Per the “iRiverstone.com” recommended letter and related petition points below, we wish to correct some falsities. Specifically, we believe that Riverstone students would be best served by attending First Colony MS and they be rezoned to it. Our son went to First Colony MS before Fort Settlement MS was built and it is a wonderful school which reason dictates will have much lower enrollments in future than at Fort Settlement which is already at capacity. Simple demographic trends should show that the older the neighborhood the more likely that there will be fewer younger children (in affluent communities such as Sugar Land). Thus, as enrollment in Fort Settlement continues to skyrocket (surrounding houses built in 2000), First Colony enrollment will decrease as it is located in a much older region of First Colony (average houses built in 80s) creating ample space for Riverstone students.

Here is a summary of key points presented by iRiverstone that we hope to counterpoint.

Overcrowd in FCMS while under-utilization in FSMS

COUNTERPOINT: There is NO under-utilization in FSMS, a 5 min. visit to the school would prove this. FCMS may CURRENTLY be slightly overcrowded but will NOT be in the near future. We ask the Board to check the facts and projections prior to any decision making.

No future growth potential in FCMS that is required to meet the demand from the fast growing Riverstone community.

COUNTERPOINT: This is an ENORMOUS falsity- FCMS definitely has MUCH more future growth potential than FSMS which has a much younger surrounding community base with younger children etc. In fact, FSMS is the Middle School with no future growth potential to accommodate the large growth projected for Riverstone.

Lengthened travel distance for both students from Riverstone ES and Colony Bend ES

COUNTERPOINT: There is no “Riverstone ES” - the repeated emphasis of distances from ES is irrelevant – students are NOT commuting from ES but from their COMMUNITIES. Simply looking at a map, FCMS is MUCH closer to the Riverstone community by and large than FSMS so this is also a false statement. And most children would need to take the bus anyway so this point is irrelevant.

Increased need for student transportation for both students from Riverstone ES and Colony Bend ES

COUNTERPOINT: There is no “Riverstone ES”- As with the above point, as FCMS is much closer to the Riverstone COMMUNITY (again ES location irrelevant) than FSMS, there will actually be a DECREASED need for student transportation. Also to note, the University Blvd. corridor is much wider, congested and highly utilized than the Austin Parkway corridor that would be used for student transport to FCMS.

Unbearable risks for both students from Riverstone ES and Colony Bend ES biking/walking to their schools

COUNTERPOINT: As with the points above, this is simply not true, there is no “Riverstone ES”. Since FSMS has been viewed as a “very dangerous” school because of its proximity to University Blvd, the risks are MUCH higher for Riverstone students walking to their homes (for the few that do) since FSMS is much further from the Riverstone COMMUNITY than FCMS.

$2 million could be saved for other high priority projects if Alternate is adopted

COUNTERPOINT: There is NO basis for this statement except “conjecture”. If improper feeder patterns based on falsities are undertaken, the costs to “redo” them will be much greater especially for intangibles such as quality of life.