August 4, 2000   (Appeared in the Progress Index Letter-to-the-Editor on Friday, August 10, 2000)

Dear Friends,

Regarding this recent situation with the issue of the relocation of the School Administration Building, I know I am trying to make the most efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars with which I have been entrusted.

I too am a taxpayer and have kids in the school system. This purchase is not at the expense of quality education for students or the materials teachers need to teach. If this School Board or Superintendent were being dishonest, would we have turned-in such a large end-of-year amount for all the world to see? Would we submit the entire School proposed budget, line-item by line-item to the City Manager every year for total scrutiny before it is discussed and approved by City Council?

I and the other three Board members who support this move of the School Administration Building do not profit from this move. We have no offices, perks, or benefits from this acquisition except a better long term location for School Administration to be more effective.

We support this move because it is an unheard of, infrequent, opportunity to purchase real estate at below market with a paying tenant, with last year's money; not additional tax dollars or upcoming years' budgets. Find another such deal or a better deal in the city and I'll personally back off of this one.

If the Chamber of Commerce moved to this building (having less employees, less automated equipment, and less storage requirements), they would have no rent and more room than they have now. The building would not be vacant. The move would cost the City and taxpayers nothing additional. The School Maintenance and staff can handle the moving and any required minor alterations to the new building as annual School Budget repairs and renovation dollars permit. This is how classroom and school building offices have been renovated within the School Annual Budget from year to year.

I could go on but won't. Please see the Issues and Answers handout made available at the Public Hearing. (Available on the Relocation Issues & Answers button on my Homepage.)

The School Board voted 4 to 1 at the conclusion of the Hearing to request City Council to consider reacquisition of $750,000 of the $982,000 we turned-in as Fund Balance for the 1999-2000 School Year for the use of the School System to purchase the proposed property (the State Farm Insurance Building on Jennick Drive).

My understanding is City Council will now have to have two readings on this budget issue (two separate meetings) before it can be considered for approval. It could die after the first reading if that is what the citizens want. If not, it would require a second reading before it can be approved. If it is not approved, the money is still School Fund Balance and would return the following year as a revenue source in the School Annual Budget 2001-2002.

If after learning the answers to the issues that were made public (thanks to Mr. Barker taking his opposition to the press before the agreed upon Public Hearing to announce our intentions), we need to let City Council know if the will of the citizens supports or opposes the actions of the School Board so City Council can vote accordingly.

I appreciate your trust and support in this matter. As a Board, we made some procedural errors. Those errors do not make this purchase any less of a good value and smart economic move. I ask your forgiveness for our errors in our haste to take advantage of a great opportunity. Know that if we had it to do over, the Public Hearing would have happened in May or June when we were seriously considering this building.

Also, please note that as a Board, we pulled out of the purchase and had a public hearing and are sending the matter to City Council. This is still a good deal for us as taxpayers, the City, and the Schools.

Thank you for your time and attention.

W. J. "Joe" Green