*Menu
Search
Submit
Mountain Home News

School bond defeated in heavy turnout

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The $37 million Mountain Home School District bond issue went down to defeat in heavy voting Tuesday.

Only 1,465 voters cast ballots to approve the bond, with 952 of the 2,417 total ballots cast marked "no." Although the bond receive a 60.6 percent approval rate it required 67 percent to pass.

Schools Supt. Tim McMurtrey, while disappointed in the defeat, was pleased with the turnout. "We feel like we got our message out, and the voters have spoken.

"We will continue to teach our kids to the best of our ability as we always have," he said.

The bond was designed to complete Phase II of the high school project, begun when the current junior high was built 10 years ago. In September of last year, when the district tried the identical proposal, the bond failed by 73 votes after getting 65.1 percent of the 1,514 votes cast. Between the two bonds the estimated cost of construction rose by approximately $2.5 million.

McMurtrey said it was too early to say what the district's board of trustees will do, but, he said, "I suspect we'll just put it away for a while."

The bond enjoyed widespread support among voters who cast ballots at the high school (80.35 percent), the junior high (70.45 percent) and Hacker Middle School (71.28 percent), the three schools most directly affected by the bond.

However, it barely exceeded 50 percent among all of the votes cast at the elementary schools, except for the base primary, where voters cast 62.3 percent of their ballots for approval. Voters at East Elementary only approved the measure by 52.88 percent, North Elementary voters hit 53.46 percent, and voters at the West Elementary polling site reached only a 51.04 percent approval rate. The Pine polling site was the only location where the bond received less than 50 percent, with 17 voters casting "yes" ballots and 29 casting "no" ballots (36.96 percent).

"It was the elementaries that killed us," McMurtrey said. "We need to find out what we're missing there, what we need to do to earn their approval."

Comments
View 55 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.
  • *

    WhoooHoooooooo

    -- Posted by workingbee on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 11:01 PM

  • Now the real fun starts! I am pretty sure this is not over yet.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 11:05 PM

  • A win for Tax Payers!

    -- Posted by WABASH on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 11:15 PM

  • A big loss for the students and educators. Glad to see however that the yes votes outnumbered the no votes.

    -- Posted by gidaho on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 11:42 PM

  • Considering the fact that nobody asked for I.D., who knows who really did vote and how many "yes" or "no" votes there really were. This is going to end up like the FL election many years ago...ballots will be found in places other than the ballot boxes. What a mess.

    -- Posted by Elmorehorselady on Tue, Apr 29, 2008, at 11:56 PM

  • The people who voted no for this bond may think they have won, but we all lost.

    We've sent a clear message to the kids of this town that they just aren't important enough to spend any extra money on. Well, you get what you pay for.

    -- Posted by frenchfry on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 2:26 AM
  • *

    To those that say the children are the ones who will suffer over the defeat of this bond I have a few thoughts for you. I have said all along that improvements are needed just not at the cost that was proposed. We asked if the plan could be adjusted but the district was unwilling to bend at all. They devised a plan and like a spoiled child wanted what they wanted and would not accept anything less. It was pointed out how portions of the plan seemed a bit extreme and that the current economic situation would not support the plan as it was written and yet the district said no changes would be made. Common business sense would seem to dictate that the plan be compared to what the area could support but the district did not do that. Instead they seemed to want to keep up with the Jones (other communities) that are more financially stable than our's.

    My last suggestion on this subject to the district is not to put the plan away for later use, but to revised it to be more in line with what THIS community can afford. If they truly care about improving conditions for the children as they have stated they will attempt this again. But please DO NOT just pull the same plan off the shelf, dust it off and ask us to approve it. I for one do not think it will happen unless things change for the better.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 6:11 AM

  • Property Owners just saved 37 Million dollars. Good Job

    -- Posted by Freedom on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 7:31 AM

  • I concur with Old Guy. No alternative plan was ever offered up. This community cannot keep going into debt and expect the taxpayers to keep paying for it all. I'd personally like to see the balance sheets. Is the library debt paid off? I don't think so! Folks, this is not a big city. It is a small community with a lot of retired folks on fixed incomes. The District needs to come up with a less expensive plan. They're asking too much of us!

    -- Posted by Shadylady325 on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 8:58 AM

  • Can the school board LEARN? I hope so.

    They got defeated last time, then raised the bond and tried again.

    That's like having a guy give me his best offer of $3000 for a car I'm selling; and I come back with--how about $3500?

    The point is, if your bond is rejected, twice now, the answer is not to come back with "OK, How about 50 million?".

    YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY DR.!!!

    Try for the $5-$15 Million you "really need" and MAYBE that will go. Anything over that and my NO axe is sharpened and ready to swing again, and again, and again, and I'll tell others not to vote for excessive spending either.

    -- Posted by RAM on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 9:16 AM
  • *

    If it is such a loss for students and educators HOW did these kids make such a great achievment.....

    8th grade

    4.0 GPA -- Marrisa Aiken, Sarah Alley, Sydney Baldridge, Cara Buckner, John 'JT' Cristobal, Dallas Croft, Nicolas Duvall, Kalena Galloway, Ryan Goldsby, Tia Gustafson, Jake Hennessey, Jenna Knutson, Anna Martin, Emily McCabe, Anthony McKenzie, Karen Ortiz, Leah Riley, Brent Sexauer, Katie Siira, Chealsey Straw, Liliana Vera, Jessica Wheeler.

    -- Posted by workingbee on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 9:57 AM

  • Wow, I thought it might go through this time. Don't ask me why but I did. I agree that something needs to be done so that they can alleviate the over flow of kids at Hacker Middle School, but at what cost.

    All of you who want the bond to pass would you pass it at any cost? If the next bond they come up with is say 50-60 million dollars for "necessities" would you go for it?

    Just because there are people against the bond does not in any way mean they don't care for the children. All it means is that living in this town is expensive enough, with the rent and the gas prices, that adding even just a little, is more than they can handle as they are scraping by now.

    I applaud all of you well to do folk out there who can afford to pay taxes out your rear and are willing to do so, that is great!!! If you can afford the taxes for the bond then may I make a suggestion, every year save the money you would have spent and donate it to the district and call it a day. Then you can feel good about yourself and the retiree's on fixed incomes don't get the shaft.

    All I'm saying is that in these times of hardship and a declining economy that the district needs to be willing to compromise, and get the BARE necessities for now and at this moment the bar necessities are getting the 9th graders to the high school and the 7th graders to the Jr. high.... Everything else can and will come in time.

    -- Posted by Missylynn on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 10:00 AM

  • Ok our kids may need a change, and hacker is way over populated. Why not just expand the High School.

    Just the cost savings to move one grade level should make it affordable for this community. This is not a loss for the school district or our kids, and it is not a win for the community. We just need a nuts and bolts plan that does not have all the frills of a trump tower.

    Moving ninth grade to the high school and 7th grade to the Jr. High would be an alternative that should cost less. Why do we need to have architects involved that want to put their name on something, have an engineering firm design something structurally sound, and functional!

    We need to consider the cost after the fact as well, utilities, maintenance etc. Some of the money should be put away for this problem as it is never addressed.

    As long as the school district plans for the trump tower my vote is no!

    -- Posted by culling on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 11:00 AM

  • The timing was all wrong for this bond. We've had the library bond, the jail bond, and know there will be a hospital bond, the WECRD bond, all along with the quickly rising cost of living. It is hard to justify the approval of a bond when we all are paying more for gas, for groceries, just for living, the value of our homes is rapidly falling, etc. etc.. How many of us got pay raises to match what is going on with the economy? I know I didn't. I'm all for good schools, but now is simply not the time.

    -- Posted by Albert Clement on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 11:09 AM

  • Missylynn,

    We will just end up paying more money for less building.

    -- Posted by mule on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 11:59 AM

  • FF:

    Do you just hand over money for anything? No. We have put countless hours into ATTEMPTING to talk to the school district. It was all or nothing for them. Do the "anti" folks think we won? Not really. We have all stated that we want what is best for the kids but not at ANY cost. We need to think about the people in this town on fixed incomes, the economy and the FUTURE. What was proposed was what was wanted NOT what is needed to educate the kids and make them able to get along in life. We have a limited tax base and the "wants" need to be more in line with what the community can pay for. We tried to deal but the district thought for sure they had it in the bag. They did this to the kids---NOT those of us that voted "no." Maybe, just maybe, the next plan will be more in line with what we are ABLE to pay for. We did try to work with the district. All or nothing does not work. You can be mad or upset but be upset with the people that value their politics more than the kids. If it did not pass at the lower amount with a better economy, why would it pass at a higher amount with a bad economy. Duh!!!

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 12:59 PM

  • Mule:

    I know you were one of the biggest advocators of the bond and all the necessities that it would pay for.

    All I can say is there has to be a way to help the tax payers with the cost. I want the kids to get a good education, but as I said before with the cost of rent (and the new taxes would have raised that, even if it were only a few dollars)it still means that something is taken away from MY kids.

    I was looking for a place to rent in fact and a realty company told me they had a 3 bedroom 1 BATH house in the country they could rent me for $1000. That is crazy!!!! So not only am I getting gouged by the oil companies for gas to put into my car, and it is costing more to feed my kids because everyone else is getting gouged by the oil companies, I'm getting gouged by homeowners renting properties for outrageous amounts and I just am unable to afford.

    I do hope to buy a house someday soon but I don't want to go bankrupt doing it. I have found that living here it is much, much better to own than rent!!!!!

    -- Posted by Missylynn on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 3:23 PM

  • Missylynn,

    Good luck buying something. Rates are still low. Hopefully prices will continue to come down for you.

    -- Posted by mule on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 4:10 PM
  • *

    We really do need a new high school, and the old high school desperately needs repairs to be usuable in the near future. Perhaps we could find a more creative way to fund these items. Perhaps a local lottery game. People love to take a chance on winning something and are willing to pay for the opportunity....Or maybe a 1/2% local sales tax....

    -- Posted by broncosrock on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 5:03 PM

  • Well lets see how much homework/research all of you do when the bond comes up for the hosiptal or the Western rec district. Have you really check too see where each of your property taxes go and how each of those groups use your money? The hospital keeps saying they dont have enough money to expand or buy equipment but have you droven by there lately? Brougth the church's hall (hoping we would vote Yes on bond) they have total redone the clinic they own behind them, new parking lot etc, but we dont have enougth money for equipment in the hosiptal thou. Plus it we get a new hosiptal are we getting better service then we have now? The rec district has already spend a ton of the tax money on the land they purchase. The land they brougt was not even apprasialed according to the attorney. He advise me they could buy it for whatever they wanted with out tax payers approval. They wanted that land so bad a few years back that they offer the farmer 3/4 times the going rate per acre and they brought 10 acrea. Plus last year they changed their bond so Business owners have to pay into it now.. how do you think they feel. I'm hoping someone will get a group going and get signatures and get it off our taxes. gives you something to think about instead of the school bond.

    -- Posted by lovemthome on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 5:05 PM

  • Hmm... Wasnt that supposed to be the High School? Would have made more sense to stick to the original plan.

    As for the land that was purchase it would be nice to see something being done with it instead of just sitting there.

    -- Posted by SniperCQ on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 6:06 PM

  • What about the annual BUDGET?

    There were things in there like paving a parking lot. Now hold on; there has GOT to be some money in the budget each year for such things. Please don't hold your breath for a 40MLN $$ bond, and put off EVERYTHING until then.

    Be good stewards with what you have NOW.

    AND: THE TAX BASE HAS INCREASED. All around me new homes are going in, and all over town.

    Are the new homes singlewides? NO.

    Are they 3 BR + 1BA starters? NO.

    Are they 3BR/2BA? There's a few of those.

    What are they? SPRAWLING 3000SF 4BR+3BA+3CAR GARAGE. That's what I see many of going in NEW.

    Now, you see Dr., even us simple less educated folk know that these new homes are TAXED. Therefore, your tax base and revenue are INCREASING. Therefore your budget is increasing, and even if you have more kids (though not all new homes have children, and not all families send thier kids to Govt Education Camps).

    Simply: MAKE USE OF YOUR EXPANDING BUDGET from growth. Be thankful for that. You can pave a parking lot on the revenue from new construction, for example.

    -- Posted by RAM on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 6:24 PM

  • I Agree with "Old Guy"...i mean come on people...look at the picture. Do we (the community) really need that building, No we dont..i read from Culling's Post..about adding on the high school, why dont they come up with a plan like that or other plans...instead of just one!.

    In the original Plan was that the Current Junior High was suppose to be the high school...well that is the School's Districts fault..for A) Not Sticking to the original plan and B) Waiting so long to go for Phase II.

    To Missylynn...i agree with you, i voted no in this bond, dont get me wrong, im all in for a better future for our kids (i have a 3 1/2 year old, and one on the way). yes their might be overcrowding at the schools, but the M.H.S.D. needs to come up with alternative plans, plans that we (the communuity)can afford, especially in hard times like now (the economy)

    -- Posted by bond_opposer on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 7:40 PM
  • *

    COME ON PEOPLE!!! DO YOU NOT SEE THIS IS OUR FUTURE AS WELL. THESE YOUNG ADULTS ARE GOING TO BE OUR GOVERNMENT, POLITICIANS, MECAHNICS, LEADERS ECT. DO YOU REALIZE WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF WE HAD THE SPACE TO HOLD DISTRICT SPORT GAMES, AND EVEN STATE GAMES IN THE GYMS. IT WOULD BRING MONEY TO OUR COMMUNITY, FOOD, MOTELS, ECT. IT IS NOT ONLY THE PLAYERS COMING TO THE GAMES BUT THE FAMILY'S OF THE PLAYERS. MOUNTAIN HOME BABE RUTH CAL RIPKEN HOLDS A TOURNAMENT EVERY SUMMER AND IT BRINGS ALLOT OF MONEY HERE. JUST THINK OF THE OLDER YOUNG ADULT SPORTS. WE COULD EVEN GET BIG GUEST SPEAKERS TO COME AND HAVE A PLACE TO SPEAK AND BRING MONEY INTO MOUNTAIN HOME. AS IT IS NOW, WHERE DO THEY GO? TO THE HIGH SCHOOL GYM AND NOT VERY WILLINGLY. AND NO WE CANT HOLD THE DISTRICT GAMES OR STATE GAMES IN THE GYM WE HAVE NOW BECAUSE THE SEATING IS NOT ENOUGH AND IT IS A FIRE HAZZARD FOR TO MANY PEOPLE IN THE GYM. WHO WANTS TO TURN AWAY FAMILYS THAT TRAVE LFAR AWAY BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE FACILITY. IT IS TO BAD THE NOOOOOOO VOTERS DO NOT SEE ALL OF THE FACTS AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE MONEY HERE AND SEE OTHER SCHOOLS GET THE REVENUE. ONE DAY IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND IT WILL COST ALL OF US EVEN MORE MONEY. WAKE UPPPPPP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! IT IS NEEDED AND IT IS BETTER NOW THAN LATER, AND CHEAPER HELLOOOOOOOOOO. IT DOES NOT TAKE A ROCKET SCEINTIST TO FIGURE IT OUT.

    -- Posted by Bostonfan on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 10:32 PM
  • *

    Bostonfan,

    I saw all those facts and still voted No based on the non-facts that were provided. The fact you seem not to mention is that the current economy of Mt Home cannot support the bond as written, the district was unwilling to modify the bond, the district waited until the last few weeks to find out what the public thoughts were, the district did not even attempt to revise the bond from the first defeat and lastly, the district did not fully answer many of the questions posed to them.

    If you go back and actually READ some of the blogs on this topic, you will see that many of us NO voters would have gladly changed our vote had the district been more responsive. Many of us voiced the fact that upgrades are needed to improve the buildings and improve conditions for the CHILDREN just not at the cost the district proposed.

    I suggest you go back, review the facts and thoughts of all of the community before you try to chatise us for exercising our right to vote how we feel. Last time I checked that is one of the rights we have in this wonderful nation and one that many have fought for over many years.

    Ok I am off my soap box and will not respond to any more attacks on my right to vote in a manner that I want.

    -- Posted by B Mullen on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 10:47 PM

  • Bostonfan

    I see the facts just fine, thank you very much. AND MAYBE IF YOU DIDN'T USE ALL CAPS AND SOME DECENT GRAMMER YOU WOULD MAKE A LITTLE MORE SENSE. Fact is, we can't have what we can't afford. We have a huge problem in this country saying on budget and we are not setting a good example by living beyond our means - no matter how well intentioned. A little creativity, American ingenuity and a positive attitude go a VERY long way. And it costs nothing. The vote is over with. So now lets use our heads to get something going in this community within OUR budget.

    -- Posted by froggy on Wed, Apr 30, 2008, at 11:44 PM

  • Wow, right; I guess all of us ignorant non-rocket-scientist NO VOTERS were wrong.

    Bostonfan (Massachusets has earned the nickname Taxachusets), well, maybe he's right.

    If we'd just spend GOBS of money, with interest, over 30 years, then certainly, everything would be better :-)

    Unfortunately, after decades of trying just that, HOMESCHOOL AND PRIVATE SCHOOL CHILDREN ON 1/6TH TO 1/3RD THE BUDGET OF GOVERNMENT INDOCTRINATION CAMPS HAVE HIGHER TEST SCORES!!

    Closing our eyes and voting more money for the bloated school district was never, and will never be the answer.

    A modest proposal might float, but I'm ready to vote no with my non-rocket-scientist, privately educated brain. So sorry. More all caps rants won't convince me either.

    When can I go vote NO again???????????

    -- Posted by RAM on Thu, May 1, 2008, at 1:00 AM

  • The people have spoke and now the kids of this great town will have to live with it. When we went to the polls on Tuesday did we look at the future of this great town or did we look at the present. Yes, we are in a recession and the price of gas is going up every day BUT do you really think this is going to last. Things will probably/hopefully change once we get a real President in office who does not have his hand in the oil business. But we said no to the future of our schools. We all know we have to fix the roof on the High School gym. That's going to cost around 1.5 million dollars. That 1.5 million will now be cut from next years budget. My philosophy has always been if there is a problem you must have a solution. Tim, here's my solution. These young adults, our future leaders, are students first. Some are also athletes. Let's start the "Pay to Play" standards at Mountain Home. Charge each athlete a cost which would cover uniforms, transportation, officials, etc.. Also, we only need a varsity program. All other programs including Junior High should be CUT. We only need a head coach, all other coaches should be volunteers. I can remember back in the good ole days when we would completely fill Green Acres Football field. If you didn't get there at least 45 minutes early you would have to stand up and watch the game. I can also remember when we would fill the gym to watch both Girls and Boys basketball. That's when the people of this great town really supported the schools. Here's another solution to our problem, when there is bad weather and you have to hold graduation in the gym, have the graduate escort his or her two guests in. If my memory is right, that's all they are allowed to bring. Everyone else would have to watch it on home videos. There are many people saying "we were lied to when this was first proposed to us." That was ten years ago and in my own opinion I believe it was nothing more than a breakdown in communication. First, something was said and it was misunderstood. Second, it was TEN YEARS AGO, get over it! Another solution is to close the last school on base and bus those kids downtown. This would cut some staff positions and the cost to run that school but it would help with the budget problem. You, the great people of Mountain Home, have spoke and now WE all must live with it , especially the young people.

    -- Posted by Spudman on Thu, May 1, 2008, at 9:37 PM

  • Spudman,

    Regarding the $1.5 million for the roof…that money will come from funds from which we get computers, textbooks, and for general items in our respective departments (replacement projector bulbs, workbooks, etc.). For two years no one will receive any textbooks, workbooks, computers, etc., so I've been told.

    Couldn't agree with you more regarding the coaches and sports. My last classes of the day are decimated by kids being gone for sports or other activities.

    It has actually been 13 years since the first bond.

    -- Posted by mule on Thu, May 1, 2008, at 9:55 PM

  • Alot of the new house going up are not in the city limits, even tho those kids go to our crowded schools they don't pay the same taxes the rest of us do. They get the same services tho. Maybe the city needs to expand it's boundries to have them pay their share.

    -- Posted by frenchfry on Thu, May 1, 2008, at 10:09 PM

  • Wow fry guy! I live in the county and I DO pay my fair share...and more. I pay extra (more than folks in town) to have my trash collected (just 1-2 blocks)"outside" of town and I pay property taxes...according to my house value---just like you! I also pay WAY more than city residents to use the library. Further, I pay for that vacant land where the WECRD building should be. I pay for tags on my vehicles as well. I also pay over $200.00 for canal irrigation rights/water and $180.00 per year to have my well tested. Further, I have no kids in the schools here but pay for that as well (as I should). So, can you tell me how/why I do not pay "my fair share." The way I see it is this, you get your water tested MANY times a year for "free" ("pennies" on your taxes compared to me). I am pretty sure we ALL paid for the 1 or 2 CITY wells (but still part of Elmore County) that went dry a few years ago (which by the way are located in the COUNTY...outside of "town"). We paid $17,000 for our well and another $3,000 for septic (and hundreds to have it pumped and inspected). You pay LESS for trash pickup yet I live 1-2 blocks from city limits. Oh...I forgot...I also pay taxes to have the roads kept up but get to dodge holes all the way down 18th (AND, there are no lines painted). I am pretty sure I pay for better than that! So please tell me where we, in the county, live off of you! Sounds like you have it pretty good in town.

    Spudman:

    We tried to work with the district. You have no idea how we tried to get that bond amount down to what we, as a community, could pay for. They were so sure that they had the votes that they would not listen. So, the great admin. at the district is to blame for this. Who has a bond fail and less than a year later presents the SAME plan for a higher price? Not very smart. If it did not pass once at the lower price, why would it pass the 2nd time around (same plan) with a higher price? Sounds like we need a new school board and new admin. people. We tried to tell them and now the kids pay the price for their (the district's) "all or nothing" attitude. Mr. McMurtrey was so sure he had it. Should have had more baskets for those eggs I would guess.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 12:57 AM

  • People are complaining about the roof having to be fixed. This has been a 13 year problem - it was addressed in the bond when the new school was built. But, administrators decided to pull it from the bond and fix it later. Now my question is this:

    Why in a 13 year period couldn't the district have budgeted enough money or most of the money to fix the roof?

    This is not a new problem folks. It's been around the block so to speak.

    -- Posted by midea on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 10:03 AM

  • I don't agree with your plan for sports, I do agree with parents having to pay into it but I don't agree with taking them away from Jr. High. I think what they should do is more fund rasising, and they should have grades nothing less than a B in any class, don't go by GPA but go by each class, My kids are not allowed any extra activity if they have grades lower than a B they know this from the start. I think sports are an important part of a childs development but they should not be able to leave class early for practice and their grades need to be no less than a B.

    -- Posted by small town on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 11:36 AM

  • midea:

    That was what I tried to state but I guess that I did a poor job. In the meetings that were held (which we attended), Mr. McMurtrey said that much of the tax dollars are spent on maintaing the buildings and the older buildings at times have the higher costs. If this is where our tax money for schools goes, why are they not fixed? Further, like you said, why 13 years later...with all of the growth, has it still not been fixed/replaced. It was stated in an article that the truss system is shot (shot was my word not theirs) and was/is/could be a safety issue (or soon would be). Why has this not been fixed? Where do the tax monies go?

    Also, from he drawings of the "new building" it looks like they have created a new entrance and changed some other things. Why not use what is already there (since they spent a bundle for it in the first place) and just add what is needed? Why change what is only 10 years old and just about paid for? That is a big waste of money that would be better spent in other areas. Why reinvent the wheel if this one works just fine. I think the "no frills" statement needs to be looked at a bit more and we need to be sure that these added costs do not add up to millions of "pennies" for all that pay taxes in this community.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 5:24 PM

  • I went to HS there about 8 years ago and the building was falling apart then. Wish I still lived there so I could have voted.

    Sad day for Mtn. Home... the kids really need this.

    -- Posted by IdahoGirl on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 6:07 PM

  • Opinion Missy,

    What do you mean by "If this is where our tax money for schools goes, why are they not fixed?" Do you mean all schools in town are not fixed or just the High School?

    -- Posted by Hannah32 on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 11:25 PM

  • Hannah32:

    All of the schools need something fixed. However, I meant the HS with the roof that has been bad for the last 13 or so years. Surely they figured in all of this time that maybe something should be put aside for this project. It is 13 years later now and no money saved. I realize it is a lot of money (1.4 million) however, certainly they knew it needed to be done. So, now we are under contract for the repairs (from what has been stated) and they do not have the money. How does that work?

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, May 2, 2008, at 11:59 PM

  • Why doesn't the roof at the high school come out of the lottery fund? Someone stated below it would cost 1.5 million to fix the roof. Elmore county has received $2,942,700 since 1990. Why wasn't that money used to fix the roof? I found this on the web "The value of these contributions is immeasurable in providing quality, safe learning facilities for Idaho's young people. In school districts across Idaho, lottery dollars are used to refurbish worn roofs, replace boilers for heating systems, provide safety and security fences around playgrounds, and upgrade electrical wiring systems. The dividend is also used for carpet and paint in classrooms, gymnasium bleacher improvements, fire alarm enhancements, and the purchase of school buses. Lottery dollars have been utilized by growing school districts for land acquisition, placement of portable/temporary classrooms, and facility expansions."

    -- Posted by gamesgurl on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 3:14 AM

  • Spudman:

    Just so you know - they do charge the "athletes" to play at MHHS> I have a son that plays 3 sports and let me tell you I pay a pretty high price for him to play. I don't think that is going to solve anything. Funny thing is, you want to charge the athletes, when we could have put the competition style gym and the auditorium into the new high school and could have started to charge other people to come to our "state tournaments" that we currently cannot hold because of space. Would have brought people from all over the state to bring their money to pay for hotels, food, gas, etc. Seems like we missed the boat on that one.

    -- Posted by mtnhomemom1 on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 8:10 AM

  • WAKE UP!

    Delaying the inevitable only costs taxpayers MORE money. Mountain Home needs the finished high school now...and will only need it moreso later. The big problem with later is that it can and will only end up being a bigger tax burden! Do you people who voted "no" not realize that simple fact?

    I hope you're not relishing your "victory" too much...you just cost yourselves and the rest of Mountain Home a bundle!

    -- Posted by rjs on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 10:36 AM

  • to "RJS" I think you need to wake up!

    RJS quoted "Delaying the inevitable only costs taxpayers MORE money" EXACTLY! so why did it take so long to pass Phase II after 9 years after building the Junior High?? now that they waited 9 years later...Delaying it did inevitable cost the takepapers MORE money!.

    It looks like the School District has taugh all of the kids here a valuable lesson....and that is not to "Procrastinate".

    -- Posted by bond_opposer on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 12:20 PM

  • bond_opposer,

    A little review of history might help you understand the issue more clearly.

    The school district DID try MULTIPLE TIMES prior to the Phase 1 bond to get the voters in Mountain Home to agree to a fully-funded bond to build a new high school. These attempts failed, so the two-phased bond approach was suggested, eventually put on the ballot, and finally passed.

    In the wake of that phase 1 approved bond, there was a great deal of anger amongst voters who (somehow) thought they had voted for a one-tim deal to fund a complete high school. How they misunderstood this is beyond me, as I clearly understood it was to be only phase 1...through both the media coverage at the time and by ACTUALLY READING the text of the bond that I voted in favor of at the time. Apparently, those who felt they were misled did not read either the Mountain Home News nor the text of the bond itself...which is totally irresponsible on their parts. As a result of this misplaced anger, the proposal for phase 2 of the bond was considered more than once, but was untimately delayed until last year. The district officials felt (wisely so, it would seem) that the negativity that resulted from that misplaced anger would have an effect on getting the phase 2 bond passed.

    So...again, the opportunity to set things right once and for all has been presented to the voters and (once again) a very vocal minority has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    ...and yes, this has cost all taxpayers more than the school districts supposed mismanagement of the issue ever has.

    -- Posted by rjs on Sat, May 3, 2008, at 2:30 PM

  • It looks like the School District has taugh all of the kids here a valuable lesson....and that is not to "Procrastinate".

    Maybe the School District should teach them Math that way they will understand Economics and then they can watch Dave Ramsey so when Grow up they won't be in Debt

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 9:21 AM

  • Yes, RJS, it is all our fault regarding the bond. How do you live with all of us that are so ignorant? It must be very hard for you to deal with. Maybe you should move to a place where everyone has a lot of money and there are no seniors or other people on fixed incomes and people do not have to watch their money (or lack of it). How much do you figure our county spends to run a special election each time? Guess most of us "anti" folks should just vote "Yes" next time with no questions asked. The ability to vote, last time I checked, was a right. So was my right to vote "no" which I will do yet again if the district does not have a better plan and that is MY right.

    -- Posted by OpinionMissy on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 12:10 PM

  • mtnhomemom1,

    I think it's great your son plays three sports and I'm sure as a proud parent, he's doing fine in his classes. We, the people of Mountain Home, must come up with the funds to repair the high school gym roof. The last thing I would like to see is the district taking money out of future books, computers, etc.. that our kids will need. I believe we need to take it out of the "extra" activities our kids do, such as sports, choir, drama, dance, etc.. They are in school for an education. BUT I must say as a BIG SPORTS fan, the last thing I would like to see is the kids being hurt! We voted against the bond, we must now move on. Would I like to see State come to Mountain Home, heck yes. I've officiated numerous sports at the state level and see the pride the schools hosting have. I believe Mountain Home would be a GREAT place to host. We just need the places to hold them. Will the cost go up again, YES. Why? Because the cost of everything will go up. Do we need all of the assets under phase II, YES. Why? Becuase we should be able to enjoy our AWARD winning choir singing in a relaxing setting or to watch our students in drama or dance preform.

    -- Posted by Spudman on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 1:33 PM

  • Here's an Idea, California has alot of programs (that property owners Pay for) people can mover there, Heck at 37 Million dollars a pop with another 100 Million bond coming along next year ( we get no rest, dare not take a vacation) we could pay to move these folks to California and with One years (Free haha) Rent too boot. Heck with this savings (130 Million dollars) lets pay for two years free rent, why not tax payers are being asked to pay for everything else

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 1:48 PM

  • I don't mind paying for Education if thats what we get, but I DO NOT WANT TO PAY TO MAKE PARENTS FEEL GOOD. Don't mind sports if the parents pay for their own kids uniforms and insurance when kids kill themselves (2000) a year) on the field. Don't mind paying for yellow buses to pick up these kids, but NOT when the parents have a SUV in the Driveway and Own their own home and make more money than me and the parent just sits around watch Drama TV all day.

    there's alot of things I don't like to pay for, so I don't feel bad at all in voting NO and I"ll vote NO again

    -- Posted by Freedom on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 1:59 PM

  • When you think of all the teachers and school staff that voted "yes" it gives you a new view. Many of the school employees votes were a given "yes" (MANY not all). When you consider that, there are a lot of non-district employees that really did not want this and voiced it.

    Does anybody wonder, after a second loss, why the district will not agree to a meeting with some of the citizens in our fine town to get this bond issue resolved so that it WILL pass? These people have agreed to give input for FREE to help get the bond passed. Still, it would appear that the district is not willing and still does not want to listen to the citizens---the people. This is what cost the district and the kids the bond not the "no" votes alone. So, now the district may turn around and hire a consulting team to see what can be worked out. There is a "consulting team" here and ready to go for free but the district is NOT willing to work with the public. Yet, they expect me to vote "yes" for them to get $37 million more dollars in addition to what is already paid in taxes. I see no goodwill on the part of the district and will be very reluctant to give them more money in the future after this little show. Why not just listen to the people? Where is the harm in that? I guess they will listen at election time when they are out of jobs. That could make the point!

    -- Posted by Elmorehorselady on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 4:03 PM

  • The problem with this town is there are a bunch of tightwads living around here. Everyone looks out for #1 huh, but yet you all have the audacity to gripe and complain about our kids and their behavior-can you blame them where there's no support for them by anyone around here?!?! With the overcrowded classroom, it's virtually impossible for any of these students to get any individual attention or tutoring in their classrooms. My daughter complained that a teacher didn't even know one of the kids names in her class for the first half of the year b/c there were over 30 kids in the class and she just never noticed the kid! There are just too many kids in these schools and they weren't built to handle this many. Some of you wondered why the schools on the base weren't all open-one of the buildings is condemned, and the other closed b/c there weren't enough high schoolers in the "zone" to keep the school open. So that's not really an option. There are plenty of rich friggin people in this town, open up your wallets, care about the growth of the community and be proud you can contribute to a successful society!

    -- Posted by sgt_elle on Mon, May 5, 2008, at 9:44 PM

  • Hey wait a minute, the Rich People in Mountain Home have treated Me and My family Great and all I can say too them is Thank YOU

    -- Posted by Freedom on Tue, May 6, 2008, at 9:31 AM

  • Folks, check out the Banter Box re Saturday meeting to offer our ideas about this past school bond election, so that they can be taken to the committee's wrap-up meeting.

    -- Posted by senior lady on Tue, May 6, 2008, at 5:53 PM

  • Yes, there are a lot of wealthy poeple in this town. Some contribute more than their share, so don't lump them all together. The thing is, you didn't have to be wealthy to support this bond!! The average family with an average home, would have spent less than $20 bucks a month! Many would have paid much less. And will you please stop blaming the senior citizens on fixed income for the defeat! It's those of you who don't check the facts before you vote that are the problem!!

    -- Posted by frenchfry on Thu, May 8, 2008, at 12:20 PM

  • It really, for those of us that did the research before we voted, was NOT just the $20.00 per month that killed us. It was the $240.00 per year for the bond (alone) and the many other tax increases that are on the way (ambulance, hospital, roads, police, etc). Our taxes (with the bond) could have gone up more than $500.00 per year. With all of the other costs on the rise (food, gas, electric, etc.) and wages not in line with the increases it just was not affordable. Add to that the job situation in the valley and that starts another debate. It just was not a good time for the amount of money demanded. For 1/2 the price----it would have passed.

    Look what the charter school did. The district failed to plan and the "plan" failed. Simple as that.

    -- Posted by Elmorehorselady on Fri, May 9, 2008, at 4:47 PM

  • sgt elle:

    If only it was that simple. The money that I have today I may not have on Saturday because I may not have a job. Would I have like to vote "yes" had the plan been more thought out/practical (like 1/2 the price), sure! I would have voted "yes" without another thought. However, nobody can tell us where all of the tax money goes and I was just not inclined to give them another 37 million to play with. Sorry. Can you say budget? This is not a new problem and with all of the building that has gone on or was anticipated over the last 3-6 years...there should have been a budget for SOME of this money to be set aside for the future. They did not do it and now we will all pay the price. Ho-hum.

    -- Posted by Elmorehorselady on Fri, May 9, 2008, at 4:54 PM

  • The school district decided to attempt and shove an unecessary bond upon the good folks that live here. There was no attempt to make two or three alternate proposals to improve the High School. Is improvement needed? Certainly! But not $37,000,000. Lets hope the folks at the school district will sit down and apply some sound logic and forethought and come up with some alternative plans to improve the school and then take the time to advertise these plans and perhaps even hold a few "Town Meetings" to present these plans to the folks that will pay the bill! That would be us, the home owners! Not the rich, not the poor, but everyone that owns a home and pays taxes. If the school board officials are not willing to do this then I will vote NO again. And yes, there are a great deal of folks on "fixed incomes" so each an every dollar spent needs to be spent wisely.

    -- Posted by viper on Tue, May 13, 2008, at 8:05 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: