"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Saturday, May 18th, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 9:27:41, May 16th 2013 - caal girl - Nice outfit on you. I loved some of the dresses but am holding my breath ... [Read More]
- 2:03:34, May 14th 2013 - - Thanks for sharing the trip with us! ... [Read More]
- 4:12:01, May 9th 2013 - Amanda Ziebell - Wow! Thanks to the Fillmore County Journal for this kind story. For a ... [Read More]
- 11:47:30, May 7th 2013 - EW - ramble.....ramble.....ramble..... ... [Read More]
- 10:25:25, May 7th 2013 - Thunder6 - Great article! I love to see the Youth of Fillmore County receiveing acco ... [Read More]
- 6:52:10, May 6th 2013 - Jason Sethre, Publisher of Fillmore County Journal & Olmsted County Journal - Maryh, ... [Read More]
- 7:29:56, May 5th 2013 - maryh - Where are OCJ's available for pickup...other than at the new office? ... [Read More]
- 2:41:47, May 3rd 2013 - Remark1976 - Mrs. Buckbee, I just looked up Senate File 796 and in it there are said p ... [Read More]
- 2:22:20, May 3rd 2013 - Remark1976 - Mrs. Buckbee, how do you come up with $1.1 billion that trout fishing bri ... [Read More]
- 9:13:07, Apr 30th 2013 - jurban - i will be the first to say that when there is a emergency mnwarn will be hel ... [Read More]
Letter about R-P Referendum
Fri, Dec 14th, 2012
Posted in Rushford Letter to the Editor
Posted in Rushford Letter to the Editor
Comment(1)
To the Editor,
I attended the RP referendum meeting, took the tour of the facilities and listened intently to presenters, numerous questions and answers. I learned new facts and gained greater understanding of what assumptions were used in developing the plan. As the meeting progressed, it became clear to me that the plan is simply untenable and unaffordable in its current form.
The proposed K-5 school is a beautiful, state of the art learning facility but costs more than the community can afford. I appreciate all of the hard work the superintendent, board, and the community representatives have spent to develop and present the current proposal they feel is in the best interest of the district and sellable to the community. It is obvious to me that the current staged proposal is untenable. The district will continue to utilize the building that is most troublesome and costly to maintain thus almost guaranteeing that the other phase would have to be approved. That puts the real price tag at $40 plus million assuming $30 million in principle and $10-12 million in interest. That price tag conservatively doubles property tax on average.
I propose the board postpone the Dec 19 vote and develop an alternative proposal that builds all phases at the same time but with a $15 million price tag. That means we give up “luxury” items and build a much smaller facility that will have more shared facilities, larger number of students per classroom and simple but efficient infrastructure. This would be in line with the reality of shrinking student population over the next 20-40 years with a price tag the community is more likely to afford. This plan could be a viable alternative to keeping and repairing current facilities.
Mike Machutt
Rushford, MN
I attended the RP referendum meeting, took the tour of the facilities and listened intently to presenters, numerous questions and answers. I learned new facts and gained greater understanding of what assumptions were used in developing the plan. As the meeting progressed, it became clear to me that the plan is simply untenable and unaffordable in its current form.
The proposed K-5 school is a beautiful, state of the art learning facility but costs more than the community can afford. I appreciate all of the hard work the superintendent, board, and the community representatives have spent to develop and present the current proposal they feel is in the best interest of the district and sellable to the community. It is obvious to me that the current staged proposal is untenable. The district will continue to utilize the building that is most troublesome and costly to maintain thus almost guaranteeing that the other phase would have to be approved. That puts the real price tag at $40 plus million assuming $30 million in principle and $10-12 million in interest. That price tag conservatively doubles property tax on average.
I propose the board postpone the Dec 19 vote and develop an alternative proposal that builds all phases at the same time but with a $15 million price tag. That means we give up “luxury” items and build a much smaller facility that will have more shared facilities, larger number of students per classroom and simple but efficient infrastructure. This would be in line with the reality of shrinking student population over the next 20-40 years with a price tag the community is more likely to afford. This plan could be a viable alternative to keeping and repairing current facilities.
Mike Machutt
Rushford, MN










481
10:07:22, Dec 17th 2012
visionary says:There is no way possible to get a school built K-12 for $15 milliion. This school is not "luxurious" in any way, nor is it bare boned. It would be the perfect fit for Rushford/Peterson area. The student per classroom ratio is were it needs to be to keep our test scores up. We don't need any more in a class!!
Your plan is not viable. Stick with what all of the committies/task forces/school boards have said. Vote yes to get the wheel turning.