Bond unfair to taxpayers

With all due respect to the volunteers and staff of School District 44 who have donated considerable time and effort in developing a plan for upgrading Whitefish High School, it is of concern to me that the voters of this district are being asked to approve a $21.5 million bond for the renovation of the high school when there are less costly alternatives available.

As a current taxpayer, a graduate of Whitefish High School, a past member and board chairman of District 44 and a long-standing supporter of education, I am concerned about the impact this added costly proposal has on the average homeowners housing costs.

In the mid-1980s, the board was faced with and considered the replacement of Central School. At that time, and as it is now, it was not a time to burden the taxpayers of the school district with the replacement costs of that building.

An alternative plan was developed that gave an estimated 15-20 more years of affordable use of that building. With the opening of the completed new Central School (Whitefish Middle School) in 2007, that was realized. That meant 20-plus years that the taxpayers were not burdened with replacement costs and that a district asset was used to its maximum life.

That same consideration should be afforded the taxpayers on the current high school bond request. There is no doubt that the 1955 original section needs upgrading, but not at $21.5 million. Voters of this district, in consideration of the property tax hardship this levy may place on you and or your neighbors, please carefully study the impact of this bond proposal.

Vote no on this bond and send a message to the board and administration that they need to come back with a reasonable plan that addresses the most urgent needs of that complex.

I can never remember voting no for a school district levy request; however, I feel it is unfair to the taxpayers to place an added $21.5 million debt load to the existing Muldown and Central School bonds at this time.

Lyle Phillips

Whitefish