Dr. Kimball’s response in last Friday’s Reporter to Matt Gregory’s letter regarding continued delays in fixing the serious problems at Juanita High School, explained that JHS must wait another few years for its turn on “modernization” (replacement). The district presently plans on major overhauling of a few schools every 30-40 years, instead of keeping all schools up-to-date as needs arise. In other words, every once a while some teachers and students get a modern building, but all others wait to be “modernized” and learn to adapt to a process where their buildings gradually obsolesce. Dr. Kimball neglected to note that most of the $600 million recently spent under the guise of “modernization” was for tearing down and replacing (rather than remodeling) relatively new or otherwise basically sound buildings with new schools. The substantially higher cost of this new construction seriously depleted funds, which could have otherwise been made available for badly needed upgrades to other schools, or to accommodate the continuing housing shortage.

Dr. Kimball also didn’t explain that, if he needs space for new students, and needs it now, why this isn’t a higher priority than reserving the unused money from previous bond issues to “modernize” several more schools scheduled to be completed in Phase II. Seems like these funds would be better spent toward mitigating the immediate housing shortage and providing sorely needed improvements to many other schools throughout the district. Dr. Kimball says he heard the community say that the district should be fiscally conservative, but not at our student’s expense. Paring down the amount of money requested in a failed bond issue (which required a 60 percent approval), by substituting a new STEM school for a new JHS in a levy (which only requires a 50 percent approval), seems more like sophisticated marketing than fiscal conservatism. Asking for money to build another new school and persisting to “modernize” even more schools in Phase II, while neglecting badly needed upgrades to many other schools, does not seem to be either frugal or in the best interests of the district’s students, teachers and patrons.

Paul Hall