Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

District 88 Facility Task Force debates two options

February 12, 2014

NEW ULM — As they pondered the future District 88 schools Tuesday, facility task force members appeared split 60-40 between a plan that would expand school facilities by building an addition on the......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-15-14 2:28 AM

Why is there an argument about this towns future? If you cant afford 2 bucks a month maybe some lifestyle changes are in order. Go around emptying out the take a penny jar availble at most gas stations. Or rent from one of New Ulms finest slum lords! Lets not punish the future for 2 bucks a month. A new school will bring people to this town not scare them away. Let New Ulm be known for its education system not its beer.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 8:54 PM

Sorry for all the typos. I'm not liking the autocorrect on this phone. Buy should be by.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 4:06 PM

"Nothing that needs to happen for 10 years."

Do you propose renting the portable claims and possibly even more, plus the outrageous cost to heat and cool them for 10+ years? Where are they going to get money to put away? That's why they need to pass a referendum.

Yes, these buildings once held more students, but there are MANY more special education students there now than there ever was before. The schools are mandated to educate these kids whether you agree with it or not. Many of these kids were kept at home or institutionalized 50 years ago. These buildings cannot hold as many kids as they once used to buy today's standards.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 3:58 PM

Deerhunt. Let me make this clear. THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH. That is why they are spending tens of thousands of dollars a year renting portable classrooms. Once the sale of the middle school is complete (which the state will not allow to be used as a school without green space), they will be without an auditorium and 2 gymnasiums. There already isn't enough gymnasium space for grades 7-12 for physical education. THE BUILDINGS ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH!

Now, if you think that it makes sense to spend $35 million adding on to these 50 year old buildings that aren't built to today's standards for schools, then that is your thing. I Think doing so is a waste of money compared to building new.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 10:07 AM

By the way it sounds we should have 50 years left then. The curb appeal of a school has nothing to do with the education you receive inside. If we had buildings that were falling down or unsafe I would agree, I don't think enrollment is increasing , I would prefer to build a little "savings" first , weren't we short on money these past few years? This can be a long term goal ,nothing that I see needs to happen within 10 years.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 9:13 AM

Costs do go up significantly in 10 years. In the last 40 years, the cozy pet square foot to build a school has went up by 10 times. Steel frame buildings generally do not offer the safety of a masonry building, they are often sheeted in gypsum, which is not durable and requires more maintenance. They cost more to heat and cool. They do not offer storm protection, and fires can sweep through them quicker.

A new building could easily be in use for the next hundred years if it is built right.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 9:06 AM

Lotsofsevens, people that live in the country pay the same property taxes to the school district that those in the city do.

Who said anything about abandoning a building? Washington would be used for preK, Jefferson would have the lower grade, The Senior High would house the middle school students and the new school would house the high school students. The only building not being used is the old Junior High which is in the process of finally being sold. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

As to the comments about building a steel frame building, you don't get the life or of them that you do a brick and mortar building. Nobody is suggesting that we abandon our 50 year old buildings. They are very much interested in maintaining them and using them for the next 25 years and beyond. They all have green space unlike the Junior High, so they should be just fine. The question is whether it pays to spend $35 million adding on to them and renovating them.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 8:42 AM

How about if you put up a new building you use a steel frame structure? Building with brick and mortar is for tenants that plan on using a building longer than 50 years. You also misread my statement , save for 10 years to get the down payment and then you could start building , costs would not have risen that much in that time frame. I would be interested in a price to gut and remodel , could be done during the summers ,doesn't have to happen all at once , and paid for as we go. I know that is extreme thinking ,but that is what happens in the average household , why should this be any different.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 8:37 AM

thanks Midclassworker for the tip not to move to Courtland! I'll make my home in the beautiful country like a few teachers have. Most New Ulmites never leave, so have no idea what other property taxes are... turns out, many cities in Colorado are much lower! C'mon people. We've had our taxes increased twice since buying our house.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 8:09 AM

So, just build new and add another old building to the books and let it*****money out of the funds while the district puddles around finding a solution to a money-leech. I can get on board with a new facility, but first get rid of the old one and put a concrete plan in place for the soon-to-be non-used building before getting the shovels dirty.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 7:54 AM

So we should save up for a $150 million high school? You do realize that construction costs have multiplied by 10 over the last 50 years, right? I imagine we would need to raise taxes to save up that kind of money. Interest rates are low now. Now is the time.

In the mean time, do you purpose eating more money renting those portables at teens of thousands of dollars per year? They cost a fortune to heat and cool, too.

Weekday are they to do in the mean time if spending money is not an option? They are busying at the seams.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-14-14 7:05 AM

Mnsotn , the way is simple , start saving for 10 years and get 25% saved aside for a down payment , if you can't do that, then there is no way you can afford it. It is no different than personal finance. Otherwise you are laying the debt on future generations, this is a 25 year referendum they are talking about , the same kids that graduate from the new school would be saddled with the debt.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-14 10:00 PM

Deerhunt, our schools are really going to be in trouble in 25 years when they are in 75 year old buildings and you still won't have any money. So, what is your solution?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-14 6:38 PM

Keep the present high school building and put K-6th grade there. Build a new high school and sell Jefferson and Washington schools to the Diocese of New Ulm for a place for them put all the pedophile priests in to keep them away from young kids.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-14 4:01 PM

mnsotn, the problem with your argument is, we have no money .

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-14 1:57 PM

If a new school gets built, the taxes will go up if you move to Courtland, too.

Complain all you want. This town built 3 public schools within 8 years. They aren't fantastic buildings, but they are serving their purpose. I think it is kind of foolish to spend 30 million adding on to them and another 5 million fixing them up and upgrading the athletic fields when for 45 million, you can have a brand new building in a new neighborhood where roads can accommodate the traffic.

Do any of you have any ideas that don't involve spending a lot of money? Let's hear them! Now is your chance.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-13-14 8:31 AM

get ready for your property taxes to increase... Compared to other cities, New Ulm is quite high! Remedy: move out to Courtland, country, etc.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-14 3:41 PM


To spend $30 million or more to add on to 50 year old buildings seems short sighted. Those buildings will be 75 years old when the $30 million bond is paid off.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-14 1:27 PM

Agreed. Certainly, they should maintain the existing buildings, but they aren't exceptionally well built buildings to start with, they are average. For about $3 per month more we can have new school and pull some of the congestion away from this area. It seems like a no brainer. To spend S3 million or more top add on to 50 year old buildings seems short sighted.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-12-14 10:00 AM

Build baby build! With the age of the current schools, now is the time to invest and build new. The addition between Jefferson and the High School would just be a band aid.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 20 of 20 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web