North Summit School District’s former superintendent is advocating for the school board’s proposed multi-million dollar general obligation bond to build a new high school, citing concerns about future growth and the safety of the current building.
Jerre Holmes retired at the end of the 2024-25 school year after 25 years leading the district. He is still involved in the campus community through his work as the North Summit High School football team’s head coach.
Holmes was the first person to approach the microphone during a sparsely attended public hearing on the $121 million bond measure on Wednesday. He complimented the board for continuing to pursue a solution for the current high school’s failing infrastructure and emphasized the importance of prioritizing students’ needs.
“There’s only one reason not to build a new building, and that’s because we don’t want higher taxes, … But there are too many other reasons why we need to,” he said. “The roof system in this building is way too heavy for the walls because they’re unreinforced, and I don’t think any of you want to roll the dice.”
Holmes said there have been earthquakes in Wasatch County and Duchesne County in recent years, calling it “only a matter of time” before Summit County has one.
“The building is worn out, and it’s cost us a lot of money over the past several years,” he added. “It has become very inefficient, and we’re dumping a lot of money into this. It needs a whole new roof, and to do that would cost a lot of money, and it would only last for however many years it will be until this building is condemned. I don’t believe it would pass a safety inspection right now based on the code.”
He argued against retrofitting the building, too, pointing out the disruption to students’ education if the district were to move classes into portable structures to allow for construction work in the building.
“I don’t know anybody in this room or in this school district who would want their kid who’s in high school, especially a senior, to have to have their last year of high school in a modular (classroom),” Holmes said.
As for potential growth in the district’s student population, Holmes said it’s difficult to predict exact numbers, but there’s only one unoccupied classroom in the building. That means not every subject has room to expand if the district needs to add extra classes to accommodate more students.
“Most of all, the reason to do it is because it’s right for the kids,” Holmes said. “You’re going to face the scrutiny of it all, and I applaud you because you are standing up for all kids.”
Holmes was one of three people who spoke during the public hearing, all of whom were in favor of the bond and thanked the school board for recognizing the need for a new building. The other speakers voiced similar concerns about safety, as well as the increasing cost of construction if the project is delayed further.
“This auditorium should be full of parents, grandparents and concerned citizens who want to do what’s right,” said Karen Pace, decrying the low turnout. “No one wants another tax bill, but we owe it to the next generation of students.”
Pace said she did not want the school board to need to make a “hard decision” in the future if passing the general obligation bond now would resolve the issue and allow the district to start construction efforts on a safer school with updated facilities.
“I will be voting for this bond, and the board needs to be commended for all their hard work that they have put in,” she said.
North Summit High School was built in 1977 and hasn’t had any major modifications to the building since its original construction. District officials told the public last year that reinvesting in the current structure would be more costly than building a new high school, and the school board proposed a $114 million general obligation bond to fund the project.
However, 56% of North Summit voters opposed the idea last Election Day, with many community members citing increased property taxes, inflation, poverty levels and other economic concerns during public hearings.
The district briefly reconsidered a lease revenue bond instead, which has a higher interest rate than a general obligation bond and does not require voters’ approval. Community members were unhappy with the proposed solution, though, and criticized the school board for persisting in its efforts to pass a bond measure after voters had already shot it down.
The school board in August then unanimously voted to place a $121 million general obligation bond on the Election Day ballot, hoping voters would be more amenable to the bond measure the second time around. Business Administrator Marci Sargent had previously estimated an increase in the bond amount if the district were to pursue it again because of rising construction costs and interest rates.
Under current market conditions, the $121 million general obligation bond would add $123 per year for every $100,000 in home value assessed for taxes involving a primary residence. For businesses or secondary residences, the cost would be an additional $224 per year.