Glenwood Resident Urges Vote Against Re-1 Mill Levy Override

Glenwood Springs —The Re-1 School District wants you to pay for its mistakes. That is the short version of what happens if you vote yes on the mill levy override.

John Korrie, a Glenwood Springs resident, laid out the argument in a letter to the Post Independent. He says the district is "giving us a kick while we are down." The claim: teachers need raises, but the district already has the money. It just spent it elsewhere.

Korrie points to property tax bills. The school district takes 66.7% of what residents pay. He argues that if the district hadn’t decided to become real estate agents, it would have cash for salaries. The district bought 117 homes with tax dollars. Korrie doesn’t recall voting for that. He wants those assets sold to fund the raises.

He calls Re-1 an "overspender." He cites Riverside School, a building that cost tens of millions. It sits outside the city core. Kids can’t walk or bike there. Enrollment is down, yet the district has four elementary schools. Korrie says Riverside never should have been built.

There is a personnel issue, too. When Riverside opened, administration hired from outside the district and laid off 22 existing teachers. Korrie says that’s why you can’t keep staff. You don’t have their backs.

The override doesn’t go away after the raises are paid out. It’s forever. Korrie says vote no.

On the other side of the ballot, question 6B asks voters to keep library funding alive. It’s a different kind of ask. This one doesn’t raise taxes. It continues the current 1-mill property tax levy originally approved in 2006 when the library district was created. Without passage, that mill levy sunsets in 2027. That removes approximately $1 million from the district’s funding.

A New Castle resident wrote in to support 6B. She is a home health nurse and a volunteer tutor. She drives more than 100 miles a day for patient visits. The library provides a quiet space to update chart notes between stops. It offers a convenient restroom break. For her tutoring work, the study rooms provide a safe place to meet with students.

She remembers when there was no library district. The libraries were funded out of the Garfield County general fund. When county revenue dropped, so did library support. The 2006 levy was the fix. Now it’s expiring.

The contrast is stark. One ballot item asks for new money to cover past spending choices. The other asks to keep existing money that is about to vanish.

Korrie’s letter focuses on the school district’s balance sheet. He wants them to sell homes and build cheaper schools. He doesn’t mention what happens if they don’t get the override beyond "you can’t keep teachers." He doesn’t say how many classes shrink or which programs cut.

The library letter is personal but specific. It names the dollar amount at risk: $1 million. It names the deadline: 2027. It doesn’t promise new services. It promises continuity.

The Post Independent ran both letters Tuesday. The paper didn’t take a side in the text, but the juxtaposition tells you what’s on the table.

Read that again. One side wants a permanent new tax to fix a budget problem they created by buying houses. The other side wants to keep a tax that’s already there, one that prevents a million-dollar cut.

The district says it needs the money for raises. The library says it needs the money to exist.

Voters in Garfield County will decide both on Tuesday. The Re-1 district is asking for more. The library district is asking to keep what it has.

Korrie says the school district gets more than enough tax dollars right now, especially if it stops being a real estate broker. He says every year assessments go up, the district gets more money anyway.

The New Castle nurse says she loves exploring the shelves. She says the library is a solution to a problem.

The district didn’t respond to Korrie’s specific criticism of the 117 home purchases in the letter. The library didn’t respond to any criticism at all, because there wasn’t one in the text provided.

The ballot is simple. The implications aren’t.