Having been rejected by voters last November, Higley USD is going back for another shot at it on the ballot with a slimmed-down package that focuses on a few priorities.
This package is for $77.2 million of bonds, down from $95 million last year, and this one carries no secondary property tax increase with it at $1.31 per $100 assessed valuation. It also has fewer categories for use of the bonds: major projects, technology, major maintenance and safety and security.
Those four categories were the ones endorsed by residents in a survey the district conducted after voters rejected its 2021 bond package.
“This ‘22 proposal rhymes and embodies what the survey results turned out to be,” Higley USD Chief Financial Officer Tyler Moore said. “What's left is the core priorities of that survey. We also felt like these four priorities embody where the district is going and what the capital needs of the district are for the next five years.”
What is left out also comes from the survey: transportation and paying off one of the district’s two leases on its middle schools. Moore said the survey demonstrated that the community did not feel those were a priority and thus a bond would not be an appropriate source to fund those.
District officials said they are hopeful that by paying attention to the survey, paring down the ask, more finely specifying the money’s uses and giving the district more time to talk to the public about its needs, the bond package stands a better chance of passing this time.
However, they acknowledge that opposition remains, even without a formal anti-bond group showing itself.
District needs
District officials said they see the four categories identified as essential for the district in the coming five years.
“We're still a growing district, and we're also at the same time an aging district,” Moore said. “Our buildings, while they're not that old, are getting older. That creates two capital needs. You got the growth factor, and then you also have the aging factor. This proposal addresses both of those with the major projects and the major maintenance. And I think it's the point of emphasis that we are continuing to grow.”
The district is planning to use $38.92 million, or just over 50%, on major projects, for which three have been identified: a new elementary school to address growth in the northern half of the district; Phase II of the Higley High School construction project to address growth and needed upgrades at that school; and renovation worked needed at the district-owned Higley Center for the Performing Arts.
Higley High is starting construction on an additional academic building to give more classroom space, but its needs go beyond that, officials said. The school originally was constructed with the state’s School Facilities Board funding, meaning it was kept to a bare minimum of functionality.
“You drive by, and you can tell it's a state-built school,” said Higley High parent Caroline Lamoreaux, who is chairing the Yes for Higley Students bond efforts for the Higley Schools Political Action Committee. “And it's not that the current administration has not done the best they can to keep it up and do the repairs. But it's 20 years old, and it was a state-built school. You get these bond-built schools, and they're beautiful. You look at these charter-built schools, and they're beautiful. Well, it comes down to funding.”
Moore said the district needs to get more than the bare minimum out of buildings for the district to “provide limitless opportunities,” a tenet of the district’s strategic plan.
The district bond plans also call for $16.78 million for major maintenance at buildings across the district — flooring, roofing, HVAC systems, grounds improvements, exterior weatherization and fire panel replacements. Moore said many buildings in the district are reaching 15 to 20 years in age where those needs become more acute.
Technology was the highest performing category on the survey, and the district plans to spend $19 million for several initiatives, most importantly the 1:1 student to device initiative. Moore called it essential for students to know how to use them in today’s postsecondary school environment.
“We've embraced the use of technology within our curriculum,” he said. “While it's not the sole resource for student instruction, it’s heavily used to support and enhance student learning.”
Moore said the final category, safety and security, has been a point of emphasis for a while, and each new incident, like the Uvalde, Texas, shooting in May, brings heightened awareness. The district plans to use $2.5 million for security cameras, intercom enhancements and two-way radio upgrades.
Not making the cut
Perhaps the most surprising omission was not paying off one of middle school leases. The leases were used to build Sossaman and Cooley middle schools nearly 10 years ago.
The district will pay out more than $168 million for the schools over the next 31 years before the leases expire in fiscal year 2052-53, making them costly for the district’s taxpayers. Earlier this year, as the governing board considered the district’s bond proposal, members fretted about continuing to have the leases acting as a financial albatross for the district.
Ultimately, the survey showed little support for spending money to pay off at least one lease.
District Superintendent Dawn Foley said it was important that if the district was going to take a survey, it listens to the feedback and acts upon it.
“Those leases have been here, and they'll continue to be here, whether we pass the bond or not pass the bond,” she said. “But we're continuing to grow. And these other needs — these major projects, renovation, maintenance of our facilities — are essential for us to be able to provide the kind of quality experiences we want for our students. So, the focus being, ‘let's prioritize based on the feedback.’”
Moore said leaving the leases off the bond was a matter of building trust and transparency with the community.
“We felt this was a good point in which we can say, ‘Hey, we listened to your feedback.’ While [the bond package] is not maybe everything we wanted, we are taking the feedback and applying it and hopefully in an effort to build that trust and that relationship with our community and our constituents and our voters.”
Moore said that perhaps some time in the future, when trust is greater, the district can make a case to voters to buy out a lease.
Transportation also was dropped from the bond ask after survey feedback. Moore said the district will look to maintain its fleet with existing capital funding.
Changing the outcome
The 2021 bond ask failed by nearly 9 percent with only grassroots opposition emerging and no formal group. Still, Lamoreaux said she was not surprised.
"I felt like the way the bond was worded, I wasn't comfortable with it, and I found I wasn’t alone,” she said.
Lamoreaux said her reservations were over the lack of specificity on where money would be spent, a point that she said has been addressed this time around. The district also placed the bond on the ballot earlier this time to give people more time to learn about the proposal and district needs.
Lamoreaux, who voted for the 2021 bond, said news from July 2021 that former district Superintendent Denise Birdwell had been indicted on 18 felony counts related to the lease deals likely hurt the bond vote.
“Look, your history haunts you,” she said. “Your past haunts you, whether you were involved in it or not. I do believe that they've had to address that, regardless of the fact that they were not responsible for it.”
Foley and Moore have acknowledged the district is still looking to breach the Birdwell era, even though the actions were from nearly a decade ago and no current administrators were involved.
“It still seems very new and fresh to individuals that I have talked to,” Moore said. “Even our staff [members] feel like this was just yesterday in which this deal was done. I don't know how long it will take to build that trust.”
District officials know some grassroots opposition remains. A couple of statements opposing the bond were submitted for the election publicity pamphlet. A speaker at a school board meeting in February asked the bond amount to be pared down further.
“You know, everybody likes to keep their money in their pocket,” Lamoreaux said. “It’s hard to convince people to trust somebody else with their money.”
But Lamoreaux said conversations she has had with members of the public have thus far been positive. And she believes the new administration is on the right track.
“I think that this administration — because they are new and they've done really good things since they've been in — if you're involved and you know what's going on, you trust them,” she said.
Tom Blodgett Senior News Editor | Gilbert @sp_blodgett
Meet Tom Tom Blodgett joined Independent Newsmedia, Inc., USA, in 2022, when the company acquired Community Impact Newspaper's Phoenix-area properties. Raised in Arizona, he has spent more than 35 years in journalism in the state.
Community: He has served as an instructional professional in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication since 2005, and is editorial adviser to The State Press, the university's independent student media outlet. He also is director of operations for an 18U girls fastpitch softball team from Gilbert.
Education: Arizona State University with a BS in Journalism.
Random Fact: He lived in Belgium during his freshman year of high school.
Hobbies: Tweeting enthusiastically about ASU softball (season-ticket holder) and grumpily about other local sports (pessimistic fan).
By 
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here