Garland County Voters Say No To National Park Community College Millage Increase (Watch Video)

The  National Park Community College social media campaign did not  pay off.

The 1.7 millage increase failed in Tuesday’s election.

Unofficial results are 2,761 against and 1,839 for.

The final results of the election will not be available until Wednesday afternoon.

The college was seeking an increase from 0.8 to 2.5 mills.

NPCC was going to use the funds to construct a new technical center that was estimated to cost $30 million.

Dr. Sally Carder issued the following statement:

“Our motto for this campaign has been, Our College, Our future. This campaign was all about the future of our students and the economic growth of Garland County. Our campaign was based on sharing the facts and telling the truth about current conditions and restraints of our technical programs. It was based on integrity and honesty and only looking forward and upward. The people who voted against this have a different philosophy on how to turn the economy around. We believe it is about empowering our citizens with education and training and the skills necessary to get current and future jobs-good-paying jobs that will improve the quality of life for everyone.

As sad and dissappointed as we are, we don’t consider this vote against National park Community College, but rather a reaction to our economic times.

I have been touched beyond words by the volunteers and supporters who have worked tirelessly in this campaign. Thank you all so much. I look forward to promoting Garland County with you on future efforts.

[embedplusvideo height="365" width="450" standard="" vars="ytid=E3sLLTgfwBg&width=450&height=365&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=1&react=1&chapters=&notes=" id="ep8242" /]



5 Responses to Garland County Voters Say No To National Park Community College Millage Increase (Watch Video)

  1. Barbara Reply

    April 11, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    What a wonderful opportunity for the teachers intending to educate the young people in trade skills to renovate the existing building on the campus. Being of brick ,most of the necessary work can be taught and completed inside of the buildings.
    This vote outcome is not a slap at the college but maybe the “rest of the story” should have been told and the evasiveness avoided. The reduction in State funding to the college has to due with the increased number of properties being assessed. .The higher the amount of funds being paid to the college( from more people being assessed) the less the state pays….pretty simple. Next time the college decides to go for a tax increase for a specific reason, be kind enough to let the tax terminate when the goal is accomplished. I would like to know (other than the medical program and aviation) which companies are anxious to have students prepared for job placement or are these training jobs what the college wants to teach and the students will eventually have to leave the area because the studies they have completed will require moving as there is no employer…YET…for local placement? Why has the money we currently pay to educate high school students NOT transferred to the college for the education of the students on the college campus? I understood this amounted to over $600,000 just blown away. We all envy your financial position!

  2. Lynda Narug Reply

    April 11, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    If private companies are so in need of trained workers, why not return to the days of apprenticeships? The property owners are hit for everything from pre-K now through college. It’s time companies who want the training, be responsible for what they need to accomplish the highest profits by training their own workers.

  3. Steve Reply

    April 13, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    I work for a local company that along with a few others helped set up NPCC for this training especially in the Aerospace part of it. However out of the 7 to 12 students who have taken this course each semester (21 to 36) so far (3 semesters down each 6 months long and completed in the same 6 month time frame) my company has only employed 3 and 9 of the current students are already employed and have been for 3 to 6 years at my company. Further more all of the Aerospace companies in the area (6) have supplied the school with equipment, and most of them have offered more support, and my company has sent 2 of our most experienced employees to the school to be instructors, and they use our facility for apprenticeships so its not that the need is not there it was the shady way of trying to get the millage passed…for example ” to provide funding for the new technical building, and OTHER THINGS” ….question was what were the other things? When that question was asked of the school you got the ever popular double speak with never getting a real answer, and to top all that off the school was asking to tax a already 3rd highest taxed county in the state (12.8%) to pay more taxes. Garland County is 3rd only to Sebastian, Polk, and Miller Counties. Yes Garland County pays more in taxes than Pulaski County, and more taxes for us was just not acceptable especially when there are other ways to get the necessary funding very much like the funding used to build the Fredrick Nursing Center (Government Grant), and local DONATIONS for the new Health and Wellness Center.

    • Lynda Narug Reply

      April 14, 2013 at 11:09 am

      Steve, wish you would send these comments to the Sentinel Record. Let the people know the facts, not just the one-sided views that are printed in today’s paper.

  4. Clinton Reply

    April 15, 2013 at 8:36 pm

    This was on Ms. Carder’s Facebook:

    Oh, by the way, the “Fat Lady has not sung” on the College millage….we still have jobs out there and we still need a Technical Campus for this County. Opposition, better sleep with one eye open.

    Sally Carder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>