Superior School Board talks failed bond levy

SUPERIOR – The voters have spoken, and the proposed Superior Schools bond levy was declined by voters with 45 percent voting yes and 55 percent voting no.

On June 5, the Superior School Board gathered for a meeting to reflect on the outcome and other possible options that may be on the table.

“The fact that the levy didn’t pass doesn’t change the fact that the junior high building continues to leak,” said Scott Kinney, superintendent for Superior Schools.

Kinney said without money from a levy, the district only has $17,800 in a district building reserve.

The only way for Superior to fund any new building or provide necessary repairs is to go to the voters for additional funds. Kinney explained to those in attendance there is no other way.

“As a consequence, we are in the same boat,” Kinney said. “If we have to go back to the voters to fix the junior high, it will be whatever that money is to fix the junior high. There’s no investment, it’s a band-aid on a gaping wound.”

A lot of questions still need to be answered before the start of another school year. The issues with the building still remain, even with another bond levy proposal for the general election in November; classes will be back in session by then.

Kinney praised the facilities committee who did a tour of Superior to explain the building issues to voters. He also reinterred that the bond proposal wasn’t something that was a want, but a need.

When the committee along with Kinney and other Superior teachers presented at the Superior Senior Center before the election, the feeling was that the group got through to them and that the seniors understood the problems the school was facing.

“My concern is if the community thinks that if we’re able to put up with the discomfort, then we didn’t really need it to begin with,” Kinney said.

Kinney said after speaking with several parents and community members, an additional concern was that Superior is becoming more of a retirement community and they are witnessing the demise of Superior. He said the school is the cornerstone of any successful community.

“The fact that we have a dire facilities need,” Kinney said. “The only option we have is to close the building down, or to continue to throw money at fixing that building.”

Kinney estimates a cost of at least $100,000 just to bring in an alternate heat source for next winter, which would include using a pelletized system outside the building that would require having temporary ducting installed.

To have an analysis done on the junior high building to determine repair costs, Kinney fears that would cost additional funds.

“Our contention has been all along is that it’s not right to the kids, and it’s not right to keep them in that building,” Kinney said. “For the people who work in that building, I feel for them every single day. It’s not an ideal situation.”