Does USC need a new $32 million school?

Staff

Published Saturday, March 30, 2002

For the Tribune

Editor's note: The Tribune asked USC residents on both sides of the issue to write about whether a new K-12 school or a less expensive renovation plan is better for the students and the communities in the USC district.

Saturday, March 30, 2002

Editor's note: The Tribune asked USC residents on both sides of the issue to write about whether a new K-12 school or a less expensive renovation plan is better for the students and the communities in the USC district. The bond referendum on a new $32 million K-12 school in Wells is Tuesday district-wide.

YES: Students need modern facilities and remodeling won't do the job

By Russ Elmer and John McKean, USC Vote YES Committee

The United South Central School District on Tuesday, April 2 will be going to the polls to vote on a new proposed school facility preK-12. The Board of Education and administrators have determined that this is the best solution to meet student and community needs.

From the beginning the focus has been the student and student needs. The goal is to maintain a high quality education and meet the ever-changing needs of the present and future students. A new one site pre K-12 will remove the uncertainty of the future for the students, parents and communities. Students, parents and communities will not continually be asked to adapt to changes with building closures or changes in grade and student location. Students will be able to plan for the future knowing the school has been built to meet present educational and technology needs and designed to adapt structurally for future needs.

A new preK-12 will meet the following needs:

- A facility designed for class needs of today.

- Modern technology for all the students.

- Handicapped accessibility and special needs of students will be met.

- Security of knowing that the new building does not have health concerns from asbestos, mold, mildew or other air quality concerns.

- Fire safety will not be an issue.

- Modern room designs will assist the staff in adapting to individual student needs.

- Off road parking and student drop off safety concerns will be taken care of.

- It will be a modern facility meeting arts, athletics and classroom needs.

- The building will be designed with modern energy efficient technology.

The present buildings will require excessive repair dollars to waterproof the roofs. Money that should be used for programs and staffing would be used for Band-Aid repairs that do not address inner structural problems. With a new, one-site building, savings from transportation, energy, debt payment, and staff efficiencies will be realized. These savings will keep present programs, maintain technology, and equipment. A remodeling project would not allow savings like these to be possible.

The communities will benefit by the simple fact that a commitment has been made to move into the 21st century with a modern school facility that can be a source of pride for all. The communities of USC will be able to show prospective homeowners and businesses that our district is willing to invest in our children and communities now and into the future. Families looking to live within the USC community will be assured of a modern, efficient school for their children to attend and graduate from. Businesses will know that a commitment has been made to be progressive and not to allow the communities to stagnate and die.

With a new school the USC communities will benefit by having the capability to host both art and athletic events. These events will bring business to the USC School District that are not possible with the existing school structures. A new school can be designed so that specific areas will be more readily available for community use.

The cost of a new facility will be known before construction. A remodeling project has no certainty as to the eventual cost or what can be completed within a specific budget. There is no certainty that all the educational needs would be met in a remodeled building regardless of the possible total cost. This uncertainty would be a negative for a business or homeowner considering the USC community to relocate to.

A major benefit in building a new school would be the 33 percent of the total project cost which is provided by the state of Minnesota. This would be $19 million worth of funding which would help stimulate the local economy.

NO: The cost is too high and proponents have not proven the need is for real

By Luann Schrader, Chairwoman, USC Save Our Schools Committee

Repeatedly the school has said our enrollment is declining so fast that we need to build now, so we can attract new students. The superintendent is not afraid to play "Chicken Little" during public meetings and says this is "our only hope, we have to build it now or lose further enrollment and we may not be able to survive past 10 years." On page 27 of their application to Minnesota Department of Children Families and Learning (CFL) for Debt Equalization aid, in discussing the open enrollment losses, they use similar melodramatic language like "heavy losses of resident students" and "the net loss ... is staggering and should be alarming to residents." Yet on page 99 of the application to CFL they admit, "The school district has sufficient critical student mass to remain viable for both the short-term and long term." Losses to open enrollment can have a host of reasons, few of which a new $32 million school can overcome. Where are those new students going to come from with every school competing for fewer and fewer students?

The yes committee has taken the legitimate concerns about lack of funds and falsely assured us that we must build now because "State funds will reduce local contributions by almost $10 million!" But here is the gamble the voters of USC are taking: If the Minnesota economy would continue to get worse and the debt equalization aid would be reduced on our debt servicing obligations, our property taxes will go up to offset the state's loss.

Declining enrollments and concerns over funding are very real and remain the primary reasons to vote "No" on April 2. But there are other factors to consider for those who are not yet convinced the new complex is not needed.

With this ballot measure, the school district is proposing to increase your taxes on a residential homestead (valued at $85,000) nearly $7,600 over the life of the bonds, according to projections prepared for USC by Springsted, Inc., their financial advisors. For land valued at $2,000 per acre in Faribault County, without a homestead, they are projecting your taxes will increase $57,152 on 320 acres over the 20 year life of the bonds and increase $178,600 on someone who farms 1,000 acres, without state aid. Someone farming 640 acres and living on the farm will pay an increase of nearly $95,000 over the life of the bonds. USC's financial consultant, Springsted Incorporated, has determined that the total debt service over the 20 year life of the bonds is going to be more than $55 million.

Proponents have been proclaiming that a "no" vote will increase your taxes further as it will cause the state to automatically levy higher taxes to pay for the health and safety upgrades needed to our buildings. Keep in mind that they alone have determined what these health and safety issues are and the amount needed to remedy them. SOS has done a more objective review of their budget items and found several items that do not belong in Health and Safety and other items whose dollar amounts look suspect.

We support a reasonable effort to raise $4-5 million to replace the roofs and windows and other necessary remodeling at Kiester and Wells. In January 2002, there was a referendum fact sheet given to the public that stated, "A recent feasibility study ... revealed that it would require approximately $1.7 million to bring the district's roofs into state and federal compliance." Yet when parents asked the school for a copy of the study, the one they provided by Tremco Inc. was dated Feb. 6, 2002, and said nothing about the proposed roofs being in compliance with federal or state standards. If the claim on the January fact sheet was made up, how legitimate can the February Tremco appraisal be?

Agriculture is in serious financial straits. County governments and a host of private employers are denying pay raises, cutting back hours and laying off employees, etc. With this ominous economic environment, it would be reckless to stick huge new property taxes on working people, fixed-income senior citizens and farmers.

We agree our buildings in Kiester and Wells need repairs and renovations. SOS would agree to spending up to $4-5 million to accomplish this. We need these schools in our small towns. The children represent everyone's future and hopes, not just those of USC.

---

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

---