KIRKWOOD

KIRKWOOD'S SNEAKY $46.5 MILLION BOND ISSUE MAKES NO SENSE

Even the tax and spend happy Gazette couldn't present any substance supporting the sneaky $46.5 million tax increase Kirkwood Community College officials are trying to sneak past voters in a school board election. But the Gazette, operating at only 40% year-to-date 8-31-11 efficiency, gave it a tepid endorsement anyway, as it has yet to find a tax increase it didn't like.

The following table provides far more than enough substance to reject the tax increase at face value. The chart farther below seals its fate--as it shows the previous bond issue was passed to cover a 35% increase in enrollment, that did not happen!!

KIRKWOOD'S $46.5 MILLION BOND ISSUE MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL--AS PROVEN BY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

RANK ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE $46.5 MILLION KIRKWOOD BOND ISSUE--QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

1 How will Kirkwood reduce its costs to be competitive with private on-line classes and on-site business provided classes and training--provided at 30% of Kirkwood's costs, if not free?

2 The $46.5 million bond issue would pay for 26% of the flood protection needed on Cedar Rapids' west side!

3 There is no compelling evidence of demand for education centers in Marion, Iowa City and Washington areas, which are far different than the Monticello area.

4 Why build a new building in Marion, when Cedar Rapids has 6 unneeded school buildings right next door?

5 Where are the cost/benefit numbers showing Monticello was the success claimed by Kirkwood officials?

6 K-12 schools are under tremendous pressure to improve. Why is Kirkwood saying K-12 schools, or their replacements, won't ever do the job they were supposed to do, which would eliminate any concocted need claimed for new Kirkwood buildings?

7 Why are 3 new Kirkwood education centers needed at once? Why not build just one new center to test the water, for several years?

8 Why not use one of 6 unneeded Cedar Rapids school buildings for the first and only new education center at this time?

9 Taxpayers need a reduction in property taxes, not a continued increase!!

10 Why build a new building near Washington, when the Highland Community School District is about to close a school building right next door to Washington?

11 Will Kirkwood willingly contribute 1.2% of its $114 million budget for west side flood protection, for the next 20 years? Will Kirkwood officials try to claim there is not at least 1.2% waste in their budget.

12 What other building options etc., were seriously considered--that would IMPROVE Kirkwood's performance?

13 Creation of sustainable private sector jobs is badly needed, and this bond issue creates none.

14 Kirkwood's operating efficiency fell from a lofty 57% in 6-30-04 (for which it was cited on the Iowalive website) to a dismal 41% in 6-30-11.   Norm Nielson, founder and previous Kirkwood president, ran the college like a business and had very close ties with area businesses.   He was replaced by educrat, Starcevich, who Iowalive predicted at the time would significantly diminish Kirkwood’s performance, which he did—and still is.

15 Where is any compelling evidence showing Kirkwood has any operating efficiency improvement plans, to make better use of the money it has, before demanding more?

16 Where is Kirkwood's analysis showing 3 new education centers are the top spending priority for the entire area, in these tough financial times?

17 There is no urgent need for the bond issue--why the rush into a very costly, half-baked whim?

18 Why should anyone believe Kirkwood's claimed costs?

19 Where is the cost benefit analysis showing the bond issue makes better sense than all other options for taxpayers and students?

20 Are there no area streets or bridges badly in need of repairs?

The following chart shows Kirkwood's deceit in making bogus enrollment projections. Iowalive's projections remain very accurate, as shown in the chart.

ONLY A FOOL WOULD BELIEVE KIRKWOOD'S ENROLLMENT CLAIMS

Kirkwood passed a bond to house a 35% increase in enrollment that didn't happen. Now they are stuck with space they don't need and they want to build more buildings in desperation to lure more students to enroll. It didn't work then--and it won't work now.

KIRKWOOD'S $46.5 MILLION BOND ISSUE MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL--AS PROVEN BY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
RANK ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE	$46.5 MILLION KIRKWOOD BOND ISSUE--QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
1	How will Kirkwood reduce its costs to be competitive with private on-line classes and on-site business provided classes and training--provided at 30% of Kirkwood's costs, if not free?
2	The $46.5 million bond issue would pay for 26% of the flood protection needed on Cedar Rapids' west side!
3	There is no compelling evidence of demand for education centers in Marion, Iowa City and Washington areas, which are far different than the Monticello area.
4	Why build a new building in Marion, when Cedar Rapids has 6 unneeded school buildings right next door?
5	Where are the cost/benefit numbers showing Monticello was the success claimed by Kirkwood officials?
6	K-12 schools are under tremendous pressure to improve. Why is Kirkwood saying K-12 schools, or their replacements, won't ever do the job they were supposed to do, which would eliminate any concocted need claimed for new Kirkwood buildings?
7	Why are 3 new Kirkwood education centers needed at once? Why not build just one new center to test the water, for several years?
8	Why not use one of 6 unneeded Cedar Rapids school buildings for the first and only new education center at this time?
9	Taxpayers need a reduction in property taxes, not a continued increase!!
10	Why build a new building near Washington, when the Highland Community School District is about to close a school building right next door to Washington?
11	Will Kirkwood willingly contribute 1.2% of its $114 million budget for west side flood protection, for the next 20 years? Will Kirkwood officials try to claim there is not at least 1.2% waste in their budget.
12	What other building options etc., were seriously considered--that would IMPROVE Kirkwood's performance?
13	Creation of sustainable private sector jobs is badly needed, and this bond issue creates none.
14	Kirkwood's operating efficiency fell from a lofty 57% in 6-30-04 (for which it was cited on the Iowalive website) to a dismal 41% in 6-30-11. Norm Nielson, founder and previous Kirkwood president, ran the college like a business and had very close ties with area businesses. He was replaced by educrat, Starcevich, who Iowalive predicted at the time would significantly diminish Kirkwood’s performance, which he did—and still is.
15	Where is any compelling evidence showing Kirkwood has any operating efficiency improvement plans, to make better use of the money it has, before demanding more?
16	Where is Kirkwood's analysis showing 3 new education centers are the top spending priority for the entire area, in these tough financial times?
17	There is no urgent need for the bond issue--why the rush into a very costly, half-baked whim?
18	Why should anyone believe Kirkwood's claimed costs?
19	Where is the cost benefit analysis showing the bond issue makes better sense than all other options for taxpayers and students?
20	Are there no area streets or bridges badly in need of repairs?