By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Lautzenheiser: What were the other potential MHS locations?
Letter To The Editor

From Lee and Janet Lautzenheiser 

Monroe

To the Editor:

We are residents of Monroe and are concerned about the selection and design of the new high school property.

The only site that has been brought before the residents and electors is the 77-acre site off of 31st Avenue on the east side of town. At the special meeting on December 12, we were told that the school board had down-selected from twelve to four sites and chose this one. What are the other locations? Why are they not viable options?

We urge the school board to reconsider smaller properties to address the needs of the school district, which is a new high school building. The athletic fields are a desired option but are not needed, at least not in the scale proposed. The reason given for the large sports complex is to have the ability to host more tournaments and large-scale events. The City of Monroe does not have the hotel or restaurant capacity to host such events. Participants would need to obtain lodging out of town, which does not benefit the local businesses or taxpayers. This is one reason that the City of Monroe no longer hosts the SWNIFRA fire/rescue training school weekend and that this event has moved to Janesville.

Designing the sports complex to host outside events is not the best use of district funding. That funding should be directed primarily to promoting classroom learning, academic achievement, and vocational training.

Given the recent climate of distrust from voters who believe they were misled by the school board about the true property tax increase and school referendum impact, the school board needs to do what it can to restore the trust of the taxpayers who are going to be funding this referendum for the next 20 years. The school board can start restoring that trust by being transparent and disclosing the information about the other potential high school sites as well as engaging the residents in those neighborhoods on the proposed impact to them. The board can continue restoring trust by scaling back the proposed 77-acre site to limit the size of the sports complex portion to what is actually needed and putting a maintenance plan in place to sufficiently preserve the new facility so that the taxpayers aren’t asked in another 20 years to repair or replace a failing site by funding another school referendum.