Mr. Bushman, you seem to be quite the vocal proponent for this new secondary school. My question is where were you between your 2004 task force and 2012? Wasn't that the time that your daughter was going through her days at the over-crowded middle school and the over-crowded high school? I don't recall you vocally advocating for a new secondary school during those lost years. Wasn't it important to you then? So what makes it so important to you now? I think a fire was lit under you about eight years too late. Why is the superintendent relying on all you old task- forcers to pound the drums for her? You should bow out and let the people with little kids entering the district carry the ball on this. BTW, where are they anyway? If they want this school for their kids, let them get off their assets and start doing something about it.

DB, I do understand the need for more space. I will state... poor planning on the Districts' part. The issue here as before is fiscal responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers. It was known before the referendum for the last land purchase that sewage capacity was not available. Referendum money spent on a large parcel that is now deemed useless is a fine example of the "lets buy it now to see what we can do with it' mentality. What is the disposition of that land? Will this be the case with SCM property? The last 10 years proves the lack of financial planning/concepts when spending collected monies for "wishful" projects without an in depth analysis and solid plans needed to support the long term space needs. As a 30+year resident of this district, I have watched and engaged in discussion as the Board/Administration have sold citizens bills of goods on a short term fix model. This whole charade does not pass muster for fiscal responsibility. It seems that we are at the juncture of a financial nightmare due to the inability to deal with space needs that were looming the past 8+ years. The state of the economy is putting financial pressure on many district residents. How much more do you think can be borne by the taxpayers? My vote on the dog track purchase is still in limbo without a complete game plan for proposed buildings, costs , transportation issues, and other district buildings' usage plans. Without forward vision and a solid plan you are wishing on the stars.

Has anyone bothered to approach the city on doing the sewer tie-in without the annexation? I would think if the school district approached the city about the tie-in, paid for by the district, that it would be considered since they would then get to keep commercial, revenue generating property on the tax roll. That sewer line could be run for far less than $8.5 MM and the city gets to keep taxes coming in. Of course this is a little forward thinking, out of the box idea, something the school district doesn't seem to do well. Instead all we get is MUST ........TAX. ....SPEND.....MORE!

It appears that the advocates for the dog track purchase have been trying, rather successfully, to reframe the debate on this issue to one which contrasts the dog track site with either the golf club site or the UU site. Let's not be taken in by this tired political debate tactic.

The only question before us as taxpayers is whether or not the dog track property should be taken off the property tax rolls and utilized for school purposes. While we know the owners currently pay substantial taxes on the property; and, we know potential future commercial buyers and users of the property will pay even more in taxes; the only thing we really know about converting the property to school use is that it will produce no tax revenue at all.

It is not our current obligation to decide which alternative properties might be suitable for school use. Nor is it our task to decide what new facilities might be needed in the future and where to locate them. It is only incumbent on us to determine whether or not this potentially very valuable commercial corridor should be taken off the tax rolls and/or whether or not the school system should be authorized to spend 8+ millions of our money to acquire it.

I will vote "NO"!

1) The school district's deal is contingent on re-zoning by the city of Hudson - the tax payers won't be left with an unusable piece of property if the city doesn't rezone it.
2) I'd hate to be the council members that vote to overrule a referendum passed by the majority of Hudson's citizens- think about it.

Does anyone know who the district's real estate agent is? I'm wondering if there are any ties to the "Vote YES" team.
There is some agent(s) out there that stands to make a substantial amount of money if the SCM property is purchased and then the UU property sold.

I have now some data on the voting population of the school district. this data indicates that the Hudson city population is a minority (with their mayor interests concerning the the property tax). Even though, the property would be a big mill rate payer, I think the larger interests of the outside city voters for the concern for more class room space would outnumber the tax only voters. I think, if the administration is able to convince the out city population that this is a good property, they referendum will stand!

2010 Data
City of Hudson population 12,097
Village of North Hudson population 4,161
Town of Hudson population 8,932
Town of St. Joseph population 4,172
Town of Troy population 4,523

I got it from this link
http://www.hudsonwi.org/images/pdfs/Community%20Profile%20&%20Demographics.pdf

There is NO REQUIRED LOT SIZE. This is a wish list from your superintendent. The 63 acre offered by the county and all ready publicly zoned land would suit a new school just fine. And Lech. Your figures are flawed. There is a lot more that go into taxes than the residents. Commercial is a huge deal. The dog track is 1/3 of the available commecial left. If you think these cities run on home property taxes you are nuts. If you feel the other residents hold more weight then maybe the school should go out there. The city council is charged with looking out for the cities residents period. Not the fate of a school. If the school board cared about its population then maybe they should have come to the city first instead of going to referendum on land that is zoned incorrectly.

I see the big spenders are already threatening the city council if this boondoggle passes. mr is right, the council is charged with looking out for the city residents, period. The school board screwed up by not having the property zoned correctly before proceeding to referendum. They're just bullies and used to having their way.

Lech. What additional traffic. A new school is not bringing in new students. It is the same children and families that would have gone to the current schools. We would just spread it out more. And the boat launch fees are regulated by the DNR and dirt cheap I comparison to others.

Lech. Your fight seems to be with the city of Hudson. Which is odd since you obviously don't pay city taxes.

Are you saying that the people opposed to this boondoggle are opposed to a great education for our children? That seems to be what you are implying Lech. It's the typical argument used to pass such outrageous spending projects. The dog track is not going to provide a better education for our children. Vote NO.

What's wrong with the dog track? What's right with it would be my question. What is wrong with adding onto and renovating the existing facilities? Can you imagine how much could be done to the existing facilities with $8.25 Million? For this school board and the vote yes people like Dan Bushman to say that we don't have enough land surrounding the high school and middle school for modest expansion is absolutely laughable on it's face. If the board came to the public with a plan to renovate and expand current facilities, was honest about class sizes (which they haven't even revealed yet) and provided accurate tax implications then the plan would pass without serious oppostion. Instead they give us no plan, meaningless tax information and nothing but rhetoric. They give the average homeowner no other choice than to vote no.

Ever hear of a second floor Lech? For God's sake try to think outside the box a little. There is no need to provide for you the details of expansion on this website. It can be done and it will be done, but only after this is voted down. Think about it. You have a school board that can completely retrofit an old dog track, realign the busing for an additional school as well as figure out the logistics for 9th graders competing in athletics and other extra curricular activities, but this same school board can't figure out how to add a little space onto the current faclities? This referendum will be defeated and they will come back with a more reasonable option. I think that's enough said.

You seem to know a lot about the structure of the high school Lech. Maybe you can tell us why this can't be done. Who said it can't be done? And have you ever heard about doing an addition during the SUMMER??? Isn't this what happened at the middle school last year when an addition was done? All we ever hear from the dog track big spenders is that they can work miracles with a dilapidated old dog track but have no other thoughts on how to make our current schools work. Very sad indeed.....

I don't know anything more about the structure than any other person who has been in the school and has an engineering background. I can't remember who told me that the foundations are not strong enough (because that was my first idea, why not make the thing higher), but this person seemed to know more.
I don't believe that such a big job could be done in just a few months during the.summer, and addition to a less used side is another thing.

I have never been in the dog track, and have thus no knowledge about the building. Again, I am not a supporter of the track, but I am not against it either. I am just interested in getting something going, to make sure that the kids have a great learning environment (after all, they have to pay for my pension one day)

Mainstreet, rest assured that I will have enough money for the rest of my life to live well on it! (my private industry employer and 401k are taking care of this)
Nevertheless, today's kids will be paying for our future whether it is our pensions or other things. And well educated kids have the chance to earn more money and thus can pay more into the systems.
One can easily see the link between education and the economy of countries if one looks a little closer into the PISA studies.

Oh but you must remember mainstreet that if you don't vote yes for the dog track boondoggle then you MUST be anti-education AND anti-community. You have to wonder sometimes if these people actually believe their own rhetoric. VOTE NO!

Lech = Left? Your statement that the district is bigger than Hudson. That was sure out there. Where is it that you are coming from anyways? We all have skin in this game including the city. This District always wants and gets when the chanters start in. The accountability of the Administration and Boards has floundered over the issue of crowding that was seen coming 10 years ago. Did they do anything to address this...NO! Now they want a beautiful new shiny building to educate the kids in. Its' not the building...it is staff that makes it or breaks it.
Dietmar, As a person running for the County Board what the heck did your statement actually define here?
ALL: The education bureaucrats are asking us to vote yes without a solid plan in place. Businesses do not operate this way. Do you operate your household budget this way? The crickets and drums are getting louder. VOTE NO until their is a plan. Simple as that!!

I'm limiting my input into this discussion to all the posts about how the school district is ridiculous for wanting to buy this parcel when it hasn't yet been rezoned. That's not an uncommon occurrence at all. Developers do it all the time. They simply put into the purchase agreement that closing on the purchase is contingent upon the property being rezoned.

The big difference is that they don't waste taxpayer money (tens of thousands of dollars) and put a community through a referendum process without even knowing if the land will be rezoned. I don't really care what private developers do. It is IRRELEVANT