The inside story on Minnetrista local issues: This blog is to inform citizens and give them a perspective on matters of importance in Minnetrista, MN. Opinions posted here are my own and do not reflect official positions of any public body or official.
I can imagine the discussion last fall among YesWestonka leadership about how to hide from voters who the largest contributors were to their organization, which supported the recently passed bond referendum last November: “We can’t let the public know the majority of our donations will be coming from unidentified cash donors, the teacher’s union and one other donor. That wouldn’t look good. How can we conceal that from voters without getting in trouble?”
“Easy…don’t report the largest contributions until AFTER the election. That way voters won’t know that the teacher’s union and one other donor were the two largest contributors to YesWestonka. Just wait and report them in December.”
The primary purpose of filing campaign finance reports is to inform voters where contributions come from and identify sources that may be influencing campaign committees. In this case the identities of YesWestonka’s largest donors were hidden from voters.
The campaign committee also took in close to $3,000 from unidentified cash donors. That’s an alarming number given it amounts to approximately a third of their total campaign revenue.
For a referendum that barely squeaked by, it does make one wonder if the election outcome might have been different had voters known who was bankrolling the effort. Unfortunately, it’s not even illegal what they did. But it is deceitful and it’s concerning these deceptive practices aren’t being called out in the news media.
Regardless of which side you were on regarding the recently passed controversial $93.4M bond referendum, for remodeling Westonka’s high school, the fact remains it passed.
So, what now? At the January 8 school board meeting a resident, former school board member and structural engineer, made a presentation to the board proposing an alternative plan to using the $93.4M for a high school remodel. The solution proposed would, he asserts, satisfy the goals articulated in the referendum of providing more room at the high school, while simultaneously addressing future facility needs at the middle school and forestalling the need for a future referendum:
Tom Notch addresses Westonka School Board
The alternative plan suggests using a portion of the funds to build a new, larger middle school (already being discussed for yet another, future referendum) and moving 8th graders, currently attending the high school, to the new, larger middle school on property the school already owns. Removing 8th graders from the high school would provide the space needed for expansion needs there.
In addition to getting the needed space at the high school, and a new, larger middle school, the plan proposes keeping the referendum funds allocated to sports facility upgrades and safety measures intact.
Anticipating the school board’s possible concern about abandoning the previous, pre-referendum, proposal the plan points to language that would allow the switch to an alternative plan as long as it addresses “the acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities.”
The question is: Is the Westonka School Board interested in a more efficient and cost-effective way of accomplishing the district’s long-term facility needs? Or will they forge ahead with a flawed plan, knowing they can always come back to the well and ask for more?
Please scroll down to read the complete proposal presented to the school board:
New Middle School Option for the Westonka School District
December 18, 2023
Dear Westonka School Facility Committee Members and Attendees,
I believe it is clear the School District should be looking at building a new middle school to replace Grandview as opposed to putting five small very expensive additions on the High School.
As a structural engineer with 50 years of experience, I can attest that adding 5 small additions to MWHS may compromise the building’s integrity for several reasons. While it is true the interior of the building has few interior bearing walls and would allow for modifications, the exterior of the building consists of a brick and block masonry wall that is full height from the foundation all the way up to the top of the parapet above the roof. Any openings through those walls must be supported by large lintels with vertical supports to maintain integrity for gravity and wind loads. The existing wall footings under the exterior masonry walls are only sized for the loads present at the time the facility was constructed and will certainly require underpinning footings or adjacent new foundation pads to accept any new gravity loads from proposed building additions. This gets very expensive, very quickly. Another concern is when you introduce higher and lower elevations at the roof line as will be the case here, snow buildup and its associated snow load support design along with roof water management must be analyzed.
After studying the attached Review and Comment (R&C) document, it is my opinion that Westonka Schools has been incredibly poorly served by Wold Architects. One significant error on page 42 of the R&C is that Wold Architects’ School Capacity Analysis indicates grades 9 through 12 (4 years) are housed at MWHS. MWHS houses grades 8 through 12 (5 years) and has done so for decades. If the school district needs space at MWHS for vocational, nursing and other offerings; I submit that it would be wise for Westonka to consider moving 8th grade out of MWHS to free up plenty of space. It would be equivalent to an addition of 25% of the total area being made to the High School without any major construction required and the associated concerns of disrupting the educational environment over a two year period of time.
If we think outside the box for a moment and take away the proposed costs associated with the Grandview MS along with the additions and associated remodeling at the High School, we will find it is less costly to replace the middle school at this time and forgo the major work at the High School.
Here is the math: Funds earmarked for the High School’s additions / remodeling is $47.117 million, plus amounts scheduled for the Grandview School of $3.8 million for maintenance and $2.5 million for security upgrades equals $53.4 million. The cost to build a new middle school is about $400 per square foot (per Finance & Commerce Oct.4, 2023 article plus 28% inflation over 4 years). If we wanted to put the 8th grade back into a new middle school and have it accommodate grades 5 to 8 as is common practice, we would need a total area of about 92,470 square feet (Grandview’s current area) x 1.33 = 123,000 square feet. Total approximate cost of new middle school will be $49.2 million which is $4.2 million less than the current $53.4 million amount; therefore, a new middle school should be the project taken as opposed to making numerous expensive additions to the high school. In addition to the $4.2 million saving would be the value of the 11.57 acre site on Dutch Lake that the Grandview School is located at. I would suspect this property will be worth somewhere between $2 million and $3 million bringing the total savings to around $7 million. This potential saving may be reduced if a portion of the $47.117 million dollar amount scheduled for High School additions / remodeling needs to remain for remodeling. It is clear the majority of this amount was for the building additions; however, I don’t have estimate sheets from Wold or Kraus Anderson to establish these numbers. I submitted a public data request for this information months ago and never received the estimates from the school district.
Grandview Middle School was constructed in 1958 and will be 90 years old in 2048 when the last payments on the 2023 bond are made. If the school district builds a new middle school at this time, we will have a fairly current 25 year old facility at the end of the bond as opposed to having a 90 year old building ready to be demolished. I truly believe that the district was incredibly poorly served by Wold Architects on their work guiding us in this direction. The fact that Wold did not even know the High School was housing grades 8 thru 12 as opposed to grades 9 thru 12 should raise significant red flags regarding the reliability of their advice (see attached p.42 of Review & Comment).
According to the MN Department of Education’s “Guide for Planning School Construction Projects in Minnesota”, we have adequate property to construct a new middle school on our existing property on Sunnyfield Road. If the district feels more property would be required, there is a 19.84 acre site that is immediately north of the baseball field and bus garage on the north side of Sunnyfield Road that could be acquired. This parcel was sold in June of 2023 for only $96,150 (see attached map).
The language defining the project on page 4, page 16, and page 20, in addition to the actual bond question on page 135 of the Review & Comment document gives the district latitude to change the direction of the project as long as it is for “the acquisition and betterment of school sites and facilities”.
Thanks for your willingness to review this option for the community.
Please contact me if you have any questions at all.
The Minnetrista preliminary tax increase, proposed last September, of 15.1% was lowered to a 12% increase Monday night at the city council meeting, on December 4, 2023, and a total gross levy of $6.5M was adopted by unanimous vote, as was the proposed fee schedule (on page 215) which included many increases as well.
While there were no residents attending to address the fee schedule there were a few residents who spoke to the council regarding the levy increase. Below is the full video from the meeting, queued to start at some interesting remarks by a homeowner concerned about tax increases forcing people to sell their homes.
The League of Women Voters city council candidate forum was Thursday, September 29 at city hall. I’m not a fan of the highly partisan LWV organization but they do seem to have a monopoly on local government candidate forums in Minnesota, so I went to listen. Thevideo recording of the forum was just posted this afternoon.
Minnetrista city council candidates : Heather Charles Claudia Lacy (unable to attend forum) Peter Vickery Jake Youngren
In typical fashion many of the questions were leading. “How will you provide for Minnetrista’s affordable housing needs…” (which presumes a need) vs. a better phrased question: “What are your thoughts on developing affordable housing projects in Minnetrista?” which would leave a candidate the option of discussing the pros and cons of the issue. I encourage readers to watch the forum and listen for the premise bias in many of the questions.
The best one went something like this: “Would you support inviting bids for garbage services to reduce the costs of garbage collection for residents?” Who wouldn’t want that, right? What the question really meant was ‘Would you support putting all the garbage haulers presently doing business in Minnetrista out of business so the city would have a monopoly?’ Heather Charles supported this and was dropped from my list.
I was actually shocked to hear an honest question asked: “Would you support the city hiring it’s own professional engineer?” Come to find out, that question wasn’t one LWV came up with but was submitted by a concerned resident. In my years on the city council I had been a vocal advocate for hiring our own municipal engineer, so that WSB Engineering wouldn’t have total control over all the proposals, feasibility studies, design and contracting of all the city’s road and water projects.
Both Peter Vickery and Heather Charles dismissed what’s been called “the WSB problem” out of hand saying they thought the city wasn’t big enough to justify a staff engineer. Jack Youngren, took a more thoughtful approach, without dismissing the possibility, saying he would make the right fiscal decision after vetting the issue properly. Sounds like hope to me.
Youngren also demonstrated the same approach when asked about the controversial issue of affordable housing development in Minnetrista. Indicating it isn’t a foregone conclusion the matter has been resolved he said he would consider “when and if we want that…” The other candidates simply spoke of how and where to put affordable housing.
There was one council candidate missing last night because of an important family event. Claudia Lacy could not attend but I spoke to her by phone and found her to be very thoughtful in approaching city matters. She runs a local nonprofit (Langdon House) and would be an excellent steward of taxpayer dollars and has an impressive background in finance as well.
I encourage voters to watch the video of the forum and make up their own minds. I’ve made up mine. I’m voting for Jake Youngren and Claudia Lacy because they both appear to be candidates with a mind of their own, who take fiscal responsibility seriously, value competition and understand the role the council plays in holding vendors and the administration accountable.
The only candidate website that turned up today was the one below but watch The Laker for candidate surveys coming out soon:
Powerline Blog’s John Hinderacker posted an excellent discussion this morning on Critical Race Theory (CRT) being the top issue in school board elections throughout the country. I encourage voters to read it here: CRT: IT DOESN’T EXIST…AND IT’S AWESOME! The local Westonka community has had it’s share of these discussions and the issue will hopefully drive a much higher turnout to the school board election tomorrow, November 2, than most.
CRT, as Hinderacker states, “is a racist and anti-American set of dogmas” and is a vehicle to influence our students’ perceptions of the world and indoctrinate them. We must ask current school board members why they don’t denounce it. To claim it doesn’t exist is nonsense but unfortunately that is all the incumbent school board members are willing to say and how they have evaded the issue that everyone else is aware of.
GET TO THE POLLS, WESTONKA, AND VOTE!
November 2, Polls open from 7am-8pm. Two locations:
Mount Olive Lutheran Church fellowship hall, 5218 Bartlett Blvd., Mound
School district offices, Educational Service Center community room, 5901 Sunnyfield Rd. E., Minnetrista
Westonka Schools established additional criteria for people to serve as election judges on their absentee ballot board for their 2021 school board election scheduled for November 2. One had to have served as an election judge in the 2020 general election in order to serve. At least that’s what this Republican applicant was told by the school administrator.
The school board then appointed five school employees, who had not served as election judges in the 2020 general election, to their absentee ballot board and appointed them election judges as well. When they realized that ruffled the community they called a few ‘real’ election judges and scheduled them for a few absentee ballot board duty shifts. The problem is these five school employees, who do not qualify to be election judges according to the school’s criteria, are, and have been, scheduled on the ballot board duty roster without ANY election judges present since the beginning of October.
This means employees of the school are accepting and rejecting ballots for the same candidates who will have authority over them and their livlihoods. This is the very reason the legislature mandates that election judges, and not government staff, must accept and reject absentee ballots. Elections should be fair and free of any appearance of conflicts of interest. No one is accusing anyone at Westonka Schools of mishandling ballots and that is not the point here. The point is the Westonka school board has shown contempt for Minnesota election law by violating statutes they have been made aware of:
I noticed last weekend the supposedly brand new “independent” political committee promoting the incumbent Westonka school board candidates had not filed a campaign finance report, despite seeing lots of signs around town. So, I sent an email to the address listed on their signs asking why. I got a response on Sunday that they had filed their report with the school district. Miraculously Sunday afternoon their report was uploaded to the school district’s campaign finance page. Guess that was an oversight. I can overlook oversights.
What I first noticed, upon opening the We Are Westonka campaign finance report filed Sunday, October 17, was that the political committee’s expenditures far exceeded their reported contributions on this first (ever) report. In fact they only reported $100 in contributions while spending over $1,100 on signs and buttons. Hmm. A brand new committee isn’t going to have funds to carry over…unless they’re not brand new….I’m confused.
A campaign finance report is supposed to account for all contributions and all expenditures but this one clearly did not.
I noticed reports filed by Yes Westonka, the former political organization that pushed the school’s past bond referendums, and this is what I found:
The Yes Westonka Annual Report 19-20 showed a $1,200 contribution from the Teacher’s Union and showed cash on hand of $1,498.20. To-date no subsequent reports show expenditures of those funds.
The Yes Westonka Annual Report 20-21 shows $0 contributions, $0 expenditures but, interestingly, the “cash on hand” field was deleted entirely from the report. Was there a reason they didn’t want to show the $1,498.20 sitting in the account prior to the school board 2021 election? Did they think they could just delete a mandated field from a required report and no one would notice? What happened to the $1,498.20??
The signature at the bottom of both Yes Westonka reports is Lori Wollner, school board incumbent Gary Wollner’s spouse. Well, that explains why they couldn’t use Yes Westonka as an independent political committee now, doesn’t it.
This is the kind of thing one could file and win a campaign finance violation over, but why? The complainant would likely incur thousands in attorneys fees and the political committee would get a slap on the wrist without any meaningful consequences.
Better to just let the community know and ask the school district why they are overlooking these violations.
If you are a Minnetrista resident and want to get involved in your community consider filling outMinnetrista’s Application for Commissions and Committees and volunteer to be on the city’s Planning Commission or Parks Commission. Each commission has two seats to be appointed with terms beginning January 2022. There is one incumbent on each commission requesting to continue and one open seat on each commission as well. Applicants interview with the city council and are appointed by the council.
Planning Commission The Minnetrista Planning Commission consists of seven (7) members and two (2) alternate members who serve as a volunteer advisory commission appointed by the City Council. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council which reviews public and private development proposals for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. The commission meets the fourth Monday of each month. Each commissioner serves a four (4) year term.
Parks and Recreation Commission The Minnetrista Park and Recreation Commission consists of five (5) members and two (2) alternate members who serve as a volunteer advisory commission appointed by the City Council. The purpose of the commission is to advise the City Council in the providing of recreational areas and facilities in relation to land use and citizen requests within the community. In addition to the five (5) members, a council member designated by the council is an ex-officio nonvoting member of the commission. The commission meets the second Tuesday of each month. Each commissioner serves a three (3) year term.
This school board election is one of the most important votes you will ever cast and will determine the curriculum and values taught to our students for years to come.
There is literally NO EXCUSE not to vote. You can vote any weekday between now and the official “election day” of November 2 by going to the school district offices (doesn’t matter what precinct you’re in) at 5902 Sunnyfield Rd. E, Minnetrista. Bring an ID with you because technically this is absentee voting, but it’s “no excuse absentee voting”. Between Oct. 26 and election day the process is a bit more simple and voters can feed their ballot directly into the voting machine intead of putting it in a sealed envelope to be processed by the absentee ballot board.
The above challengers are focused on education, not politics, and making sure our students get the skills they need to become productive adults in our communities. In my opinion any of them would be preferrable to the incumbents below. GET OUT AND VOTE!
Current school board incumbent candidates (running again) are:
Brian Carlson: Unable to locate candidate FB page or website at time of publishing Loren Davis: Unable to locate candidate FB page or website at time of publishing Gary Wollner: Unable to locate candidate FB page or website at time of publishing
Minnetrista Governance Blog 