Vote yes for our school and community

From: Stacy Meyer, Douglas and Sheila Jilek, John and Julie Lange, all of Lester Prairie
Passing the Lester Prairie school referendum Tuesday, Nov. 8 is a solid investment. As you talk to young families who are ready to buy their first house and start a family, one of the first things they look at is the school district.
A solid education, opportunity to participate in extra-curricular activities, teachers that have a love of teaching, a friendly staff, and an up-to-date facility, all play a part in making a great school.
By keeping our school facility up-to-date, Lester Prairie will continue to attract and keep young families and businesses to our community.
More families and more businesses mean more people to share in the cost of our school, and lower taxes for us all.
When you vote “yes” Tuesday, Nov. 8, you’re not only investing in our school, but our community as a whole.

Plan for improvements is prudent

From: Jeff & Sally Engen, Tom & Linda Engelke, Joe Miller, Ralph & Donna Machemehl, Shirley Dibb, Donny & LaJean Hoof, all of Lester Prairie
In talking about the upcoming Lester Prairie referendum  Nov. 8, some have said we need to be prudent. In other words, we need to be cautious and look at other options.
In a community of 1,600 voters, it’s hard to get everyone to agree on anything. That’s why we elect members to the school board to oversee our public school.
In the past  few years, they’ve had some difficult decisions to make. They spend our tax dollars carefully and our school relies on donations from our community and organizations for many items.
In the summer of 2010, the board and administration began discussions on the aging of our facilities and our financial challenges of doing more for less.
Our goal was to improve our school’s learning environment while reducing utility and maintenance expenditures. The board sought out the professional services of Engineering Services Group (ESG) to provide analysis and recommendations for improving the efficiency of our school facilities. In the months that followed, the board’s Facilities Management Committee and the administration worked closely with ESG to develop the plan for the necessary improvements.
The plan was then presented to the entire board. The board agreed unanimously to move forward with the proposed plan for improvements.
In our school, over 400 students and over 50 teachers and staff learn and work every day. As a result of looking over the state of the school facility, the school board has come to us, the taxpayers, with a proposal that addresses current needs of our school as well as making us more competitive as a whole.
We believe the administration and the school board have proceeded cautiously and with the best interest of our students, staff and community in mind. We support their recommendations and urge you to vote “yes” Tuesday, Nov. 8.

Now is the time to update our school

From: Rich and Cheryl Bayerl, Mike and April Lee, all of Lester Prairie
Everyone likes a good bargain, right? Especially in these economic times, we need to be cautious about how we spend our money.
By passing the bond referendum now, we take advantage of three key things:
1. Our current bond that will be paid off in February 2012. According to last week’s Herald Journal article, a residential property with an estimated market value of $100,000 will have a tax increase of $136 per year for the new bond. However, that increase is offset by the decrease we will experience when the current bond is paid off in February. In reality, the tax increase experienced by a $100,000 homeowner will be $85.
2) Interest rates are at a 35-year low.
3) The cost of required school renovations will be lower by doing all of the work at once, rather than piecemeal.
Much of the work proposed is unavoidable, and the improvements will make our school more competitive with surrounding districts.
This referendum is a smart use of our tax dollars. By voting “yes” Tuesday, Nov. 8 , you will be investing in our school and our community.

Paving the Luce Line not fiscally practical

From: Scott Newman, MN State Senator, District 18
Below is my response to a request to author a bonding bill to pave the Luce Line through McLeod County. If after reviewing my response you have any questions, feel free to contact me at your convenience.
At the meeting we recently had you requested that Rep. Shimanski and I author a bonding bill to pay for an asphalt surface to the Luce Line Trail through McLeod County to the Carver County line east of Winsted.
At the time of the meeting, I requested sufficient time to allow me to become current with the issues, do some legal research regarding trail funding, and to read a recent study you made reference to titled “Economic Impact of Recreational Trail Use” which was prepared for the University of Minnesota Tourism Center, the Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Recreational Trail Users Association, I wish to thank you for patiently waiting for my decision.
I do believe that the Luce Line Trail is a regional asset, has the potential to have some positive economic impact on the McLeod County area, and is part of the recreational opportunities McLeod County has to offer, particularly if developed in conjunction with the Dakota Trail.
Nevertheless, I respectfully decline to carry a bonding bill in the 2012 session to pave the Luce Line for the following reasons:
1. Although the Luce Line is a state trail, it does have a gap through the City of Winsted. I recognize the city is working on resolving that issue but without the gap being closed, the idea of a continuous trail from the metro area through  McLeod County is jeopardized.
2. The Luce Line has a crushed limestone base through Carver County. One of the reasons given for paving the trail in McLeod County is to attract bikers from the Metro area. I have seen no evidence whether the limestone surface in Carver  County would negatively impact the use of the paved trail in McLeod County by Metro users.
3. The above study states that two-thirds of use and money spent by users comes from walking and hiking, while only 18 percent is from biking and running. The balance of users fall into categories of horseback riding, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, and four-wheelers. I, therefore, question whether paving a trail for the benefit of a minority number of users is a wise use of public money,  particularly so if a less expensive limestone surface meets the needs of all.
The recent article in the Hutchinson Leader about mountain biking and the enjoyment  of “a natural experience . . . lets you get out into the woods and away from the crowds” is illustrative of the need for multiple-use trails.
4. On the issue of economic impact of a trail for a given geographical area, the above report made no mention of the type of surface present on the trails that were the subject of the study and stated in conclusion, “data are either scanty or too broad to make reasonable estimates of visitors that are attracted by the states’ trails, lodging places, and complementary amusement places.”
Consequently, I do not think it prudent to rely on the above report as a source to prove the use of bonding money for paving a state trail is a good economic development tool.
5. It was represented to me that the use of bonding money to pave the Luce Line  was necessary because Legacy Funds were not available for the purpose of paving a State Trail. I requested Senate Research check into this legal issue and they could find no such legal precedent. To the contrary, it was opined that the trail language of Art 6 Sec 15 MN Constitution (Legacy Funds) is the broadest of the four funding areas which allows spending to “support parks and trails.”
Therefore, if the Luce Line is to be paved, it would seem that the appropriate funding source is the Legacy Fund, and I would encourage that avenue  be explored.
6. 2012 is a bonding year in which, normally, approximately $900 million would be spent on bonding projects for the biennium. However, last year, $500 million was spent on bonding projects, leaving only about $400 million left for this year.
To date, I am aware of over $2 billion in bonding requests from various state agencies and over $100 million from the state colleges and universities, so it is simply not realistic to believe bonding projects for trails will be approved in 2012, particularly in view of the fact that Legacy Funds are constitutionally dedicated for that very purpose.
To confirm this thought, I did speak to Senator Dave Senjem, the Senate Chairman of the Capital Investment Committee (Bonding Committee) and he confirmed that the 2012 bonding bill will not contain funding for bike trails.
I do understand that some will be disappointed in my decision, but on the whole, I believe it is in the best interests of all voters of Senate District 18, which comprise McLeod, Meeker, and Wright counties.

What is your personal property tax impact?

From: Sid and Michele Roepke, Lester Prairie
Finally, a week before our election, a breakdown has been provided by the Herald Journal. In addition to this information, we find out about an additional $2.7 million in bond/levy funds the school district has access to without a vote, and we will still pay for this over 20 years. This $2.7 million will be taken by this school district for upgrades.
The upgrades/remodeling should end there. Instead, we are being asked to go to the polls  Tuesday, Nov. 8 to vote for an additional $5.2 million.
What this boils down to $7.9 million dollars. We repeat, residents are only voting on $5.2 million dollars. So, residents of ISD 424, get your calculators out. If approved, this referendum will hit each homeowner, business owner, and land owner in our school district hard. The Lester Prairie Schools website provides calculations on $5.2 million only; www.lp.k12.mn.us/
A few things in the Herald Journal article we especially find noteworthy:
• Proposed upgrade to the library/media center. Our school does not have a librarian, because we cannot afford one. A librarian would be a better investment.
• Proposed centralized relocation/new administrative offices. We are spending a whole lot of money to “secure” our building. Isn’t it more secure to have the offices spread throughout the building like our children’s classrooms? This way, in the event of a disaster, these adults can get to these children quicker and guide them to safety.
Lastly, we would find this laughable if this wasn’t such a serious issue – the account rep from ESG is the best source the school district could find for an expert opinion?
We are all aware an account rep is a sales rep. Of course, he would propose upgrades to our air quality and heating controls.  That is how he makes his living. We have had health and safety inspections at the school in the past that test our air quality; we have not been known to fail these. Why now?
According to their website, ESG is a “fee for service” engineering company. You can visit their website at http://www.1esg.com.
What is your personal property tax impact?
It’s time to be prudent. Vote no Tuesday, Nov. 8.
Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at the Lester Prairie School gymnasium. Your vote does count.

LP is a quality school

From: Kelli Machemehl
Lester Prairie
In the past few weeks, letters to the editor have questioned the quality of education that students receive at Lester Prairie Schools.
I am a proud 1982 graduate of Lester Prairie Schools. I had 29 students in my class. We were very prepared by our teachers for college and the real world. Members of the class of 1982 went on to become doctors, lawyers, hearing-impaired specialists, scientists, successful farmers, business owners, police officers, teachers, valued employees at successful companies, and much more. All these successful people out of a class of 29 students – imagine that.
My son was a 2007 graduate of LPHS and is currently student teaching on his way to being a future educator. Many of his classmates have graduated from college this past year or are just finishing up their studies.  Some of them have chosen occupations such as accountant, nurse, teacher, physical therapist, doctor, sports manager, automotive technician, banker, geologist, paralegal, valued employee and more. I think if you asked them, they would say they were fully prepared to take on college and the world after.
I have another son that will graduate in 2014, and I am totally confident that he will leave this school fully prepared for his college studies.
If you went through each year of students who graduated from LPHS, I’m confident that you would realize that most of our students have gone on to be very successful in whatever they chose to do. The quality of education should not be at question during this referendum vote. The quality of teachers and staff at LPS is something we can be proud of. They not only highly educate our children, they help to instill hard work ethics and values into their lives.
As to the mention of classes we do not offer at LPHS, if you check with the staff at school, you will find out that we do offer almost anything you can get at a bigger school. We currently have teachers that teach college English classes and college math classes. The school has the capability of offering classes with other schools through ITV (interactive TV) classes. We also have the ability for the students to take online classes in many areas of study. So think again if you think we have nothing to offer.
The referendum is about updating our school to meet state codes in the science department and kitchen/cafeteria areas and updating a very outdated infrastructure. There is nothing fancy or frivolous about the updates. These items are needs, and not wants.
Please join me in voting yes  Tuesday, Nov. 8.

« Previous Page — Next Page »