives and positions.

http://www.marshallnews.com/forms/Letter...

-- Posted by Eric Crump on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:50 AM

Were going to vote it down again and maybe this time it will sink into your head the answer is NO!

-- Posted by Selmac8 on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:36 AM

Marshall needs this new school badly. Yes it would be great to have all new schools, but they have to start somewhere and this is a great time to do it. They have been trying for several years with no success so now is the time to take the first step forward. For you with all the great negative ideas, have you stepped up to the plate to help them formulate any other ideas or is all you do is sit and post negative comments!! Try and be supportive of the kids and the community!

-- Posted by interesting1 on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 9:15 AM

SO WHEN THIS NEW SCHOOL GETS BUILT ARE THE SO CALLED MAINTENENCE PEOPLE GOING TO DO THE SAME JOB TO IT AS THEY DO TO THE ONES WE HAVE? I DON'T EVEN THINK THE YARDS ARE MOWED BY THE SCHOOL. I BELIEVE THEY ARE HIRED OUT TO BE DONE. IT IS A SHAME TO LET THE OLD BUILDINGS GO TO WASTE.

-- Posted by 1OFTHEGALS on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 8:08 AM

wtf -- It would be wonderful to build a K-5 campus but it's no longer a possibility. The bond that failed in 2000 would have provided that. A three grade school is what is possible with the amount the school can borrow. Lottery money is not designated for building schools -- it's for operating expenses, not capital improvements.

aikman and superglue -- The schools are for the kids. Our community benefits when children achieve quality education settings.

As for the proposed location, the invitation was sent out for anyone who wanted to offer land for sale. Here is what was offered:

Hwy 65 & Business 65 exit

52 acres for $25.082 per acre

West Vest

31.4 acres for $11,115.00 per acre

Business 65

52 acres for $15,000.00 per acre

65 By-pass

30 acres for $23,000.00 per acre

Banks property

25 acres for $9,000.00 per acre

That's all that was offered. Economically, you can see that $25 per acre was a better choice than $23,000 per acre.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 7:52 AM

I am going to bore you now with some things I remember from back in the day.

The football field at Bueker has what seems like miles of drainage tile under it. It was supposed to be developed (lights and such) to the point it would no longer be necessary to rent Gregg-Mitchell field from the college. Obviously, the School Board then changed direction. The track was built with a 220 straightaway in mind. It never got finished. The 120 low hurdles were run on the straightaway. If you could have seen "Tack" Thompson run then, you would have seen perfect form.

The football coach then was Clell Wade. He was a classy guy. Ray Mach was the next coach, then Cecil Naylor took over. When Cecil got married, I remember the assistant coaches somehow restrained him with a gunnysack over his head and threw him in the lower park lake. At least that is how I remember the story.

Juicy Sprigg ran rampant on the MVC football field. Don Kalthoff was the most graceful athlete ever. Waite Smith was a master at setting the pick on the basketball court. Doug Swinger was a determined basketball player, but Benny was better. Don Abney was a celebrated athlete after pulling off an electrifying game winning touchdown against Slater. Drum Majorettes wore what looked like cowboy boots. Girls played half court basketball. Boys basketball was played on the Bueker stage. Woody Gaba had some fantastic basketball teams.

Gotta go. Please don't classify me as one of those strange people.

-- Posted by red dog on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 6:38 AM

I have been around this town for quite a while. I saw the Benton School north addition go up. I saw the gym and new classrooms go up at what is now Bueker. I remember "Meatball" climbing the airport light tower and falling off. He survived.

I say all that to lay support for my observations. There were some strange people around town then. As much as things change, they stay the same. There are still strange people in this town. Only the names and faces have changed.

The Democrat News has stirred up some of these strange people, giving them a forum to vent their twisted outlook on life. There are some unhappy people out there, not so much unhappy with the school bond issue as they are unhappy with their life.

These people never have, and never will, speak for the majority. I suggest we so called "normal" people ignore anything written by obviously disturbed people, quit responding to their writings and stick with the facts.

-- Posted by red dog on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 6:01 AM

Ok, you think you know everything, but there is alot of truth in what I said. If you look around, there are MANY places to build the new school.

1. Old Eastwood trailer park, which is no longer there. Just trees and stuff.

2. Knock down one of the old buildings and build a new one. Cut the size of the grass for building area.

3. Fix the old buildings.

You don't need more than 5 ac. to building a building.

4. The land where the Porky's was. There are several pieces of land out there. Then, simply expand the "city limits."

Come on people, it's not that had to come up with ideas.

-- Posted by ieatsuperglue on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 2:45 AM
Response by Eric Crump/Editor:
The architect advising the district says the rule of thumb for elementary schools is 10 acres plus 1 acre per 100 students, making the minium for the proposed school 16 acres. The Eastwood trailer park site was not offered for sale to the district.

First of all, the fact that this newspaper allows people to make comments like super glue has is the reason that more people are telling me they are turning away from this paper. It should be ashamed to allow it.

I challenge people on here to start supporting comments with facts. Those wanting to pass the bond have. If you don't like the location, you should have been involved and come up with a supportable, viable alternative. Something other than, "somewhere else." There are not huge open lots in the middle of the town that would support a building of this size. And NO ONE has suggested a realistic one to this point.

For those who keep harping on spending the money elsewhere, where do you propose? Research has shown that better, newer schools help bring in business. Also, research has shown that a childs learning environment is crucial to their success. Evidently that isn't important to our community. New school buildings are already almost 10 years too late. The cost of this thing is ridiculously cheap for what we are getting in return.

I'll leave you with this thought. If you want your community to grow, the first thing you need to do is keep the people you have, not worry about bringing in new one's. Retention is the key to any growth success. If you want this community to thrive, you need children to grow up and want to stay. They aren't going to stay and put their kids in antiguated facilities. Don't let pettiness stand in the way of progress. Help out our children.

-- Posted by a realist on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 12:56 AM

what the f ... my sentiments exactly! you nailed it. i want a new school, just don't want one located outside of town in that area, so far away, and don't like the limited grades the school will serve. other than that ... let's get a new school, completely in agreement with it! when will they ever get it? when they wake up and realize how to do this, they will get my vote.

-- Posted by aikman8 on Fri, Oct 9, 2009, at 12:37 AM

A K-8 building would have over 72 classrooms, not counting any for special services, music, art, etc. That would accomodate our student population right now! There are 8 sections per grade level times nine grade levels. I don't know exactly how many classrooms are in Bueker, but thinking back to my high school days, I'm thinking it's approximately 35, with a few more small classrooms for special services, and that's counting the annex and trailor. Then add in a cafeteria, gym, and offices. Of course, new buildings aren't three-story any more. Do you really think that's a practical size building?????? The building would be a nightmare to navigate. A K-8 building is practical for small districts like Sweet Springs or Santa Fe, but not for a district with the number of students in Marshall. As for the location, Marshall's development is moving south and/or west. Within a few years, that won't even be the edge of town. I'd suggest people who oppose this go to other towns and see what they've built to replace their out-of-date buildings. The proposed building is a manageable size and allows for expansion. I don't know anyone who enjoys paying taxes. I DO know this is the time to start replacing buildings that are more than 80 years old.

-- Posted by oneofmany on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 11:41 PM

Great job, Marshall. (Claps) Here's food for thought.

You are going to build a new building near Highway 65. BAD IDEA. You've just opened the door to many people kidnapping childeren. Also, not far behind.... school shootings. Now, made easier... with a Highway near by. Bravo!

-- Posted by ieatsuperglue on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 11:33 PM

Who is this new school really for? The "kids"? or the teachers and parents who want a shiney new building? Let's spend money on what we already have. Fix up what is in place and go back to neighborhood schools with k-6 and quit bussing kids all over hells half acre. A school for only grades 3-5? Then what? 3,4,5 years from now will we have to build more schools for the other grades?

If a new school were to be built it should be for k-8 and should not be located literally out of town with only highway access. Where's all that lottery money for the schools going anyway? I don't need anymore pizza's or cookie dough.

-- Posted by What the f...... on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 11:06 PM

Taurus13,

You say we need to bring in more jobs. Schools and quality of education are among the first things examined when either an individual (or company) is considering relocation.

Boonville and Sedalia have improved their schools. Boonville's levy rate for schools is currently $3.28 and their debt service levy is $.68. Sedalia's levy rate for schools is $3.88 with a debt service levy of .59.

Marshall's current levy is $3.06. Marshall's debt service levy is ZERO.

That's because the past three proposed bonds have failed.

Recently, the following communities have built new schools:

Boonville

Sedalia

Carrollton

Voting for the school bond -- improving our schools and quality of education -- will increase the chance of bringing in the jobs we all want to see here in Marshall.

-- Posted by Citizens for the School Bond on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 10:32 PM

If the bond issue would have passed 10 years ago--we could be fixing all the problems. But this is all the Marshall District can afford to do because of restriction by the state on bonding. So let's start now. It is not a waste of money. Do you think the price for this will decrease in the future? Invest now. We have built a new jail, a new County health office, new 911 center, community building-museum, where should kids rank among those choices?

-- Posted by mu-grad on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 8:32 PM

I still believe this is a waste of money on just three grades....too bad for the other grades. They well have to stay in the old crappy buildings. Oh well ...money gets spent on bad things all the time...why should Marshall be any different. All the jobs are leaving except for cargill and conagra. We need to bring in more jobs. Boonville and Sedalia have improved, what has Marshall done? So lets spend money on something not worth it.

-- Posted by Taurus13 on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 4:20 PM

The question of cost of keeping 3 buildings plus this one increasing is a very good question. However by getting rid of all those trailers, and shrinking the number of students per building, plus the more effeciant school will problem equal out to not being much at all. I believe this issue comes down to one question, what do you care about more, a McD's value meal or the Marshall youth's education system? For the avg home in marshall the tax is equal to between $5 and $7 per month which is the cost of a meal at McD's, so if you just eat one less meal you can afford this plan. With the new school the kids will get better learning enviroment, new schools will mean better shot at improved teaching candidates and more people moving to Marshall because we can have the best schools so if your moving in the area they'll choose Marshall over Sedalia or Carrollton. Lets pass this and get it done for our youth!!

-- Posted by oldschool17 on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 3:38 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: