ROYAL SCHOOL BOND

I've had some lengthy discussions on the yes and no vote sides of the levy.

As long as the kids are warm and comfortable, they only care about other kids, clothes, sports, TV, cell phones, internet, etc. Think back to when you were a student. Did you ever think much, if anything, about the school building you were in?

One controversy I want to clear up because I've heard supporters mistakenly say the additions are for thousands of students. Up to the point where overcrowding started, there was adequate housing.

The proposed additions are adding space to existing facilities to house only the increased enrollment above the point where adequate housing already exists. According to district published estimates the information suggests that number through 2015 is 167 students.

I am not opposed to necessary housing space, only buildings that cost too much, especially when there are options.

Based on limited and confusing information provided by the district, folks see a fancy building like they see in Othello and Warden. My research using limited district information, federal and state square foot per student requirements and average existing building sizes indicates the proposed additions are extremely high cost per square foot buildings, indicative of a site-built decorative masonry building.

Also many voters still have a bad taste and have not forgotten the lost space when the grade school was abandoned (right or wrong), and want some reassurance it won't happen again.

The district needs to communicate to the taxpayers, build confidence in how their money will be spent. Too many times I've heard the remark "if you want to know what is going on attend the meetings' which is the wrong thing to say to me or the voters.

Three reasons why requiring meeting attendance to get the information is a bad idea: Most payers only want a reasonable idea of what they are buying and their estimated monthly payment. Too many people at the meetings and nothing will ever be accomplished. A fair share of the people wouldn't understand the boring details.

Like any product, the district needs to convince me that I am investing in a good and affordable product, not telling me I find out for myself. More importantly the district needs to get the information to the voters in a format they can relate to.

Payers want to know the district will do their absolute best to spend their money wisely, more assurance than saying 'a bank of bathrooms.' Leaving out details like interest expense, affect of skyrocketing assessed values, using two-year old data, using unrealistically low numbers, and the uncertainty of matching funds does not build confidence.

Dale Hellewell

Royal City