Based on what little I did discuss with folks down there it was pretty obvious the bond issue was a crash and burn proposition.
Voters shoot down BWSD’s $37.8 million bond issue – Geoff Belcher
I think it was the overbuilding and accompanying price tag in the District’s construction plan that was the deal breaker for most people, especially with flood insurance rates on the verge of skyrocketing for so many people down there.
I think reasonable people could agree there are some construction needs at the BWSD that may require bonds to finance. My recommendation would be that any other such proposal be focused like a laser beam on the worsts of the needs only. With the beating the voters gave the bond proposal it would probably be wise to not get in a rush to schedule another bond election.
6 thoughts on “Bay-Waveland School Bond Vote Not Even Close”
I’ll make a prediction that the bond issue here in Stone County will pass by a comfortable margin. The School Board here started the process by involving the public. The 40 acre site for the new school was donated by two very civic minded locals who are pushing hard in the business community to see the badly needed new facilities built. That kind of grassroots support is what makes the difference.
Had the board stuck to education projects, and the most needed construction projects, I believe it would have passed.
Whoever thought this would be a wise time to raise property taxes should lose their job…
And who paid for all the signs, mailers, and handouts?
As I watched the Bay-Waveland School Bond Proposal be gradually exposed in our community, and the interviews and comments from Board members themselves in local media being published, it was a revelation once again that for some reason, whomever manages to get appointed or elected to this school board, has little to no interest in communicating with the taxpaying public they serve. Appearances in front of both city governments by the School Board President, a Board member, and the head football coach could not produce a resolution by either city council in the school district to endorse this bond. They couldn’t even get a majority of the Board to endorse it–Waveland Trustee, Mike Bell, cast the one “no” vote to proceed with presenting it to the public.
In the final analysis, the “no” voters I have spoken to just could not bring themselves to tax themselves once again for the spending priorities presented by the Board of Trustees.
And the irresponsible move by the Board to go for the maximum amount of our borrowing power was
the move that convinced the voters that this Board has not earned the right to spend $37.9 million in tax dollars.
Once the push back came they should have tabled it and rethought the needs and removed the wants The timing was off for a myriad of reasons. Inflation, recent tax increases, recent property valuations and a looming recession on the brink of a Cold War.
What bothers me the most about this is the price of building and maintaining a school building The money builds but there is little to no proper maintenance of the infrastructure. To save money the first to go is properly maintained facility 🤔
I made a Public Request in Feb. for the names and salaries of all of the administrators. There are 17 of them with the highest salary being $154,000 to the lowest $51,000. There is not one with the title of Director of Maintenance or Properties. The oldest campus in the district is the high school and it is only 57 years old. That is an architectural baby in Bay St. Louis where the downtown business district is marketed internationally as Old Town. After Hurricane Katrina, 3 campuses were redone, and one was built brand new. It appears we are suffering more from neglect than age.
Comments are closed.