I am writing you regarding "More referendum talk at U-CF" which appeared in your Feb. 7, 2008 edition.I've read this article several times and it seems to suggest that a more expensive (greater than $62 million) plan could have been prepared for school improvements, but that the entire amount would not have to be presented to the taxpayers for approval. That's like my wife saying she only spent $200 on shoes for the year because she doesn't have to tell me about the first $1000.
I apologize if I misunderstood what was trying to be conveyed in the article, but it seems to me that a board member is suggesting that we can spend more, but we only need request approval for less.
I thought the intent of Act 1 was to give taxpayers more say in the out of control spending of their school districts. This article implies a way to circumvent the intent.
I would be first to agree that UHS requires some sorely needed improvements ASAP which need to be addressed, but if the board starts to play games in what they present to taxpayers, they will only succeed in causing further delays in funding and implementing these.
I would welcome clarification from the board.