QUOTES: Community Weighs In at Richfield School Board Special Session

A handful of community members lined the sidewalk leading to the Richfield Public Schools District Office Thursday night, bearing signs in opposition of the recently approved field lights project.

to discuss the project after e-mails, phone calls and snail mail letters—both for and against the lights—hit board members since their June 11 decision to approve the project. However, .

The board allowed the public to comment prior to making its decision, bringing mostly opponents of the project to the microphone. However, the main focus—regardless of feelings about the lights—appeared to be getting the next referendum passed this fall. This is what people had to say:

Greg Optiz, a parent and long-time community member, charged parents with taking their passion for this issue one step further:

“I came here tonight all prepared for a big battle royale. The light versus the non-lights. In this jam packed room there will always be the differences between us. But one common thread that is intermingled between us is wanting our kids to have a quality education. … We need to get more parents involved. Is there room for improvement in our schools? You bet. Let’s take the passion in this room tonight and apply it everywhere. Let’s work to get the next referendum passed. The $37,000 [over the next seven years for the lights] will be seen as very small in the future.”

Tim Pollis, a parent with children in the district, said dozens of other facility improvements were bypassed for the lights:

“None of the noise made here should reflect on Coach Boie or his players.  … We are all entitled to our own opinion, however, we are not entitled to our own facts. … The district maintains a facilities list [for those in need of improvements]. There are nearly 100 things on that list. Baseball lights are not on that list. … Splurging on lights will be wasteful.”

Peter Lavin, a Richfield native and parent, took the fiscal approach:

“This is not a prudent financial decision. … I just don’t think there is enough history with those revenue streams to leverage this decision. There is no debate, that this is a decision for athletic facilities or classrooms. … These dollars could be used to bolster the fund balance. … That does not sit well with the community, it will not sit well with the voters and personally it doesn’t sit well with me.”

Kelly Zoellmer, a main organizer for the , said she didn’t believe the board picked lights over classrooms.

“This was a parent driven grant. … The baseball field has not been updated since 1964. … I see this as the board putting in money toward the grant, I do not feel they are choosing one over the other, this is the time to do it.”

Peter Toensing, a former board member, said the district could see history repeat itself:

“I have a deep desire to not see [the referendum] fail again. … Last year, our primary strategy with the referendum was to point out to voters to have pride in our schools. We were not successful. … Certainly many factors contributed to [it’s failure]. However, with the backlash against the turf, I feel that it would be cavalier of the board to even waste a single vote on potential backlash again.

The Board Weighs In—Sort Of

While a handful of residents took to the podium, Board Clerk David Lamberger, Board Chair Sandy Belkengren and Deb Etienne—all supporters of the project—stayed almost mute. Board Members Todd Nollenberger and John Easterwood read prepared speeches highlighting the need for more data on the revenue stream, answers to looming questions, using the money in the classrooms and the potential impact on the referendum.

Belkengren almost rhetorically asked District Business Manager Michael Schwartz if her figures of a 20 to 30 percent increase in cost by waiting a couple years was correct. However, Schwartz was unable to confirm those numbers, stating he hadn't seen those percentages. Nollenberger added that the district will incur extra costs by doing the project now, as it has to effectively borrow the money against future rents, accruing interest.

There are many other facets to each side of the argument. Share your thoughts on this issue in the comments section below.

***

Other related articles: