"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Tuesday, June 18th, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 7:10:46, Jun 13th 2013 - chipperlee - Seems to be a well written article, except maybe Silica Sand is used in ... [Read More]
- 12:02:15, Jun 9th 2013 - getthefacts - The problem here lies in the fact that girls were repeatedly told "if y ... [Read More]
- 10:45:32, Jun 7th 2013 - Jo mom for 6yrs - Mr. Ehler hit the nail on the head. I agree with the religious con ... [Read More]
- 2:47:58, Jun 7th 2013 - hello - Hello, it's time you wake up. There isn't a community nearby that doesn't offe ... [Read More]
- 9:06:21, Jun 6th 2013 - hello - Hello, it's time you wake up. There isn't a community nearby that doesn't offe ... [Read More]
- 2:05:29, Jun 6th 2013 - Kim Wentworth - The number one rule in a debate: 1) if the person from the opposite si ... [Read More]
- 12:42:18, Jun 4th 2013 - EW - For someone that is always spouting religious rhetoric, you try to come off as a ... [Read More]
- 11:32:18, May 31st 2013 - JO PLAYER - This is unfair to us girls. Morrie Miller is not getting canceled but J ... [Read More]
- 8:25:34, May 29th 2013 - RP - Why is Mr. Ehler involving himself with non-school activities? Is he going after ... [Read More]
- 6:40:49, May 29th 2013 - Doc - You are a cartoon character! If I see you in person I will burst out laughing. ... [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.