First and foremost I would like to thank the Coeur d’Alene School District Board of Trustees for their service. Their job is not an easy one and in many instances they are on one side or the other of many controversial and emotional decisions. It is easy for us outsiders to say “that comes with the territory” but for them it is very hard to manage internally when their passion is to move the district forward in a positive direction. I get that.

Where to begin? Many of you reading this article aren’t aware of the background that defines the point I am trying to make. I would like to offer some background.

In the early ’80s our district began discussions, with community input, on moving from the “junior high” model of instruction, grades seven through nine to the middle school model, grades six through eight. These discussions garnered much attention and ultimately led to the creation of the very successful “middle school” model of instruction that we enjoy today. I was the assistant principal at Lakes Junior High during this time.

In the late ’80s our district faced tremendous over-crowding at our high school. To meet this crisis, it was decided by the district, with community input, that the high school would be double shifted. That began in 1986. In the fall of 1989, it was decided by the district, with community input, to place 22 portables on the current site of Coeur d’Alene High School and the double shift ended. However, that resulted in 2,100 students attending school at a facility whose capacity was initially built for 1,250 to 1,300 students. I became an assistant principal at CHS in the fall of 1989.

In 1991, the district formally adopted a model of community input entitled The Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC). This model is currently in place and assists the district in discussions of current issues and planning for the future. The 10-Year Plan developed by this committee is available at the district office.

In 1992, our community was faced with a major philosophical decision. After three years of double shifting at Coeur d’Alene High School and then two years of enrollment exceeding 2,100 students in a building designed to house 1,250 students with the addition of 22 portable classrooms, the district, with community input from the LRPC was presented two alternatives for a spring bond: 1) build a mega high school at a site to be determined or 2) build a 1,500 student capacity high school on the west side of the district and remodel Coeur d’Alene High School. Overwhelming public support, 78.5 percent, for option No. 2, a 20-year, $16.9 million bond created Lake City High School and began the remodel of CHS. The directive from the public was very clear: both high schools must have parity. I was an assistant principal at CHS during this time.

LCHS opened its doors in the fall of 1994; that same year CHS began the first remodeling phase of the three phases as outlined in the passage of the bond in 1992. In 1998, however, there was some sentiment from the school board NOT to complete the second and third phases.

On March 22, 1998, an article appeared in the Spokesman-Review addressing this issue. I quote:

“By and large, the district has ignored the old school after completing the work on the first of three renovation phases. In 1996, money for more CHS work was stripped from the $9.8 million levy for a new middle school. Now, out of a $10 million levy the district’s Long Range Planning Committee has earmarked only $2.5 million for CHS renovation, barely enough to make a dent in the $12.4 million of work that is needed there. Promises that were made we cannot fulfill….”

Community input on this topic continued into May. On May 19, 1998, the community passed a $19.8 million, four-year, Plant Facility Levy at 77.6 percent, which included the next two phases of the CHS remodel, a 10th elementary school, an addition at Dalton and other facility projects. I was the principal at CHS during this time frame.

Today, 22 years after LCHS opened its doors and 15 years after CHS completed Phase 3 of the remodeling project, both high schools are in need of “updating” to bring “parity” as was promised in 1992 and to meet today’s academic and facility standards. Additionally, there is much more work to be done at Lakes Middle School to bring it to a standard experienced by the other two middle schools in Coeur d’Alene. To go into detail in this article about the breadth of the updating of these facilities and to look at the plan to address future needs would take far too long. That information is available at the Coeur d’Alene School District office upon request.

Much has been accomplished in the Coeur d’Alene School District since 1992. All of us should be very proud of what has been created in our community with taxpayer support, community input and a progressive school district.

That was the background I felt necessary to share before continuing with the purpose of this letter.

In 2015, I was fortunate to be selected as a member of the Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC). We met five times throughout the year for 1.5 to 2 hours each time. Our goal was to provide to the School Board a recommendation for a bond levy sometime in 2017 with the added goal of keeping tax rates flat or nearly flat. There are 23 members on this committee, consisting of a wide spectrum of community members, teachers and administrators. And I can tell you from my experience reaching the final recommendation was a very difficult and emotional process.

On March 21, 2016, the LRPC approved a bond levy recommendation and presented it to the school board. In summary:

• Acquire land and build a new elementary school in the northwest portion of the district (the area of the strongest growth)

• Upgrade/finish both high schools

• Upgrade/finish Lakes Middle School

• Sell the Thomas Lane Property (already completed)

• Sell the Hayden Lake site (Hayden Center)

• Recommend running the bond in August 2016 for $25 million in addition to the proceeds generated from the sale of the two existing assets.

The School Board reviewed the LRPC recommendation, sent it back to the LRPC requesting it to review the recommended dates for running the bond, provide specifics about cost and rationale for the Phase 1 recommendation, provide a Phase 2 recommendation and consider all possibilities for the long-term use of the Hayden Lake site (Hayden Center).

On April 25, 2016, the LRPC (community input) presented its amended recommendations to the School Board: the LRPC voted unanimously to keep the original recommendation for Phase 1 as presented on 3/21/2016. The exception was the unanimous recommendation of the LRPC to run a bond no later than March of 2017.

Here is the issue. The school board received two recommendation proposals from the LRPC (community input), both of which recommended selling the Hayden Center and using the equity from the sale to offset the costs of building a new elementary school. Hayden Center was valued at $2.5 million.

In a Cd’A Press article dated Aug. 9, 2016:

“The Coeur d’Alene School District was looking at three options for the focus of the Hayden Lake Magnet School. The district is looking to use a currently vacant elementary school building at the corner of Government Way and Hayden Avenue as the campus for a new magnet school. The Coeur d’Alene School District and the Board of Trustees called for proposals for the new school from staff, parents and community members this spring. After going through all the proposals, the district narrowed them down to four.”

On Sept. 12, 2016, I attended the Coeur d’Alene School District board meeting and, along with three other community members, expressed our opposition to the development of a Magnet School at the Hayden Site (Hayden Center) for several reasons:

It was not supported by the LRPC (community input).

There is no way to determine enrollment at a Magnet School that DOES NOT have a defined attendance zone. Therefore, the relief of overcrowding at any one school cannot be predicted.

The cost of “updating” the aged structure would be very expensive when there are other needs identified in the district.

This structure should remain “open” pending the result of a proposed bond in 2017. In the event of a successful levy, an attendance zone could be identified and those students would attend the Hayden Center while the new elementary school is being built in the northwest corner of the district where the ACTUAL student growth is occurring. Some renovation of this building would have to take place but NOT the “millions” that were projected to raise it to the level of the other elementary schools.

Any dollars spent on this structure would affect the amount of dollars requested in a projected bond levy in 2017. This could jeopardize the completion of the projects identified by the LRPC (community involvement) and further delay promises that were made several years ago.

On Sept. 19, 2016, the Coeur d’Alene School District scheduled a board meeting “workshop” to discuss program options/ideas for use of the Hayden Lake site. I attended this meeting. All of the issues discussed previously in this letter were addressed again at this meeting.

Superintendent Handelman informed the board that an administrative

committee assembled by the district to review the Magnet School proposals DID NOT favor turning the Hayden site into a Magnet School.

A 2.5 hour discussion ensued. The developers of the Magnet School proposals were in attendance but did not speak; Chair Morrisroe made it very clear he did not support a magnet school at the Hayden Lake site; Trustee Hazel stated she favored the COMPASS Magnet School proposal and also shared her disappointment that there wasn’t much participation by the community; Trustee Eubanks wanted to cast a broader net in getting feedback for what to do with the Hayden School; Trustee Hearn stated he didn’t have enough information to make a decision and he was also interested in seeing the “passion” of those that created the Magnet School Proposals; Trustee Pickford tried to get a motion passed that would designate the Hayden Lake site as a neighborhood school and invest the necessary funds needed to remodel the school to the same level as the other elementary schools in the district. The motion died for lack of a second.

How disappointing! Nothing was accomplished except raising the anxiety and frustration of those in attendance. Very simply, the Coeur d’Alene School Board dropped the ball. How many committees do we need to create to discuss this issue? How many presentations do we need to see? How much more time is needed to develop cost projections? Should the Coeur d’Alene School Board cast a wider net in search of input by presenting a survey asking the community who DOES NOT favor a magnet school at the Hayden site? More disappointing is why would any community member serve on a committee when their input is so lightly regarded? Why would the developers of the Magnet School proposals go back and rework their proposals after hearing the comments during the “workshop?”

Throughout this letter I have tried to identify the “community input” that led to the LRPC’s recommendation — a practice that has been in place since 1991 — and very effective. The Cd’A School Board is very passionate about what it believes and how it feels. The developers of the Magnet School proposals are very passionate about what they were tasked to do or they wouldn’t have spent the many hours needed to formulate a proposal. Personally, I am very passionate about this issue because promises were made to the public several years ago that must be kept today to ensure the credibility of the district in future bonds and levies. Now is the time to accomplish that goal without delay or distractions.

But this is not about passion. It is about what is the right direction for the community, its parents, students, staff and taxpayers. The future long-term value of the Hayden Center to School District No. 271, the community, parents, students and taxpayers it serves is NOT to incur additional expenses by transforming it into a Magnet School but to use it as a neighborhood school until a new elementary school is built in the northwest corner of the district. And, when the time is appropriate (after the successful passage of a 2017 bond), sell the property and use the equity to mitigate the cost of the new elementary school. The end result would meet the recommendations of the LRPC and keep the tax rates flat or nearly flat. Now that is something we ALL can agree to!

•••

Steve Casey is a Hayden resident.