As GFW Public Schools prepares for the November 3 election, we are continuing to provide information about each question so residents can better understand what is being proposed and how the funding would be used. I wanted to address a couple of the big questions that we have gotten throughout the process.
Why is Question 2 Contingent on Question 1?
One question we have heard is: Question 1 and Question 2 address two very different purposes, why is Question 2 contingent on Question 1 passing?
The answer is straightforward: the district had to prioritize long-term financial needs.
The questions are intentionally separate because they address different financial challenges for the district in different ways.
Question 1 would provide $400,000 annually for 10 years for transportation, technology, and curriculum. These are not one-time purchases or expenses that will eventually go away. They are ongoing needs that will continue to affect the district’s budget. School buses will continue to need to be replaced. Student and staff devices will continue to age. Technology infrastructure, software, and cybersecurity will continue to require investment. Curriculum and instructional materials will continue to need to be updated.
Whether Question 1 is approved by voters or not, those needs do not disappear.
Without a dedicated funding source, the district would still need to pay for them from existing resources which means these expenses would continue competing for dollars with staffing, student programming, and other needs within the district’s budget. Question 1 is intended to create a more predictable funding source for these expenses and allow the district to plan for them over the next decade rather than reacting to them one year at a time.
Question 2 addresses a very different financial issue: what to do with the former school buildings in Gibbon and Winthrop.
When our community made the decision to transition to a single PreK-12 facility, the long-term financial model was based on operating one school facility. The expectation during that planning process was that the former facilities would eventually transition out of district ownership. As a result, maintaining unused school buildings indefinitely was not built into the district’s long-term operating plan.
Today, however, GFW still owns those properties.
That leaves the district responsible for buildings that are no longer needed for educational purposes or in use. As long as the district owns them, there will continue to be financial responsibilities, maintenance concerns, liability, and the risk of increasingly expensive problems as the buildings age.
Question 2 provides a way to bring that chapter to a close by issuing up to $3.2 million in bonds to demolish the former Gibbon and Winthrop school buildings. As a result of our community’s agricultural property, the Ag2School credit issued by the State of Minnesota would pay for $1.76 million of the $3.2 million bond.
So why does Question 1 have to be approved before Question 2 can move forward?
Because when we looked at the district’s financial position, we determined that the needs of the school district we are operating today have to come before addressing the buildings we are no longer using.
Without that contingency, it would be possible for voters to approve borrowing money to demolish the former buildings while rejecting the funding intended to address the district’s ongoing transportation, technology, and curriculum needs.
Question 2 is important because continuing to own unused facilities indefinitely is not part of GFW’s long-term financial plan. But Question 1 addresses expenses we know the district will have every year for the foreseeable future.
Put simply: before we spend money addressing the buildings we no longer use, we are developing a sustainable plan for the ongoing needs of the school district we are operating today. That is why Question 2 is contingent on Question 1.
Learn more about the proposal at www.gfwschools.org/election.