I am writing this as a parent and concerned citizen, not as a Jeffco school board member. Many of you have asked why I am voting no on 3A and 3B.
Here are the top three reasons I am voting no: We are experiencing a temporary economic downturn and don’t need a permanent tax increase to fix the short term funding dip.
As housing values increase the amount of money the school district receives will increase. And as the state economy gets better there will be more money for education.
In fact the September state economic forecast says $700 million additional dollars will be put in the K-12 fund over the next two years.
Jeffco receives approximately 9 percent of the K-12 fund or about $60 million of those additional dollars, which more than covers the proposed cuts. As the economy gets better education gets more money.
Next is the PERA (Public Employees Retirement Association) conversation.
The PERA contribution is estimated to rise over $22 million dollars in the next couple of years. While employee contributions remain at 8 percent, taxpayer contributions will increase from 15.65 percent to 20.15 percent.
The current general fund budget has taxpayers picking up all of those PERA increases but not allocating money to instrumental music, teacher librarians, or outdoor lab schools. Those priorities don’t seem to me to put students first.
3B will increase the debt load by $99,000,000 — it is permission to go into debt for on-going maintenance. We shouldn’t be going into debt to pay for routine maintenance items. This money is not for science labs or new buildings. Paying for routine maintenance items with 20 years of debt is not a good plan.
The system needs fundamental structural change.
This does not fund a new pay structure. Not one penny will go to raise the amount we pay our newest teachers. Not one penny builds new science labs or adds options for our students.
Jeffco public schools have asked for just a little bit more every four to six years. What Jeffco needs is a bold new plan — not the status quo.
Our children deserve better; I will be voting no on 3A and 3B — and working for a bold new plan that puts our students first.
Laura Boggs
Lakewood
Wheat Ridge voters will see Ballot Question 2A this year asking, “Shall the Home Rule Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, be amended to provide for the election of all elected officials of the city by the greatest number of votes cast?”
I serve on the Wheat Ridge Election Commission, and I’m asking all of Wheat Ridge to vote “yes” on this question.
If approved, this will change the city charter so that all elected officials, including the mayor, city clerk and city treasurer, will be chosen by who earns the most votes in the general election.
This is a practical thing to do.
It will save us money in the future that we might otherwise spend on very expensive runoffs, and our elections will be no less fair or inclusive.
What we’ll get is a slate of consistent races that give us the winners when all the votes are counted.
Participating in the county’s coordinated general election cost Wheat Ridge $7,500 in November last year. The follow-up runoff in December cost $37,000.
Given the chance to avoid extra cost without losing the quality of our elections, I am going to make the pragmatic choice and vote “yes” on Wheat Ridge Ballot Question 2A.
Lloyd Levy
Wheat Ridge
I am a pretty conservative guy, probably due in part to the fact that I was a police officer for 47 years, with the last 25 years being spent as the chief of police for the Westminster Police Department.
I’ve been around, and I certainly paid my dues as a young cop working narcotics and vice, and as an older cop, sitting on the governing boards of the North Metro Drug Task Force and the West Metro Drug Task Force.
I vigorously enforced marijuana laws for all 47 years of my public service, and I would do it today if I was still actively employed as a cop.
Constitutional Amendment 64 proposes the legalization of growing and possessing marijuana, but it would not impact those who have the legal and appropriate authorization to grow and use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
Moreover, even if the voters approve Amendment 64, which I sincerely hope they do not, marijuana growing and possession would still be a federal offense.
In addition to still being a federal offense, legalization of pot would result in more traffic accidents and fatalities, as well as an increase in crime.
Talk to most police officers and they will confirm this observation.
Take it to the bank.
We do not need more stoned drivers on the road, and we do not need more crime.
And we certainly do not need a law that would be in direct conflict with the federal law.
What’s next- — home-brew methamphetamine, cocaine, LSD, PCP or heroin? Where do we draw the line?
In my opinion, we need to draw the line right now and vote no on Amendment 64.
As Archie Bunker used to say, “This is pure crapola.”
Dan Montgomery
Westminster Chief of Police (Retired)