ocean magic grand slot Blockmate Ventures Announces Closing of Strategic Investment and Incentive GrantThe school board will discuss on Monday evening whether to ask voters for bonds and/or levies as part of the upcoming May school election. The bruising defeat in May of two safety levies cast a shadow over recent budget committee discussions of whether to request money from voters, dividing school advocates on how to proceed. The district elected not to run a high school bond planned for the November general election after the results of the recent election. Opponents of running bonds and levies this May argue that asking tax-fatigued voters for money is tone deaf and that the returns of the last election — in which each levy received about 36.6% of the vote , less than the local vote share captured by Vice President Kamala Harris in the November presidential election — make failure almost certain. “It could be perceived as aggressive, that we don’t listen,” Superintendent Erwin Garcia said. “From a strategic standpoint it would be wise for us to wait.” Billings School District 2 Superintendent Erwin Garcia says he thinks it would be better to wait to ask the voters for increased funding. Supporters believe that it is the school district’s obligation to ask voters for money and that the district is obscuring its true needs from the community by not asking. “Just because the community doesn’t support us, doesn’t mean we don’t ask,” said Trustee Teresa Larsen. “Our education needs still exist. Do we crawl into a hole and hide?” Larsen Other supporters said that it’s the district’s job to advocate for education and the taxpayers’ job to consider their own finances. To further complicate the picture, the decision comes at a time of flux for school funding: between this fall’s end to federal pandemic aid for schools and an upcoming legislative session that could shake up school funding for better or worse. School district budgets depend on yearly passing bonds and levies under the state’s current funding model. “It’s not extras,” said Lance Melton, who has been CEO of the Montana School Board Association since 1996. He compared passing levies to tuning up a Chevy, not buying a Cadillac. Levies are used for operational costs whereas bonds are used for new buildings or major renovations, a difference simplified to “levies are for learning and bonds are for buildings.” The levy discussion has also forced participants to grapple with how campaigning for a levy has become more challenging over the years — due to demographic shifts and decreased voter awareness of school issues — and to brainstorm ways in which the district could improve its chances passing a levy in the future. Controversy among school advocates about whether to run a levy is a novelty for those who have been involved in the school system for many years, as asking voters for money, as part of the state’s funding model, used to be par for the course — pass or fail, rain or shine — for the school district. “I am from the old school that believes we need to run a levy every year,” said Scott McCulloch, who has been in education since the 1970s and is currently chairman of the school board. “What you hear now, I’ve heard it from the board for several years, is that you have to be aware of voters,” he continued. The school district ran bonds and levies eight times between 2000 and 2009 and six times between 2010 and 2019, always running multiple at once until 2019. Since 2020, the district has run a levy every other year. This past election was the first time there had been more than one levy at a time on the ballot since 2017. The last successful high school levy was approved in 2019 and the last successful elementary school levy was approved in 2020. The period in the early 2000s of back-to-back asks saw varying degrees of success. In 2000, voters rejected elementary and high school bonds and a high school levy before passing the same two bonds the next year, with the elementary vote swinging by 8% and the high school vote swinging by 5% between the two elections. In 2002, voters passed elementary and high school levies, then rejected the same plus an elementary technology levy the next year. In 2004, voters rejected elementary and high school technology levies, as well as a high school bond and a high school levy, but passed an elementary bond. McCulloch called this period of running multiple bonds and levies every year “the end of fearlessness.” “We needed that money,” he said of the decision to run multiple at once. “We were running levies because we needed the money.” Potentially splitting the vote by running more than a handful of asks is unthinkable now. Discussions of what could be asked for in the upcoming election focused on a high school bond or rerunning the safety levies. Even Karen Moses, a former trustee and district employee in strong favor of running levies every year, urged committee members to put a high school bond on the ballot without an elementary request out of fear of sabotaging the bond. “If there are two, voters always like the little kids and won’t vote for the high school,” she said at a November budget meeting. Karen Moses speaks on in support of early education during a teleconference with legislators at Montana State University Billings Thursday. The elementary district is currently funded $218,206 below the maximum operational budget that the district could seek through a levy; meanwhile the high school district is funded $1,773,613 below its threshold. Trustee Zack Terakedis said that the district’s reluctance to ask for what it needs has already negatively impacted the district. Zack Terakedis “ Daylis is in the state it’s in because we’re scared to ask,” he said. Brown mold blankets the ceiling of one of the lower locker rooms located under the west end bleachers of Daylis Stadium on Tuesday, July 9. School districts across the state have become increasingly averse to running bonds and levies, which have become more difficult to pass. In the ‘90s, about 50% of the state’s 400 districts would run a levy in a given year and 90% would pass, according to Melton. The passage rate fell to about 70% during the Great Recession, which he called “groundbreaking.” “Up until then, I’d wait until 12 hours after the levy and put out an editorial thanking the voters,” he said. Last election cycle, just 50 districts ran levies and about 50% of those levies passed. Of the bonds and levies run last year by the state’s AA districts, including Billings, voters approved just 38.9% of asks. “It was another one of those ‘oh my goodness’ moments,” Melton said. “Not only the rate of passage and failure, but the absolute lack of districts even putting them out.” Billings’ two safety levies each captured 36.5% of the vote, the lowest vote share of any levies in the past 25 years. Prior to the failed 2022 high school levy, which received 36.98% of the vote, no school bond or levy run from 2000 onward had received under 40% of the vote besides a 2004 bond request to build a new high school. Lance Edward, president of the Billings teachers’ union, argued in a recent budget meeting that it’s important for the district to run levies even if they fail, to demonstrate to the Legislature that the existing funding model does not work . Lance Edward is photographed in his office at the Billings Education Association in downtown Billings on Friday, Aug. 23. “If you’re not in the game it’s hard to say it’s not working,” he said. Edward also said that upcoming decennial school funding study will include mill levy passage rates, which could be inflated if districts are running them only when they think the voters will support them rather than when schools need money. School advocates in Billings and across the state have attributed the increase in levy failures in recent years to voters’ property tax fatigue. But deliberations about the upcoming election have led veterans of the levy process to reflect on the ways in which demographic changes and lack of public awareness of school issues have made it more difficult to get voters to support levies. Statewide, the share of voters with children in schools has declined in the past 25 years. Since 2000, the state's population has grown by 26% and the number of public school students has decreased by 4%, according to Office of Public Instruction and U.S. Census Bureau data. “A decreasing share of the population has a direct stake in school elections,” Melton said. In Billings, the population has increased by 11% in the past decade, but public school enrollment has only increased by 1%. There is also decreased awareness of the challenges and successes faced by schools, because of changes in where voters are getting news and declining interest in local news. Nationally, the percentage of Americans who reported very closely following local news decreased from 37% to 22% between 2016 and 2024, according to the Pew Research Center . The decreased interest in local news has led to cuts across the industry. The Billings Gazette does not have a dedicated education reporter, for example. “There are very few outlets now for people to know what’s going on in the schools,” McCulloch said. “There’s been an effort by the school district to do that.” The school district has had difficulty getting parents engaged in school issues, which supporters believe is vital for levy passage. Terakedis said that there’s an “involvement issue” and that the district needs a “big cultural shift,” citing that the most well-attended community meeting hosted by the superintendent this year had seven parents. Edward said that the biggest parent turnout to the school board this year was in response to a challenge to the district’s library policy , though an $87 million general fund budget should be as alarming to people who care about education. McCulloch found even the book ban turnout paltry given the size of the district. “What we consider a turnout is 200 people,” he said. “That sends a message too. We’ve got a real challenge in engaging this community.” Levy campaigners must fight the tide of disengagement with vigorous campaigning, which is difficult to sustain year after year. "It takes too much to get a levy passed in this community," McCulloch said. "You can't keep that up, financially and with participation, every single year." Kristal McCamey, a member of the SD2 budget committee whose children attend Elder Grove Elementary, used her elementary district’s communication with parents as an example. Every month, parents receive emails about cuts to programs, technology shortages and the number of classes over accreditation. “It stays on top of mind,” she said. “It’s not just once a year saying ‘Hey, do you know that we need money?’” Under state law, teachers are not permitted to advocate for levies on school property or during school hours, but Melton said keeping parents informed of the district’s challenges and successes is essential to building a foundation of support for school funding requests. “Every day of the year you’re promoting the levy — not unlawfully,” he said. Opponents of running another levy, on the other hand, conceive of voters as being more informed. Lorraine Devamme, a district employee, said that if the Legislature allocates more money to public schools in the legislative session, a levy might fail because “voters will say (we) already got money.” In response to a proposed high school levy, Garcia said that “taxpayers know we don’t have a deficit” in the high school district. In advocating against a May bond or levy, Garcia said the district would have a better sense of its needs after the legislative session. For example, if the Legislature approves the governor’s proposal to allocate $81 million to deferred maintenance , the high school bond may not be the district's most pressing need. And if the Legislature passes a bill that ends permanent levies, as a drafted bill has proposed, the district will lose its technology levies and will need to ask for voter approval again. “There are so many moving parts,” Garcia said. “We should wait to see what happens so we can readjust.” Other bills before the Legislature include revising levies to be based on fixed dollar approvals rather than mills, requiring a supermajority of voters to pass voted mill levies and requiring minimum voter turnout to validate property tax levy elections. “If you have anything to do with public education, buckle up for this legislative session,” Terakedis said, who suggested that the district should try to pass a levy before a potential supermajority provision. Garcia voiced optimism about a proposed bill to increase school funding called the STARS Act, as did Devamme. “Lets give the Legislature an opportunity to listen to us, to give us some money,” she said. Other meeting attendees were more skeptical of putting faith in the legislature, after “four decades of the state not living up to its responsibility,” per Moses. In the last two budget meetings, committee members have discussed running a high school bond, updating the district’s technology levies or running another pair of safety levies. Though the district has permanent technology levies in place, they bring in a fixed dollar amount each year, though the costs of the personnel and software they pay for continue to increase — leaving less funding each year for other purchases. The district has been reluctant to run new technology levies due to fear that they will be rejected by the community and will cause the district to lose the meager ones currently in place. Scott Reiter, the facilities manager for the district, instead spoke on behalf of a high school bond. “A high school bond would have the most impact on this whole district,” he said. “The 2013 elementary bond changed elementary schools.” Meanwhile, Garcia and Jim Corson, another committee member reluctant to run a spring bond or levy, floated the idea of running another pair of safety levies. “To me, the safety issues were really compelling,” Corson said at the November budget meeting. “The safety levy is sexy. If you’re going to vote for something you vote for safety.” Districts across the state have gravitated toward safety levies for three reasons: they are a legitimate need, they seem to align with community priorities, and they allow district to request more money from voters than they could through operational levies, which are constrained by general fund budget caps. For example, Billings could only request $218,260 from voters through an elementary operational levy or $1,773,163 for high schools, but the district requested about $2.5 million for each through the recent safety levies. Safety levies run last May by districts across the state requested more money from voters than other levies — and performed worse at the polls. In AA districts that ran multiple levies, vote share was correlated with the size of the ask, not what it was for. In Missoula’s elementary district , a safety levy requested $11.24 per year per $100,000 of home value, while an operational levy requested $0.79. In the high school district, a safety levy asked for $4.08 and an operational levy for $1.65. Both operational levies outran their respective safety levies . The elementary school operational levy overperformed the safety levy by over 9% of the vote, or 1,764 votes. The high school operational levy outran the high school safety levy by 5.7%, or 1,737 votes. The high school safety levy was the only levy to fail. In Helena’s elementary district , an operational levy requested $2.08 annually per $100,000 in home value, while a safety levy requested $61.90 and a tech levy requested $39.97. In the high school district, a safety levy requested $80.27 and a tech levy requested $6.29. Voters rejected all five levies, with the bigger requests in each district failing by larger margins. The elementary general fund levy ran 9.22% ahead of the elementary safety levy , a difference of 1,623 votes. The elementary tech levy ran 3.97% ahead of the safety levy, with 756 more votes. In the high school district, the tech levy outran the safety levy by 4.77%, or 854 votes. Melton, of the state’s school board association, attributed low safety levy support to a “sticker shock” response to the cost. Billings School District 2 board chairman Scott McCulloch speaks during interviews with superintendent candidates at the Lincoln Center in 2023. Get our local education coverage delivered directly to your inbox. Public safety reporter {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items.

New Zealand Terms of Trade Index came in at 2.4%, above expectations (1.8%) in 3QFrench Assets Under Pressure Amid Political InstabilityNone

Trump Cabinet picks, appointees targeted by bomb threats and swatting attacksAlan Shearer was fuming with Manchester City after they threw away a three-goal lead in the Champions League against Feyenoord, ahead of their Premier League game against Liverpool Alan Shearer didn't hold back in his criticism of Manchester City following their shocking Champions League collapse against Feyenoord at Etihad Stadium. Despite being ahead thanks to goals from Erling Haaland and Ilkay Gundogan, Pep Guardiola's team, who have lost their last five games, saw their lead slip away due to a remarkable 14-minute comeback by the Dutch side. A series of unforced errors, including those made by Josko Gvardiol and Ederson, led to the surrendering of a three-goal lead. After it seemed like City would win easily, Shearer was blunt in his analysis of how they let Feyenoord stage a comeback. "We're in for an interesting 10 minutes through stupid errors, lapses in concentration and letting the opposition back into the game," he commented on Amazon Prime after Feyenoord's second goal. "For a team with such experience even when the subs have been made, the game management has been really awful." "3-2 up, taking a quick free kick with two minutes to go." The ex-Premier League striker reiterated his point after David Hancko's equaliser. "I said about game management and they're trying to kill the game and hold a high line, it didn't work at all," he conceded. "Brilliant from Feyenoord, the belief to keep on going and put this team under pressure, hoping they'd fall and cave in and that's exactly what has happened." At the full time whistle, Shearer didn't hold back in his assessment of Man City's performance, delivering a scathing critique that will no doubt be music to the ears of Liverpool fans before their Premier League clash this weekend as he described Guardiola's side as 'weak, light and frail' . "They look weak. They look light and frail and are giving the opposition far too many chances," said Shearer. "They were cruising midway through this game, whatever you do whatever you cannot do is give the opposition chances and a little bit of hope. That is exactly what they did. Even when they were winning 3-2 with two minutes to go they were trying to take a quick free-kick. Why? Kill the game." "You are winning it, there's no need to do that, sit on the ball. The game management was awful and they have been punished. It's been an absolute disaster for them this evening after being in such a comfortable position." Arne Slot's side will go 11 points clear at the top if they beat the champions and their recent form alongside low confidence levels suggests that is the likely outcome.

ON Semiconductor: A Hidden Gem Amidst Market Trends? ON Semiconductor Corporation (NASDAQ:ON) is currently making waves in investment circles due to its unusual market indicators. With a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 16x, it stands significantly lower than almost half of U.S.-based companies that enjoy P/E values above 20x, and some even exceed 35x. At first glance, this might seem like a bullish signal , suggesting a potential opportunity for savvy investors. However, there’s more beneath the surface that demands a closer look. Recent performance highlights ON Semiconductor’s struggle as its earnings have not kept pace with the broader corporate growth patterns. This underperformance might explain the restrained P/E ratio, as investors appear cautious about the company’s future prospects. While the company has seen a disappointing 20% dip in earnings per share (EPS) in the past year, the overall three-year trajectory shows an impressive 158% increase. Looking ahead, analysts predict a promising annual EPS growth of 16% for the upcoming three years, outstripping the broader market projection of 11%. This potential has not yet been fully embraced by investors, suggesting a disparity in perception versus reality. By closely analyzing ON Semiconductor’s financial health and growth forecasts, investors can better navigate these apparent contradictions. For those willing to delve deeper, evaluation of ON Semiconductor’s balance sheet and risk factors could reveal hidden opportunities within the tech sector. As always, thorough due diligence is key before making any investment decisions. Is ON Semiconductor the Next Big Bet in Tech Stocks? Exploring ON Semiconductor’s Market Position and Future Potential ON Semiconductor Corporation, a notable player in the tech industry, has recently garnered attention due to its atypical market performance and unique financial metrics. With a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 16, significantly lower than many of its peers with ratios often surpassing 20 or even 35, ON Semiconductor presents a perplexing scenario for investors. This piece seeks to uncover fresh insights into its market standing and future growth potential. Financial Health and Performance Analysis ON Semiconductor has been a subject of interest due to its intriguing financial trajectory. Despite a recent 20% decline in earnings per share (EPS) over the past year, the company has experienced a substantial 158% increase over a three-year period. This discrepancy underscores the volatile nature of its recent performance while highlighting its capacity for long-term growth. Analysts are optimistic about ON Semiconductor’s prospects, forecasting an impressive 16% annual EPS growth over the next three years. This anticipated growth rate surpasses the broader market’s predicted annual growth of 11%, presenting a compelling case for the company’s potential future valuation improvements. Market Analysis and Investor Perception The existing gap between the company’s market metrics and its expected growth suggests a potential undervaluation. This perception presents an opportunity for investors to reconsider their stance on ON Semiconductor, especially when aligned with an in-depth analysis of its financial resilience and risk factors. Innovations and Technological Advancements ON Semiconductor’s commitment to innovation is another aspect worth exploring. The company’s focus on advancing its technology stack places it in a strong position to capitalize on the growing demand for semiconductors across various industries. Market trends continue to indicate an increasing reliance on tech-driven solutions, suggesting that ON Semiconductor’s strategic focus on innovation could yield substantial results. Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility In addition to its financial and growth metrics, ON Semiconductor has been making strides in adopting sustainable practices. By prioritizing energy-efficient technologies and reducing environmental impact, the company aligns itself with the increasing global emphasis on sustainability—a factor that can play a crucial role in its long-term success and market attractiveness. Conclusion and Due Diligence Considering ON Semiconductor’s current pricing and growth prospects, a deeper evaluation of the company’s strategic direction and risks could potentially unveil undervalued opportunities in the tech sector. As always, conducting thorough due diligence is imperative before making any investments. For more information on ON Semiconductor and its market activities, visit their official site [ON Semiconductor](https://onsemi.com).Podeli : Despite Rio Tinto’s announcement in August 2021 that a pilot plant for the chemical treatment of jadarite with sulfuric acid would be sent to Serbia within weeks, this has not happened—and, according to the company, it will not happen. The foreign company cited „a massive campaign of disinformation and public intimidation“ as the reason for reversing its decision. As evidence, Rio Tinto referenced an open letter to Serbia’s president by the organization “Ne damo Jadar” and an opinion piece on the Nova.rs website. According to Rio Tinto, the pilot plant is located at the Bundora Technology and Development Center near Melbourne, Australia. The company claims the facility was developed by domestic and international experts. „All testing of mineral processing for jadarite ore was conducted following all safety standards. Three chemical testing campaigns were carried out, operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. During these tests, we collaborated with 40 top international suppliers and tested 5,000 pieces of equipment. Five independent audits confirmed the process is stable, safe, and successful,“ Rio Tinto stated. However, the company did not provide data to substantiate these claims. The process involves three stages: mining, chemical processing to produce lithium carbonate, and waste disposal. Rio Tinto added that if the professional public expresses interest in learning about the technology tested at the pilot plant for the Jadar project, the company is willing to respond positively but did not clarify how this would be done.

Raghav Juyal In Kill To Abhishek Bachchan In I Want To Talk: Most Underrated Performances Of 2024