CCMin_59Apr9 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

119~t ~ , building would be perfect as far as we are concerned. Some of the developments on Snelling and Larpenteur are very good_ They do produce tax to the village. In other words, a super mar- ket, a clinic. I could think of many things that would be advan- tageous to the village from a tax viewpoint and still not present the problems of playgrounds, parking, traffic on Fry, the water problem and all the things we have gone into. I think there are many of them. I think the only way the Council can control that and have some- thing in there that is good for our Village is to rezone that property as tk~e petition on record asks; and then if and wYlen a good project comes in, in the opinion of the Council, then they obviously have the power to again rezone. In +.his way, the Council has some control and something to say in the absence of all these detailed ordinances we haven't got yet, which are in the mill and we will get them. This way you have a great deal more to say as to hat goes in there and certainly you have the right and can and we would recommend that you rezone the property again if one of those good projects come in. Z"Jm. Olsen Regarding the cost of educating 70 children offsetting our revenue, maybe some of the people who have studied this problem could answer the ruestion in my mind. I figure the cost per child is derived by dividing the total cost, by the number of children going to school. Assuming that another 70 were added to the school dis- trict, this won't be the only 70 the~~seville is building up, it doesn't mean t;'"ey are going to build another school just for those 70 children. The way I look at it - simple reduction - it would mean a reduction in the cost per child. Some woman said "'That's not true." Olsen said "Buell, it's not true the other way ei±her." The woman said !'Yes, it is, we've got facts." Olsen said "I'd like to have that answered so i could char it up in my mind.'" Korstad said I couldn't hear the last part of the statement you made - I would like to answer it. Olsen: Biell, I think from what has been stated here all along, that adding 70 ch~_Idren is going to multiply the present cost per child by another 70. I don't think that's probably true. It just doesn't make sense to me. Yorstad Bde discussed this with Supt. ~I;illiams and he had given us ±h ese figures- that the cost per pupil in 1958 was ~~09,G0. Add to that the capital retirement of X57.00 and these are his figures, a total of ~t~75.00 per child. I don't know whether you want to take the debt retirement or not. I figure that's a matter of opinion. Four hundred and nine dollars times 70 ch~_ldren is approximately 28 thousand dollars. The figures we quoted here were given to us by Supt. tiVilliams. Olsen Did B~iilliams say that adding 70 children would increase the expense 70 times that figure? That's the thing that doesn't make sense to me. ~Tou've probably got the right picture, but I just don't see it. Nilsen I don't think we'll be able to resolve that tonight. 'atie don't want to take up too much time with that particular phase of this testi- mony. Olsen I'll let Mr. Korstad's answer be sufficient. I think he knows what he is talking about.