New Middle School

[TheBigEasy]

Here we go again, Now 7 million dollars is needed to replace the heating and cooling system in the middle school.
who are you getting quotes from? If the school would have been maintained by past boards, we wouldn't be in this
situation. Now we will hear the whining again that we need another levy to build a middle school. enough is enough.
Did you not get the message from the last levy vote. Come up with some better plan and get back to me.

[HikingStick]

[I had started a similar thread on this topic. It's one of the drawbacks of the less than frequent moderation on the site. Forum moderators: you may move my thread under this one.]

I can't believe that discussions of the need for the new high school never raised the issue of the current middle school building or its condition. I think a huge opportunity was missed here, to address the needs of the older building while the district was already pulling together funds for the new building. It's just sad that the necessary type of future-mindedness is so hard to establish on a board that can see its membership change so quickly. What can we do to help promote a long-term perspective when considering our schools (e.g., facilities, population trends, energy usage, maintenance costs, changes in technology).

And, no, simply building a new school like the high-school is not necessarily forward thinking. Forward thinking requires planning for how things might be (best- and worst-case scenarios) ten, twenty, or even thirty years out. It goes beyond acknowledging lacks in an existing structure, and tries to anticipate future needs. It goes beyond looking at the current price tag, to the total cost of opertaion for the facility (including groundskeeping, maintenance, expandability, and energy efficiency).

You know what? I want my kids to be better educated. I couldn't care less if they hold classes in the current school, a new school, or in a barn, so long as they are being educated.

[outraged]

Ok, when is enough enough? I am tired of being misled by this school district. When they were asking for the new school they were bragging about the financial strength of this district and its small class sizes. Last spring when begging for more money for the operatng referendum, the Hearld Journal showed a picture of a class with 29 students in it, saying class sizes would get even bigger if this referendum didn't pass. When asking for money for the new high school the school showed the projected tax increase numbers less the expired levy for the mobile units saying that there would really be less because we wouldn't be funding the mobile units anymore. Well they came right back and asked for that same money plus more last spring anyway!!!

I recently rec'd the Waverly-Montrose community guide. HLWW superintendent braggs of the district financial stregnth. He also states that HLWW offers a strong ECFE program with classes offered year round. I know for a fact that there has not been a SINGLE ECFE class offered the past TWO summers. There are few classes offered in the winter and the few that are offered are often canceled due to lack of interest. Ladd also brags of strong community support and parental involvement . It's sad that the few classes that are offered nobody signs up for. what else are outright lies?

Building this new high school has done nothing to improve the disctrict. It still does not offer anymore than they did in the old building. I couldn't care less about the appearance of the buldings! I want my children to have the same opportunities that every other school around us does. WM, DC, Delano and Buffalo. It is like we are on an island 30 years behind the time. This district tends to bragg about it's FFA. Good, great for them, but let's face it if you are not one of the few lucky enough to be born into land ownership, you can't afford to become a farmer in this area.

If we had been given the real truth before this new high school was built I think most of us would have been happy to disband this school distrcit, giving our children a chance to attend one of the surrounding competent schoool distrcts. As it is I am forced into paying comparable taxes, if not higher than those living closer to the metro. I will be forced to commute my children to school to give them the opportunites they deserve in academics as well as athletics.

[Citizen]

Frugal?

I do not call 30 years of neglecting repairs frugal.

[TheBigEasy]

I was at the Open House for new students last Wednesday and could not believe the amount of neglect
that has accured. I remember as a student back in the day, when we arrived for the first day of school
and it had the fresh smell of paint on the walls and lockers and polished floors. Last week it had the fresh smell of mildew.
The back entrance to the school by the lunch room was a mess (unpainted) I would guess the other entries looked the same and black streaks were on the walls down by the lunch room. Also the bathrooms by the lunch room were out of order. I guess 3 months is not enough time to get a bathroom working. If the plan was to make this school look so horrible that we would gladly vote for a new middle school, then you accomplished your mission. This place was a wreck, but I will
not hand over my tax money so you can build something new and then neglect it. How do you expect the students
to be proud of their surroundings and feel good about themselves when our fearless leaders can't even spend some money for paint and cleaning supplies.

[HikingStick]

Frugal?

I do not call 30 years of neglecting repairs frugal.

Whoa dude or dudette. You're inferring that they neglected the building. Have you ever thought that it's possible that they have maintained it adequately, but that the building cannot keep up with changing standards for indoor air quality, or that it is frugal to consider significant expenditure for repairs (or even new construction) before there's a crisis and they have to pull a bunch of temporary classrooms on site (at what would likely be a far greater cost)?

While I'm no proponnet of adding levy to levy, or bond initiative to bond initiative, I'm certainly not going to stand by and let you accuse the current board and all former boards with neglect. After all, they've managed to get that boiler up and running each year, haven't they? And don't they need to have that boiler certified each year before they run it? If they were neglecting it, I doubt it would have kept running this long.

I have a little car that has been wonderful over the years. I got it when it had only 90k miles on it, and now it has 192k miles logged on the odometer. Through the years, it has required little mainteance, and what it has needed was still less than the cost of paying for a new car. However, my little car is giving me signs that it's near the end of its life. Which would be not just more frugal, but more wise: to keep running the car with the hope that it does not fail at a critical time, or to plan for and purchase a replacement (not necessarily new) before the critical need? Sure, some would argue to continue maintaining and driving the car until if finally is broken beyond measure. Others had suggested I replace the car years ago. I've held on for a long time, but even I am starting to sense that I need to replace my vehicle. If I used that car to commute to work every day, would that make a difference in your view? If it was your car, and you were commuting to Minneapolis every day, and your mechanic told you that s/he could keep the car running but that you should expect significant repairs in the near future, what would you do? I think most reasonable people would start looking at two options at that point: either cough up the dough to completely refurb the car's main components, or begin shopping for a new car. Of course, there comes a point where it would make no sense throwing $3,000 into repairing a 1997 Mercury Tracer when you could spend that much (or less) to buy another used car that you can operate for a number of years.

The way I see it, that's where the district is with the current Middle School. They know that they can, right now, use health and safety dollars to address the heating system and the air quality issues. Did you realize that they have the authority to do that right now, without so much as a vote? Yet they acknowledged that this is a significant amount of money to sink into a proverbial 1997 Tracer, so they plan to bring it before the voters. For the amount they would need to affect repairs [a number that has been growing--something that does trouble me], they can go out and have a new structure built--something for which they actually planned when they planned the new high school--the lot is already clear, level, and ready for construction. As I've learned more about the district and the planning that has been done, I've come to realize that there was quite a bit of advanced planning that took place, but that there's been a failure to communicate it broadly and consistantly. I applaud them for being willing to ask us whether or not we want to pay for a new structure at a time when they could get the funds they need without asking us (and we'd pay for it through State taxes).

I still am loathe to add yet another levy to my property tax bill, but I can't argue that nothing has been done in the intervening years. Should they district have saved or set aside more money for proactive repairs or upgrades? Absolutely, but did they have a voting constituency that was willing to give them the operating funds they needed to be able to pay current expenses and to save up for repairs and upgrades? I guess not.

I voted against the last proposal to renew the expiring operating levy. In my opinion, had the levy supporters come forward with more information about the exact types of things the levy would have helped the district to achieve, rather than just scare tactics that told us what we would lose if we did not support it (in addition to villainizing anyone who dared oppose the levy by labeling them anti-education or anti-children), they might have won my support.

The way I see the current situation, we're going to end up with money being spent on this issue either way. Do we want to do something about it now, or wait until our hand is forced? My main concern now is that any project (whether repair or new construction) is open to a public bid process.

[Citizen]

dude,

Have you ever stepped foot in the place?

I have never been in a school thatis more poorly maintatined

[HikingStick]

dude,

Have you ever stepped foot in the place?

I have never been in a school thatis more poorly maintatined

I was there for open house, and I've had kids in the building for the past two years. It's definately not the Taj Mahal, but I didn't see horrible sights; neither did I smell horrible odors. I did see newly painted walls in some areas, and I got a look at the gymnasium where the floor looks fantastic. I didn't see black streaks on walls (I'm not saying there are none), even though we walked right past the lunch room. Even if there are marks on the walls, that's a sign of use and not a sign of neglect.In fact, it looks about the same or better than most other schools I've seen that are of the same vintage.

If building codes apply to schools, have you considered that as things go wrong they probably need to bring items up to current code standards, just like I and others must do with our hosues? A bathroom is closed? I'd only see that as a problem if there were inadequate facilities elesewhere in the building. Who knows if they ran into problems with the plumbing that would require additional updates before the bathroom may be reopened? I'll ask my boys if any of the bathrooms are still closed. If they are, I'd be glad to hear from someone who can speak for the school board, who can inform us as to why that is the case.

Neglect is never undertaking preventative maintenance. Neglect is not taking care of problems when they do arise simply because you don't want to deal with them. To me, it's not neglect if you've been charged with maintaining something, but your limited budget directs that you can only complete half the items on your list--at least it's not neglect on the part of staff. If anything, and unless someone can PROVE otherwise, it is neglect on our own backs if we have not provided adequate financial support to keep the building in "like-new" condition for decades and decades. Let's face it. Very little American architecture is designed to last they way Roman structures have survived. There are manors throughout Europe that have houses the same families for hundreds of years, yet most structures here are considered amazing if they last 100 years. If we were willing to spend what would be necessary to build structures that will last for 500 years, perhaps we would be having a different discussion right now, but let's face it: we don't build buildings with the expectation that they will last that long. How long do you think the new High School will be viable? Thirty years? Fifty years? I have a hard time picturing it lasting beyond the former figure, much more so the latter.

[CheriLynn]

On behalf of the entire school board and HLWW Administration you are invited to attend an informational meeting on the middle school referendum plan.

What: Informational Meeting on Middle School Referendum

When: Tuesday, September 16th at 7:00PM

Where: HLWW High School Commons
8700 Cty Rd 6 SW
Howard Lake, MN 55349

Who: Everyone is welcome to attend.

We hope you can attend and we look forward to your input on this project!!

[TheBigEasy]

Hiking Stick,

According to my child, the bathrooms are still not repaired. Does the School district need the number to a plumber?

Please advise.