School bond defeated by slim margin

Friday, September 7, 2007

by Kelly Everitt

Voters wait in line to cast their ballot for the school bond election Thursday at Hacker Middle School.

The $34.5 million school bond went down to defeat Thursday night by the slimmest of margins, the district garnering a strong 65.1 percent of the 67 percent yes votes needed for the measure to pass.

With less than 70 additional yes votes the measure would have been approved, but instead it lost by a margin of 985 yes votes to 529 no votes.

A disappointed Superintendent Tim McMurtrey noted that "it means our plans are good, we just couldn't get the support."

"Whenever you can get 65 percent," school board chairman Jim Alexander added, "you feel like you've won. You didn't... but you feel like it."

"The bottom line is," McMurtrey said, "we're still going to educate the kids to the best of our ability with the resources available. That's what our teachers do and we'll keep doing it."

Alexander said that while the district could potentially go back to the voters in late winter (possibly as early as February), his initial thinking is that it would be better to wait until late spring (perhaps May) or again in early fall next year.

Although voters could cast ballots at any school, in general, most voters went to the polls in the schools where their children attend classes. At the high school, 88 percent of the voters cast favorable ballots, as did 78 percent at the junior high and 70 percent at Hacker Middle School. Those were the three schools that would have been most impacted by the bond election.

But at the elementary school polls, only about 60 percent voted in favor of the bond.

For more details on the bond issue's failure, and the district's plans for the future, see next week's Mountain Home News.

Comments

View 11 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

What next?

-- Posted by sniderd on Fri, Sep 7, 2007, at 11:50 AM
What next? I'd say, as one who voted against this huge bond, would be give us a more modest proposal. Something under 50 MILLION dollars this time.

This bond was like my wife saying, "I need $30,000 to go shopping or we're over.". That's not reasonable, now maybe we can do $500 or even $1000. The point being, don't ask for everything you can think of at once. Perhaps they could use the TAXES WE ALREADY PAID, AND THE BUDGET THEY ALREADY HAVE, and please don't forget all the new homes being built (new taxes) and the 15% rate hike my taxes went up this year (up 15% in a recession!!!!) for smaller things, like a new parking lot, or AC for the school. Do it year by year, and don't save up 20 years of spending for one huge bond. I will vote no again, and again until I see something "bite-sized" and RESPONSIBLE. Like they are trying, make a budget with what you have like the rest of us, don't wait for a HUGE bond issue to come to the rescue, there is new tax base being added in this city/county everyday with all the construction (yes, I know there is more spending too). We need responsible government, that can plan, not just binge spend. That's why our federal govt has nearly bankrupted the nation, we don't need that locally. Shame on the last 3 decades for not planning and spending responsibly, I won't be a co-dependent enabler and just give them a huge debt bond to ensalve us with more taxes because they can't/won't manage what they've been given. No responsible citizen would enable that drunken irresponsible behavior--next time consider what you are doing and don't let the "IT's for the children" argument suck all the reasonsing out of you. Let's show the kiddies how to be responsible, to plan, to budget not just ask for a huge bailout after it's been screwed up for decades. No sir. No help for the foolish. Give us a REASONABLE proposal, whittle it down to the 5 million you need most and try again, that might be sober enough to vote for.

-- Posted by RAM on Fri, Sep 7, 2007, at 2:19 PM
I am a 1996 graduate of MHHS and find this appalling that the citizens of Mountain Home have yet again voted down a bond. Time after time and year after year this town has tried to improve the educational environment for the future of America and it seems like the residents of Mountain Home do nothing but vote it down. This makes me very sad because as the town has grown the school district has not been given the chance to grow with it. The students of School District #193 deserve improved learning conditions and these bonds that have been shot down would have all provided this. I think adults are just AFRAID to vote yes because they are greedy. Yes I am an adult and I speak out like this. I realize I don't live in Mountain Home any more but my mother still does and I have played with the notion of moving back to my hometown. But if the people of Mountain Home don't care enough about the young people of Mountain Home to vote yes on a school bond I am not sure I wanna live there. I feel that the students are our future and if we don't give them a decent learning environment so they can learn to their full potential then we are cheating everyone. I hope the citizens of Mountain Home read this and change their minds and vote yes on the next school bond

-- Posted by smurph on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:38 AM
I am a 1996 graduate of MHHS and find this appalling that the citizens of Mountain Home have yet again voted down a bond. Time after time and year after year this town has tried to improve the educational environment for the future of America and it seems like the residents of Mountain Home do nothing but vote it down. This makes me very sad because as the town has grown the school district has not been given the chance to grow with it. The students of School District #193 deserve improved learning conditions and these bonds that have been shot down would have all provided this. I think adults are just AFRAID to vote yes because they are greedy. Yes I am an adult and I speak out like this. I realize I don't live in Mountain Home any more but my mother still does and I have played with the notion of moving back to my hometown. But if the people of Mountain Home don't care enough about the young people of Mountain Home to vote yes on a school bond I am not sure I wanna live there. I feel that the students are our future and if we don't give them a decent learning environment so they can learn to their full potential then we are cheating everyone. I hope the citizens of Mountain Home read this and change their minds and vote yes on the next school bond

-- Posted by smurph on Thu, Sep 13, 2007, at 9:39 AM
Along with this topic there was a letter written to the editor saying -Shame on you for voting no.

The person who wrote the letter I believe, was misinformed. This bond was not to buy school books. This bond was to add to the school building, parking lots and track. If buying books is a priority then why weren't they purchased when the last school bond was passed? Is it because the "system" doesn't think books are all that important???

I voted no because I don't believe we need to make our school buildings a shrine for everyone to "see what we have." I don't want to keep up with Jones'. What I DO want are school books for the students -which by the way - a bond doesn't pay for. We have more income from property taxes and new homes that are still selling. Where has all the extra money gone? My children graduated in 1998,2000 and 2004. Not one of them had enough books to go around to each student. So they weren't able to bring books home either. It's VERY sad that with new money coming in, no one ever thought of getting new books instead of a glorified building.

Who the the world is managing the money?

We do NOT need such a large gym. There was money put into the current track this year to upgrade it. Why do we need an indoor track anyway? Just to out do everyone else? The atrium in the school is just fine. Why were we going to change it?

Crowding is part of the problem? Why not allow the children that we brought from Mtn Home AFB last year go back to the school on base? Most of the base personnel would prefer their children go the school closest to their work. I know I did. This move created even more crowding in the schools. I figured when this move was made last year that a bond was being readied for approval.Why did it seem as if we overcrowded our town schools to get a bond passed?

There was never a comment made on hiring new teachers for the class rooms we would now have to add. Where would that money come from?

On another note: Elections have always been predominently on Tuesdays AND at the normal polling/voting places. Why was this election held on Thursday, at the schools AND "In Conjunction with" school open houses? Just seems a little conflict of interest to me.

We need responsible people to manage our school systems. They need to priortise IE: New books or larger atrium? Indoor track or spending money to move students back to the Airbase to eliminate the crowding, and rehiring the teachers to teach these students? And the list goes on and on.

Point is: Let's get back to basics. Instead of new, large, materialistic things, lets give the students the materials they need to learn with.Give the kids some REAL education. Let's start with books and teachers!!

-- Posted by midea on Fri, Sep 14, 2007, at 1:43 PM
Smurph: OK, I get your side of it. But you definitely don't get the other side. Put aside your Elementary Education for a moment, and let's talk economics.

Not feelings, not emoting for the children who have no chance to learn, not tired leftist dictates of "it's for the children". Here's the big problem, simply, the problem is leaders who haven't made good decisions along the way and have been irresponsible with the money they are given, and now they want a huge bailout! About $8500 per household! Please recall there's already a 5.4 Million dollar bond (with interest accumulating) that we are still paying for, in addition to all normal taxes, including the extra 1% added to sales to for schools, and all the various lottery programs--what are they doing with all the money!!

And please, learn something besides the tired leftist propaganda about more money solving all education woes. If that was true, the 15% tax hike I got this year would have helped, or the hundreds and hundreds of new, expensive homes going up in Elmore County would be put to good use improving education. It's not the money, it's the lack of planning and discipline that didn't set aside funds for this and that each year, and now they want this HUMOUNGOUS bailout for their irresponsible, planning. Each year, through tax increases and new properties to tax, there is a bigger budget, and they haven't used that to do even the little things, like paving a parking lot.

Were the good voters to approve this kind of bailout after decades of irresponsible management of the monies they are entrusted with, it would be just like giving crack to a crack addict, they'll never learn responsibility if they spend like 5 year olds at a toy store, never planning for the future (no offense to 5 year olds, we don't expect a 10 year out look on their spending habits--but we do from elected and appointed officials).

Please stop your crying and communist reasoning. Learn some economics; don't feed the beast when it just shreds all the money. The officials need to plan instead of have emergencies with huge bailouts. You mention "it's only $16..." but like I said, it's really $8500 per household, with interest added, and atop HUGE percentage increases in taxes and the tax base. In the vernacular, they are peeing away what they have been given!

You might note, homeschools on shoestring budgets have higher test scores than public schools that are, comparatively, flooded with money. More money won't solve things unless it's spent wisely.

Encourage the leaders to plan ahead, to pay for some things bit by bit, like a family does, out of the regular budget. Come with a more modest proposal, perhaps 5 or 10 million might get approved. I ASSURE you, for the above reasons, I will show up and vote NO again and again, and encourage others for the above reasons, to do the same. We don't hate children, we aren't just tightwads, we want RESPONSIBLE civil servants, not those who will waste what they are given.

BTW, I give more to charity and education each month than I pay in property taxes, each month. Money is part of the point, and if they weren't irresponsible money addicts as sure as crack addicts are to crack, I'd be glad to give them the money to spend wisely, but that is not the case. I'd like good schools (or better yet more charter schools, they too are more efficient and lean and produce better results than old-fashioned public schools that think money answers every problem).

Let's teach, by example, the children to be responsible, to budget and spend wisely! Shame on you for wanting to teach them otherwise by bailing out the horribly, shamefully irresponsible policies that got them here. And never, ever forget the homeschoolers that get higher scores, on no public budget and their families pay for public schools they never use, and are better off without. Don't make education into a god to be worshipped, it's in a pretty sorry state in the USA today, thanks to mushy, sentimental, emotional reasoning like you stated that wants ever more money without accountability and good stewardship.

Until they fix the FUNDAMENTAL problems with how they tax and spend, I'll vote NO and sleep soundly and happily, until they figure out how to pay for things year by year with the hard earned money from taxpayers. Let them come up with a more modest proposal, or alternative means of getting construction done. Until they can be good examples, my NO vote is assured as often as needed.

I hope more of you will join with my happy, well reasoned, caring for the children and their families and vote NO on bailouts to money junkies that WON'T act responsibly with your money.

I'm with you on giving the kids a good education, but not at any wild expense that lacks reason, planning and sobriety. No amount of emotion will sway me. Demand accountability and wise stewardship of the wealth confiscated by your government. VOTE NO until they wise up!

-- Posted by RAM on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 1:36 AM
RAM: You hit the nail on the head. My sentimnts exactly. Let's get some accountability and good decision making.

May I emphasise again - the kids need books, not a paved parking lot, newer atrium, and out of this world gym and track. Books have been a sore issues for at least 10 years - so where are they?????

-- Posted by midea on Sat, Sep 15, 2007, at 10:48 AM
Citizens have the right...no, the DUTY...to hold elected officials and other public servants accountable for expenditure of public funds, so I have no issue with those who question how the school district has managed money in the past (re: "Where are the books?").

That said, an eye toward the future is in order. There is a cost associated with putting off the inevitable. In this case, it is inevitable that Mountain Home will need a new High School facility in order to allow for both growth (everyone knows that is already happening) as well as to improve efficiency and...yes...improve the morale and general attitude of the students and faculty (as much as some don't want this to be a consideration, it IS and to ignore it is irresponsible). That cost will only increase the longer this is delayed as energy costs and interest rates increase.

So, those of you who voted "NO" should keep pressing the district officials to perform...but you should also accept responsibility for your part in driving the cost of this needed expansion up by your actions. Integrity check required here...

Thanks

-- Posted by rjs on Sun, Sep 16, 2007, at 12:15 PM
Pathetic. Voters might as well have said, "Here kids, do Meth."

-- Posted by mrfresh28 on Mon, Sep 17, 2007, at 3:03 PM
I'm with you RAM. I did vote yes on the Bond and I do not have any kids in the Mountain Home school system. But it was a tough decision. In fact I was an undecided voter right up until shortly after entering the voting booth. I carefully read the details of the bond proposal, (I didn't see anything about purchasing new text books), and being on a semi fixed income I carefully considered what the increase tax would do to my budget. It has been stated that it would only cost the average household $16.00 a month. Well to coin a phrase, 16 bucks here and 16 bucks there and pretty soon you are taking about some real money.

However; after reading a letter to editor and few responses in this forum putting shame on and disparaging the character of voters that made a different personal decision, I have changed my mind and will vote "No" if this same bond proposal comes up again. The majority of the "No" votes came from those with elementary school age children. I'm guessing that these are young parents just starting out and are on a limited budget already. They are certainly a long way from being able to have choice of sending their kids to U of I, or settling on lowly BSU. Had this bond passed it would have also raised taxes and the rent on those least able to afford it.

So I'm with RAM & midea. I will continue to vote "No" until a more reasonable plan is proposed. If my vote causes people to leave town, or keeps people from returning to Mountain Home, Well then I guess the alleged overcrowding problem at schools will have been solved.

I too have problem with the unusual Thursday Election. This may have contributed to the low voter turnout; i.e. only 1,514 people voted out of city population of about 20,000. Maybe that was organizers intent for vote that requires a super majority for passage. But at least the organizers of this school bond election held it well after the new property tax assessments were issued. This allowed voters to be well educated, wiegh the pro's and cons', and to assess whether or not they could afford the tax increase. Not like the way Ada and Canyon County suspiciously withheld sending out their new tax assessments until after their vote on the Community College issue.

BTW, when will the City, county, or whoevever finish the project that they started months ago and put the lines back on Old Highway 30 Southeast out of town?

-- Posted by Beau on Wed, Sep 19, 2007, at 2:49 AM
It�s a privilege to share this to the world. You deserve all the praise that comes to you. DR Amber has been a blessing to me since our encounter on the internet. He alone knows it all. I love him so much for his kindness, care, honesty and his help in the life of everyone that has come in contact with him. If not for DR Amber how would I have been able to survive this hardship. His spell made me a LOTTO MAX winner of 60 Million Dollars making my whole life beautiful and amazing. The numbers he gave me to play the lottery was a life changing number from grass to grace and I want to say I�m forever grateful to him. Thank you sir for being a blessing to the helpless. Anyone reading this that needs help can communicate with DR Amber online for indeed he has no match. Website: amberlottotemple.com OR Email: amberlottotemple@yahoo.com

-- Posted by leahgerics9 on Sat, Jun 18, 2022, at 6:24 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register