School district finances addressed

“Tonight’s discussion is intended to allow our board members to share where we are with our elementary facilities and our bond discussion.” Superintendent Eric Hudspith opened the July 6 work session by passing out several documents with recently updated information for board members to examine, including a possible new traffic and parking plan for the intermediate and high schools to help mitigate traffic concerns. “This isn’t a sure thing. We can always modify a plan, but first, we have to have a plan.”

Board members discussed the ongoing facilities study at length, taking turns weighing in with their thoughts and concerns about the condition of the current elementary school and the possibility of constructing a new addition to the current intermediate school, transforming it into a preK-6 facility. “An advantage is the efficiency of operation,” board member Charlie Priebe said. “Transportation, food service, special education…there’s a lot of efficiencies of operation we could have by having a k-6 building.” Board chair Julie Anderson concurred; “I think it’s about doing our programming better than what we are doing right now. And this is not just efficiency in space but actually in timing as well. We can take care of two buildings with one bond. We’re not going to come back again to fix WIS at some point.”

Board member Dave Dunn expressed his opinion that the learning environment needs updating. “We don’t teach kids the same way in 2023 as we did in the late 1950s when Hartley was built.” Board member Theron Kruger circled back to the increase of traffic such a new facility might bring and the accompanying safety issues that might arise as a result. Alyssa Bowers spoke about her conversations with families every day at Keen Bank where she is employed. “We look at people’s house payments, their escrow payments, and it’s scary for them.” Edita Mansfield expressed her opinion that it is not the right time and that Waseca can’t afford a bond. The $36 million bond necessary to accomplish all needed tasks would cost the local taxpayers only $28 million, since the state of Minnesota would cover the remaining cost

Board member Grant Scheffert said he prefers to look at it as an investment rather than an expense. “I also look at how we grow the community. As a district we can’t affect regulation, we can’t affect the roads, but our part is the school. How do we make sure we have the best school possible because that will attract people? How do we make sure we retain good teachers and have good staff, because that’s also how we make sure we have the best school possible.” Scheffert used the “chicken or the egg” analogy. “Waiting for a bigger tax base would be great, but somebody’s gotta take the first step and start doing something towards that.”

Scheffert brought up the high school bond from eight years ago; “Some felt it wasn’t the right time then, but it passed. It feels hard to say we should ask for this right now. But I haven’t had a time in the past 25 years of being a homeowner when I’ve ever said ‘Well, now’s a good time for that.’ I don’t think in the next 25 years anyone will ever say ‘Now’s a good time.’ Will there ever be a right time?” Scheffert ended by sharing his opinion that it was the board’s responsibility to let the public answer that question for themselves with their vote in November.