Divided Carmel School Board Talks Bond Prop
By Anna Young
The Carmel Board of Education continues to remain divided following the recent failing of a bond referendum that would have provided updates to district facilities.
With board members facing a surge of public concern after the district’s $25.4 million bond was voted down by less than 200 votes on Oct. 2, the board discussed during last Tuesday’s meeting their views on putting up another referendum in May. The most recent bond would’ve repaired roofs, made each building ADA compliant, enhanced the old George Fischer Middle School library and built a new bus garage in the Town of Kent.
Board members Tara DeTurris and Michelle Yorio both agreed that the bond should be put up for another vote, arguing that each component within the proposition is needed to enhance the district. DeTurris said she refuses to separate the bond by placing the transportation facility into a separate proposition, stressing that she’s not willing to lose district money if the bus garage were to be voted down again.
“I believe that the unethical behavior that went on during this last vote will continue and I think that if we split it up one of them will pass and the other one may not, and I’m not willing to risk $130,000 that we’ve put in toward this land,” DeTurris said. “I will support it going back up but as one, I will support the option to extend the land (contract), but I will not split the bond up.”
While the board and residents have placed blame on board member John Curzio for the second bond in as many years failing, he maintained that the voters expressed their opinion twice and the board “must accept the will of the people.”
“I think that this board in large part is in a bubble where as an entity they don’t seem to realize that the people have spoken twice now,” Curzio said. “I realize that this board isn’t used to being told no by the people.”
Curio, who was the sole board member to vocally oppose the bond, said he fully supported items in the bond, including roof repair and ADA improvements, but would not support extending the option for the bus facility. He suggested the board go back to the drawing board before issuing another bond.
With Curzio’s statement sparking frustration, Yorio pressed him on what the board should do moving forward, which resulted in a tense debate between the two board members.
“I find that interesting because in the lead up to both votes my suggestions were sidelined repeatedly, but after it fails I seem to be the first one you want an opinion from,” Curzio replied.
Prior to the vote, Curzio opposed the land option, but remained steadfast that the bus garage should have been a separate proposition on the ballot. He also stressed the board should have collaborated with Kent officials, asserting the bus garage would have taken a piece of property off Kent’s tax rolls. The board voted 6-1 months ago to bunch every proposal together with Curzio the lone holdout.
Despite opposition to separating the bond into two propositions prior to the vote, few board members said last Tuesday they would consider putting the bus garage into a separate proposition. Board member John Cody said he wants to see the bond put up for another vote but was still deciding if the proposition should be split up. He said the community now realizes the importance of maintaining facilities and believes the bus garage needs to be moved.
Member James Reese said he doesn’t support another bond but would support separating the components if it came up for vote. Reese added that the board should analyze the school budget to fix the roofs without a referendum, and that he was no longer in favor of holding the land option for the bus garage.
Vice President Richard Kreps said the board should worry about the essential needs of the district if they choose to put another referendum up for a vote. With roof maintenance a district-wide issue, he said that should be the only item placed in a bond unless other components could be covered monetarily and wouldn’t result in a tax hike.
“Personally, right now, I would give up on the transportation (garage),” Kreps said. “If something comes along later on where it’s available and we get a feeling from the community that they want to do that then we’d look at it at that time.”
