Posted 9/5/01 RC elementary school problems need better answers To the editor: While Iím in favor of giving our elementary students good air quality, sufficient space for education and getting music students out of mechanical rooms, I feel tearing down a perfectly sound elementary school and spending over 12 million dollars, while not addressing our current high school roof (water) problems, is fiscally irresponsible and some of the facts are a little misleading. First of all we must address the issue of ěpotential tax impact.î According to the August 22 article this is a great time to pass a bond issue. Apparently Superintendent Eklund marveled at the idea that we could pass a 12 million dollar bond issue and actually have taxes go down. The fact is according to some officials this tax bond would make school Dist. 139 the highest taxed school district in Minnesota per capita; somebody has to pay this debt and it must come from additional taxes. Second, it was noted that Rush Cityís growth rate is around three percent. The fact is enrollment for 1988-89 school year was 458 in elementary, compared to 517 students enrolled now, a growth of only 59 students in 13 years ěa far cry from three percent.î Third, classroom size. The only reason our classrooms are now too small is because some bureaucrats say so. The fact is these classrooms are the same size as when we built them 35 years ago, with the push toward reduced class size these current classrooms should have more space than before. It would seem reasonable that an addition would be less expensive with the current smaller rooms being used for the younger grades k-3 and an addition for grades 4, 5, 6. The idea that new is always better is not always the case. It seems odd that the 1988 addition, only 13 years later, needs a new roof and the high school which is newer also needs a new roof and the roof that doesnít leak the school board wants to tear down. It also seems odd this elementary school, which the administration would like us to believe is so bad, and yet on the same page of the paper was an article stating the great improvements our students made on the state test. While I voted for both the new high school and the aquatic center, and would welcome a proposal to satisfy the needs of our school district, I cannot support a referendum spending millions of dollars on wants. I view this as a tremendous waste of taxpayer money and must be sent back to the school board for a better answer. Glen Kuhlman Dist. 139 taxpayer ©Post Review