The study session on Tuesday, June 3, to present more commonsense school boundary options turned into another meeting that left the audience frustrated and astounded. Four members of the board had already concluded they were pointing towards the C4 option that divides an adjoining neighborhood.
This option would divide the neighborhoods of Carriage Hills and Knob Hill, the two neighborhoods that currently attend Jeffers Pond. The two neighborhoods that are closest in proximity to a school versus any other neighborhoods in the district. Walking distance, biking distance.
With well-researched information, Mary Frantz and Melissa Enger offered detailed, logical and strategical information as to why they would look at the C1, C2 or C3 options. It was refreshing to finally hear a discussion with well-thought-out reasoning.
The other four board members admitted it would not matter if any new options were presented as it would not sway their vote. The four members, when directly asked, could not give reason for their push for the C4 option. Why waste three hours of the community’s time calling another study session if there would be no discussion on the options?
We as a community deserve answers. It is their duty to give us an explanation as to why they would divide a connected neighborhood that currently attends their neighborhood school, where buses would now be crossing each other every day.
This decision is already affecting home sales in our neighborhood. We have neighbors that have had offers on their sale delayed until it is clear whether we will remain in the Jeffers Pond School boundary. This has nothing to do with our kids having to make a change; our kids are strong and resilient. This has to do with safety, bus time, commute time, common sense and logic. It has to do with the bigger picture of increased transportation costs and traffic congestion through downtown Prior Lake.
It is crystal clear that the majority have already made up their minds and are not willing to consider any logical feedback. We have spent countless hours trying to work with our leaders. It is disappointing to get no answers as to why these four members have decided to push for C4 while they voted down even considering or discussing other options (which was the point of this meeting), other options that satisfy and offer stronger capacity utilization numbers and have much more logical boundaries.
We will continue to seek answers and will escalate this matter to the proper sources.