Home > Awareness Alerts, District Finances, Informational, Opinions & Editorials > WHY D38’s $4,500,000.00 MLO MUST BE REJECTED

WHY D38’s $4,500,000.00 MLO MUST BE REJECTED

October 4, 2013



  • History of Deficit Spending: 2006 – 2009
  • History of “Poor” Fiscal Decisions: 2006 – Present

1. Second high school

2. Two Superintendent severance packages – combined total more than Half Million Dollars

3. One middle school

4. 2.5 Million Borrowed Dollars – monthly interest payments thru 2031

5. One of highest mill rates in Colorado – Higher than D20, Douglas County, Vail, and Aspen

  • Continued Lack of Transparency: 2013

6. Today’s Budget – Extra unexplained 1.0 Million Dollars

7. Today’s Budget – Enough money for 4% teacher raise

8. Today’s Budget – Enough money to hire new teachers


SAY “NO!” TO 3A – D38’s MLO!!!!!!!!!!!

To see the following pdf files please click on the titles.

D38 General Fund


  1. Anonymous
    October 24, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    What i hope people understand is that D38 is asking for 4.5million for life .
    you don’t see this on the signs around town

    d38 has consistently mis managed funds in the past, Firing /voting out head administrators and then having to pay them a HUGE parachute (severance package)

    In this economy, D38 has no consideration for the community.
    They have been down this road before asking for money thru Mill Leveys ,to pay their salaries and bills

    This vote MUST BE NO ON 3A

    The Citizens ,homeowners and business owners must live on a budget,so should D38

    Enough is enough. Vote no on 3A

  2. October 20, 2013 at 1:21 pm

    Businesses and vacant property owners will pay 3 1/2 times more in taxes than home owners, this will hurt local businesses and eventually depress their property values which will hurt D38 in the long run!

  3. Anonymous
    October 19, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Earlier this year, D38 was ADVERTISING on TV’s “Kelly&Michael” show – it seemed almost daily, promoting open enrollment, while at the same time talking about overcrowded classes. Children from out of district bring their state PPOR (the per pupil operating revenue) to the district, but their parents are not stuck with these outrageous MLOs as they do not own property in the district. In the past, the district has used the argument for more funds – that the state only gives them PPOR, and that does not cover the cost at middle and high school levels. I believe anyone already attending should be allowed to stay – but why recruit additional students given the finances?

  4. anonymous
    October 14, 2013 at 6:45 am

    Where can you get some Vote NO signs? I think there should be a sign that says We will pay $4.5 Million FOREVER if this passes.

  5. Anonymous
    October 13, 2013 at 11:34 am

    A mail campaign is needed to get the message out to oppose this. Those in favor appear to have far too much money and are too well organized. please provide information on how others can help even if it means paying for a mail campaign.

    I have spoken with past board members of other districts they have told me that if you want to get a school tax increase passed to do it in an office election year. because in a general electionmany people turn out to vote. In an off election year cycle more people in favour will turn out to vote the opposition is more inclined to stay home.

  6. Anonymous
    October 12, 2013 at 3:00 pm

    With over $3.5MM in reserves, D-38 does not need an MLO nor do they need funds from amendment 66. We voted against the new high school when it was proposed and they built it anyway. We plan to vote NO on the MLO and NO on amendment 66. The time for responsible education is now and too much taxpayer money is being thrown away while our kids are not learning what they need to learn to be successful in pursuing higher education and being successful in life.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: