Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Buckeye Local board to pause 'self-funded' high school plan, ask about refunds and transparency
Summary
During public participation residents criticized the district's capital project and levy handling, asked for an exact $8,000,000 funding breakout, alleged a signed $78 million contract and urged the board to consider returning $1+ million to taxpayers by resolution rather than proceeding until the budget is finalized.
At the start of the March 10 meeting several residents used public comment time to challenge the district's approach to a proposed high school and related capital spending.
One resident (speaker 10) opened with a request for specific financial details and said the finance committee must explain how it planned for anticipated losses and provide "an exact breakout of where the $8,000,000 is coming from for the capital project." The speaker also told the board she had reviewed recent actions and, citing conversations with the county treasurer, asserted the district "could have returned the 1 plus million dollars to the property owners with a simple board resolution" and that the county auditor would then calculate tax-bill reductions.
"It is clearly apparent that you do not need our current emergency levy since you are reaping the benefits of increased property values over the last 6 or 7 years," the resident said, urging the board to stop spending on the capital project until the budget was finalized with the county.
Evelyn Kyner (speaker 14) echoed concerns about fiscal priorities and transparency, questioning whether repairing an existing junior high would be preferable to building a new high school and asking whether a performing-arts addition was necessary. Kyner cited a prior vote where she said 72% opposed a levy and accused the district of "handpick[ing]" community input.
Board leadership acknowledged the comments but noted the meeting has a public-participation time limit; the board then moved to superintendent and informational items. The visioning presentation and subsequent board debate later in the meeting addressed design priorities and funding questions, but public commenters at the start of the meeting pressed for stronger clarity on funding sources, the capital project's scope and the possibility of refunding transferred capital funds to taxpayers.
The board did not take formal action in response to the public comments during this session; several topics raised by speakers were discussed later in the agenda in staff presentations and the finance debate.
