Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Progress 2016 | Customer Service | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Board has other options

November 17, 2013

Gregg Smith, Minot After reading all the pros and cons of the upcoming school bond vote, it is apparent that something must be done to alleviate the overcrowding taking place in the elementary......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-26-13 4:57 PM

The enrollment numbers reported by the demographer do not include students that open enroll into the district. There are no open enrolled students at the elementary level or middle school, that is unless parents lie about their place of residence.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-19-13 4:11 PM

nd40: i forgot to mention the new Ramstad. What we have done in the last 40 years is in many millions of dollars.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 9:31 PM

nd40: In the last 40 years (b4 oil) the population of minot was quite stagnant--no need to expand schools. We did build a new high school and Our Redeemers opened a school. from 1990-2000 my home taxes went from $2000 to $3000 and schools are a large part of those taxes. our population went from o/a 30,000 in 1960 to o/a 35,000 b4 oil. N1: you sound like a school teacher. nice but maybe nieve. minot like so many cities is run by a few power people who all of us work for. do u believe money talks?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 12:35 AM

The school district brought a bond issue forward about 8 years ago and it received about 53% yes votes but in ND school bond issues need 60% yes to pass. Had that passed the grade schools in the SE area would be fine at the moment. I don't know what the city said but the school district did not say they weren't worried about overcrowding. The school district is NOT run by city government.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 9:23 PM

Concerned... if you're tired of being reactive instead of proactive then you should vote yes. They're trying to fix a problem that is only going to get worse. Building costs continue to rise and this will only cost us more if we wait. The problem will not go away by voting against this. You know why this bond is as big as it is? Because we've essentially done nothing for the last 40 years. If you're tired of being reactive, this should be an obvious decision... YES! I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay even more for something that we clearly need. Let's fix it and be done with it.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 5:24 PM

we can convert the 1% tax and tap the state for any school money needs. School is not about hockey and olympic swimming. vote no.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 5:04 PM

I will be voting no because I am tired of being reactive instead of proactive as it was asked again of our city leaders 6 to 7 years ago would Minot suffer from the fate of overcrowding the smaller communities such as Underwood, Stanley and so forth that had a need for child care and so forth.....I am sorry, Minot had it's chance then and why should we have to suffer now when some of us will be paying almost a $1,000 a year more in property taxes before the bond does this is this fair? No life is not fair but you need to separate the needs from wants.....

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 11:06 AM

Vote No because this is "empire building" that minot is so well known for. they get it--we pay 4 it.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 11:04 AM

Vote no because many of the children live in a home that looks like a portable--not 6 to 7 hours a day but 17 to 24 hours every day. Vote no because the school need is an oil impact and the state has oil impact money for affected western cities like minot. Vote no because many of us cannot afford it. vote no because continued oil development and oil impact taxs could end overnight from a spill disaster or new technology and we would be stuck with the bills 4 new buildings and maintenance 4 ever. Did i say VOTE NO.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 9:28 AM

It should also be noted that the projected enrollments do not include Nedrose and South Prairie.

Besides not having room for all of our future high school students, a split high school (9&10 in one building, 11&12 in another)is problematic. A transition in the middle of high school is difficult, especially for already at-risk students. Kids are required by law to attend high school until they're 16 and we're giving these kids an open door. We're one of three school districts in the nation that does this. It's not popular for a reason.

Voting no changes nothing. These students aren't going away and building costs aren't getting cheaper. Why would we wait?

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 8:39 AM

I encourage you to visit the Minot Public Schools webpage. There is actually over $200 million dollars of need currently. The school board's rationale was widely publicized in the MDN and on Local news. The community input from the open meetings and a telephone survey overwhelmingly supported two high schools which will be 1400+ students each. This is still extremely large when compared to the Grand Forks, Fargo, Bismarck schools. We, as parents, do not want our kids going to a school with 2800 students. Also, a third middle school is sorely needed. It is obvious that Minot is growing. The need is immediate. It makes no sense to select watered down versions that only put a band aid on the problem and have to go back to voters every couple of years to address the next need. Keep in mind that schools don't get built overnight. It will take approx. 3 year+ to build a new high school to relieve pressure at the middle schools. Stay informed & vote your conscience. I will be voting yes.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 comments


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web