w/ voting "how-to" flier -- Re: Field/Bond Vote

[Ari Wallach]

To be very clear (in what is an unclear voting ballot):

If you want to vote YES on #2 option (using Doug as an example) you
ALSO have to vote YES on #1.
#1 is for the "core" proposal (so you either vote yes or no) and #2 is
for "additional" money to allow for the Burke to have tiered fields.

So using Doug as an example (based on what he wrote below) - he would
be voting YES on #1 and YES on #2.

More here: www.facebook.com/hohschoolsbondreferendum The attached
flier also spells it out pretty clearly.

What Is The Difference Between The Propositions?

Proposition 1 includes all the building work, the track at Reynolds,
new fields at Burke installed on one level, and the other elements
noted above. If you think the district should move ahead with all of
this, you should vote yes. If Proposition 1 receives a majority
approval, then the response to Proposition 2 becomes important. A
majority approval of Proposition 2 would allow the district to borrow
additional money to install the fields on the Burke Estate in the
tiered elevations as described above.


Just to be clear, the propositions are not written so that you need to
pick between them. Proposition 1 is the core proposal that provides
for all the necessary building, field, and track work and a yes vote
indicates that you think the district should move forward, while a no
vote indicates not to do the work. The vote on Proposition 2 is only
to indicate whether, if the core proposal is approved, you would have
the district spend the additional money to put the fields on multiple
levels for the aesthetic and athletic benefits that layout provides.

I believe it had to be broken up like this because the state funding
would not have covered the tiered fields so it needed to be added as a
"bonus" option that only "kicks-in" once/if option #1 is approved.



-Ari



On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Douglas Rushkoff <rush...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've been speaking with people who live adjacent or near to Burke.
>
> While some still have misgivings about the project as a whole, everyone I spoke with is voting for Option 2. It's the slightly more expensive of the two field proposals, but it ends up having much smaller retaining walls and less of a disruptive impact on the neighborhood.
>
> For me, I'm glad an alternative was found to plastic grass, and that we aren't adding significantly more games or practices at Reynolds - where there is no parking lot.
>
> So I think I will be voting for #2, which involves placing the fields in a more tiered fashion that goes better with the existing hills. (It also has a better relationship to the sun for playing games.)
>
> For those who may not know how the vote works, it's basically a yes or no vote, with the yes's choosing between Option 1 and Option 2.
>
> Voting happens Wednesday March 26 at the High School.
>
>
>
> (Disclaimer: I am writing as an individual person, with an opinion. Although I started this list, my emails are not representative of any group or institution. The Reynolds Field list is simply a discussion group. All opinions are welcome here.)
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ReynoldsField" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ReynoldsFiel...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




--

Ari Wallach
Synthesis Corp.
p +1.347.878.6995
ari.w...@synthesiscorp.com

[Ari Wallach]

To be clear - I only heard that the prop #2 "tiered" was broken out
because of "state funding issues" over a conversation...This might
actually not be the case for why it is separate.
I will let someone from boe clarify if they wish.

For what its worth I am voting YES on BOTH props as I think the tiered
version will maximize our space. (thus voting yes to prop 1 core
proposal and yes on prop 2 for additional work for Burke tiers).

[Iris Hiskey Arno]

The tiered field is broken out because in addition to concerns about synthetic turf and massive disturbance to Reynolds Field, many people were concerned about the costs of the original bond. The board reduced the overall amount a little (which can be seen in option #1). Option #2 gives the community the chance to decide if we should spend more money in order to get tiered fields and a different orientation of fields on the Burke.  If I remember this correctly, voting for both options would bring the total back up to or slightly over the cost of the original bond. The reason it was broken into two options is not related to state funding but the funding for the fields legally does have to be tied to the building repairs and improvements in order to be reimbursed by the state.