Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Dist. 88 tax abatement process started

Will finance improvements of parking lots

May 10, 2013

NEW ULM — The District 88 Board of Education on Thursday approved a resolution to start a “tax abatement” bonding process to fund school parking lot improvement....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




May-11-13 5:26 PM

Oh, I forgot, they want to start taxing certain services as well. Again, let's smokescreen these taxes with the top 2% bracket increases.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-11-13 5:24 PM

Oh surprise, more tax increases. Meanwhile, everyone around here seems to be up-in-arms about gay marriage. Gas tax, alcohol tax, health care market place costs, etc...I'm sure the dems will just tell everyone to tax the upper 2% again and it will all be taken care of...

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 10:25 PM

The referendum dollars are not being used for this. This is a separate funding source. Read the article before you comment please.

I don't have a problem with having the students pay a small fee for the ability to use the "premium" parking spaces. The alternative is to plow it over and plant grass, which would also be a huge expense. THEN, we could use the referendum dollars to pay for more busing!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 1:17 PM

Tax abatement is a different funding tool than a referendum. They don't need to ask us first (at the polls) in order to raise our property taxes. If they jump through the necessary hoops and the board approves it any property owner within the district will see the costs on their taxes to pay back the bonds that will be issued for the project.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 12:01 PM

Why can't the people who use the parking lots buy parking lot passes to help cover this maintenance? This would be for students and staff. I get it may need to be redone but this does not seem like the correct way to use referendum money that was for our students in reducing class numbers.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 12:58 AM

Also, bear in mind that that whole area is peat ground and it is always moving. Parking lots, sidewalks, fields, etc. are always requiring maintenance.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 12:56 AM

Maybe someone knows the answer: Are referendum dollars allowed to be used for capitol projects such as a parking lot? Vikingfan, it is easy to say that they shouldn't improve the parking lot, but bear in mind that it is over 40 years old and isn't fixing itself. If you think we shouldn't have one, then we get into a parking or busing issue. These kids have to get to school somehow. Ask any business in town and you will learn that maintaining a parking lot is probably the least favorite thing because it is expensive, continually needs maintenance and doesn't directly improve the products that the business is offering. It is just a part of the cost of doing business.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-10-13 12:49 AM

I have supported every referendum but this to me seems like a big waste of money. We voted on a referendum last year to add more teachers and now we are talking about a parking lot?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 8 of 8 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web