TESTIMONIALS
The facility planning committee (as it is called) comprised of approximately 50 individuals made up of mothers, fathers, teachers, concerned patrons and some board members (all tax payers) from all over the district. These people are intelligent, successful, and enthusiastic and determined in their efforts and ideas. They have strong opinions and are not easily influenced. Many of them, including myself, opposed the March 2014 bond as it seemed over-reaching, too expensive and too long. There had to be a better way.
As a committee, we set out to examine options and alternatives to the failed bond and agree on a recommendation for the school board. The recommendation had to provide solutions and be more acceptable to the voter. Our goal was to achieve unanimity; but if not unanimity, a majority vote of at least 80 percent would be required.
We met on 4 occasions spread over three months. During each of these very involved 3 hour discussions, we were presented with facts, history and projections. We talked with architects, builders, financial advisors, survey professionals and district administration to gather as much data as possible to support our recommendation.
Using this information, we established over 12 different criteria necessary for the students and patrons. These criteria included, but were not limited to, student safety, neighborhood impact, financing cost effectiveness and consequences to the taxpayer. We also discussed over 18 potential solutions to overcrowding, including year-round school, split sessions, remodels, additions and new construction. After thorough discussion and debate, we selected the most sensible options meeting the criteria.
When some committee members were not in total agreement with the recommendation, and without unanimity, a vote was required. Before voting, every committee member present voiced their own opinions and concerns. After voting, over 80% of the committee members were in favor of the recommendation.
There are those who now feel it necessary to discredit the committee’s hard work and efforts. They would have the voter believe that the recommendation came only through overwhelming influence and pressure from the district administration. They would say that the committee was duped into compliance with district agendas. Those disingenuous acts and statements should be quickly dismissed.
We must recognize that growth in the district requires our community to come together and overcome difficult challenges. I urge you study the facts, educate yourself, and support the bond that will be proposed by district 93 in March. It will be the better way.
Mike Cook, Post Register Editorial 12/19/2014
As a board member I participated in many meetings and discussions about the growth in our District. The conversation about building a new High School started more than 5 years ago. As we were building elementary schools we knew that those students would require secondary schools for their continued education. We were able to build numerous Elementary Schools, improve facilities, purchase busses and educational technology at no increased tax cost to the patrons. However, we knew the day would come that the requirement of new secondary schools would require a tax increase for patrons. We as patrons should feel very fortunate that the district has been able to benefit from the growth in tax base in our district, this growth has been able to cover all of these expenses. It is now time that we need to continue to support our school district by voting in support of this new bond for a new High School. Both Hillcrest and Bonneville are far beyond their capacity. This not only creates significant safety issues, but it also reduces the quality of education our children are receiving. Although a tax increase is not something most of us are ever excited about, I cant think of a better reason to pay a little more in taxes than investing in our children, our future parents and leaders of our community. It is also important to know that there is a tax exemption when it comes to the amount of taxes you pay on your personal home. I can not quote exactly the amount but there is an exemption of 50% of the value of your home up to I believe a total of $80,000. Its important that we inquire of the district about how this tax exemption works specifically in our own tax burden.
I was selected as a member of the Facilities Planning Committee for the district this last fall. This committee was to evaluate any possibilities we could discover in regards to meeting the overcrowding in our secondary schools. This district did in my opinion a great job in selecting over 50 members of the community to participate, they selected members of the community from all platforms of support and non support of a bond for our district. The district hired an unbiased mediator to direct the discussions. We met together on 5 separate occasions, and between meetings we completed surveys and studied options for educating our children. The bond proposal that is being presented to the community for vote on Mar 10 is the result of these meetings, this was developed but patrons, parents, businessmen and community leaders. This proposal was approved by the board but was created by us members of the community. At the end of the meetings we had over 80% approval and agreement from the committee on the bond that is being proposed. I was in support of the previous bond, but I also recognized there were multiple weaknesses to that bond proposal. I personally feel that what has been accomplished with this committee is historic and demonstrates the collaboration and the working relationship that can exist when people are willing to get involved. I fully support this Bond Proposal and am proud to live in our School District. Please come out and support our children and their education on March 10th and vote in favor of this bond. If you have any questions you would like to ask me in regards to our committee meetings or my history with the school board feel free to contact me at DeVereHunt@gmail.com
Sincerely,
DeVere Hunt
It happened to be one of the first meetings of the planning committee. I invited myself in and quietly observed the process and attendees from the back of the room. I was then asked if I was interested in joining the committee.
I can honestly say that I feel like District 93 did everything it could to get a representative mix of people to serve on this committee. There were numerous individuals present that I knew had voted no to the bond the first go around - for a variety of reasons. Over the coming weeks, discussions were facilitated and homework was assigned. Ideas were presented and experts were present including architects, engineers, building planners, teachers, citizens, financial planners, etc. Each provided input as ideas were vetted. Several surveys were given along the way to help us understand where the committee stood as a whole.
The process was not perfect, it never is. When you get that many varied opinions on one committee, you will never have perfect alignment. But many did their best to come to a consensus on how to best fix the District's current and future overcrowding problems. The School Board's recommendation of a bond for a basic high school reflects the committees consensus. It is a stand alone bond for a no frills school that focuses on the space issue. It is a shorter bond proposal by 10 years, saving millions. Will it solve all of the overcrowding problems? No. Will more schools need to be built in the future? Yes...so long as the area continues to grow in population. Did District 93 employees, teachers, and/or the School Board come up with the current plan for a new high school as some have suggested? Emphatically, NO. A group of your neighbors and friends did their best in an attempt to address concerns that arose during the last bond attempt. I was there and can attest to that fact.
Jade Dye
I am totally convinced that our final recommendation represents exactly what the entire citizenry of our District would conclude today if they all had the same information and understood the facts and circumstances as completely and thoroughly as we did. The only way the people of this District might conclude otherwise would be if they were influenced by misinformation or misunderstanding of the facts.
It is clear that building a new high school is the best way to solve the over-crowding problem. It is also clear that we need to do it now. You only have to talk to a high-schooler to understand why. Why should a 16-year-old take education seriously if we don’t? What kind of message does it send to our youth if we don’t care that they have to wait in long lines to use a bathroom at school? If only 20% of them can get lunch in the cafeteria on any given day? If the crowds in the hallways are so thick that bumping and shoving becomes the only way to get to class? If desirable classes and extra-curricular programs fill up so fast that they are basically denied the education they would like to get?
We have to stop sending that message to our youth—that we don’t care about the quality of their education experience. If we want them always to strive for excellence in their education, in their careers, and in their contributions to their families and communities, then we have to set an example of excellence for them, by giving them an educational experience that reflects excellence in every possible way.
Larry Larson
The process the District took leading up to this bond is certainly to be commended. We were impressed in the District’s level of community involvement and with the shorter payoff term of the proposed bond. In addition, the District addressed our concerns regarding access points for better traffic flow. While we would have preferred to see the addition of a Performing Arts Center with the new high school, we are supporting the current proposal because we recognize that the most pressing need is the high school itself.
We consider this to be a good investment in our community and the children that live here. For these reasons, we will be voting “Yes” for the District 93 School Bond on March 10.
Sean Coletti, Jessi Coletti and Launa Grigg
The committee met together every 2-3 weeks over the course of about 2 1/2 months. During that time those on the committee, representing both YES voters and NO voters from the previous failed election, were allowed to vet several additional options aside from a new High School. By my estimation the participants were divided approximately 50/50 for and against a new High School and the previous bond. It is my understanding that there were several "NO" voters invited to come, including some who were and still are vocally opposed to the bond and new high school, but who voluntarily chose not to attend.
Though it was clear the majority of the School Board members believed the only solution was construction of both a new high school and middle school they actually played a relatively minor role in influencing the committee to choose the new high school option. Those opponents to the bond, who were part of the committee were, for the most part, kind and easy to work with as various possibilities were explored.
* Safety. After hearing from police officers from Bonneville County as they talked about statistics of crime escalating due to overcrowded halls and common areas as well as parking lots I understood better why just widening the halls and trying to enlarge and improve the existing high schools was not the best idea. And this, not to mention boundary changes to shift the larger student body to Bonneville following renovation at Bonneville only to have to shift them back when renovations at Hillcrest were completed a few years later seems extremely unfair especially given those who have children on or near the existing borders that would require movement. I listened to teachers and administrators talk about concerns of students leaving a main campus to walk or bus to a satellite campus. Coupled with that the levels of truancy and increased crime persuaded me that this was not a viable solution.
* Academic success. I listened to studies about the drawbacks of having 9th graders in their own 'academy' or having 9th graders down in a Jr. High setting. I realized that they typically perform better when grouped with other older high school students thus preparing them for scholarships and classes that would not ordinarily be offered in a 9th grade or jr. high setting. This persuaded me that moving the 9th graders out of the high schools and constructing a new middle school or jr. high was not a good option.
Despite wishing there was an additional and less expensive option I came away from the meetings feeling like the committee had done due diligence with the task at hand and is presenting to the Board and it's patrons the best, most cost effective long term solution possible in the construction of a new high school. My vote is to pass this bond. My vote is for the young people of our community who are the future.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Child