What’s Next? Prescott School District grapples with facility needs after survey showed low community support for referendum vote

Pending a final board decision and wording due by January 16, there may or may not be a district referendum question on the April 2021 ballot for Prescott School District residents, related to improvements and maintenance at the buildings. With even basic maintenance needs currently estimated at $2.573 million, (including $1.1 million in needed roof repairs), no decision was taken at the December 2 work session, said meeting being for discussion only. An approved ballot question is due by January 16 if it is to show up on the April ballot. Should a decision not be made by January 16, the next opportunity for the board to return to the subject would be February of 2022.

“Alright, are we ready?” Matzek asked when the virtual ZOOM work session meeting was finally up and running online December 2. “I’ll call the meeting to order subject to 19.83 Wisconsin State Statutes.” Answering to attendance at the online work session were school board members Steve Sizemore, Tanya Holub, Vicki Rudolph, and Pat Block. “And I am here as well,” Matzek said to round out the board attendance. Also in attendance were district superintendent Dr. Rick Spicuzza and several other district staff, along with Christine Wroblewski of Team Works, a consulting firm from Minnesota.

Following roll call, a motion was made by Sizemore and seconded by Holub to suspend Robert’s Rules of Order, allowing for a freer discussion to be had. Stating that the work session was an opportunity to dialogue and direct himself and others with no decisions being made, Dr. Spicuzza said that the purpose of the December 2 meeting was to look over the results of the recent district survey and “to come back to the role and principles” behind board and staff interaction with the community.

“We’ve asked Christine from TeamWorks to work with us in moving from the informal to the formal in terms of a Guiding Change document, Spicuzza said. The recent survey of Prescott District residents was slated in part to help identify district needs, with three main options being outlined by Dr. Spicuzza.

“Do we delay and defer for another period of time? Do we look at what would be referred to as more urgent needs?” Spicuzza asked of the first two, then coming back to it after April 2021. “The third would be that we’re all in,” he said, saying the six-part survey had asked people about their tax tolerance for $16 to $22 million in district expenditures. Option three was predicated on background knowledge, he said. Looking over the results, Spicuzza said there was a “large component of the community the district had failed to connect with.

“Our community told us that it’s not ready to make that significant financial investment to support the infrastructure and learning environment,” he said of overall survey results. Adding that surveys were for gathering information “and not necessarily a referendum,” the results were clear: the community wasn’t there yet. Asking for feedback, Spicuzza turned things over to the board.

“Rick, I know part of the survey that we haven’t seen is a lot of the comments,” Matzek said, asking if they could get some “highlights or lowlights” of the comments given.

Spicuzza responded that “timing was big,” and that there was a desire to learn the difference between a need and a want.

“The roof is leaking and it’s beyond it’s age,” he said of the ‘need’ aspect of the survey, adding on a high point that the community thought school buildings were safe and secure. With the recent building of the high school, community perceptions centered on why the district was asking again for money so soon.

“We do have the three other buildings that I feel need that generational investment,” Spicuzza said as the reason for the present community survey to district residents. Speaking for Team Works as the district’s consulting agency, Christine Wroblewski told the Prescott school board their job was to look out for the common good above all.

“You have the burden of leadership,” she said. “Even though many of you have kids in the system, have had kids in the system, your job is to try and take off that (self-interest) hat and think about what’s in the best interest of the district,” she told the board. As to the Prescott community, meanwhile, “they are acting in self-interest and they should be acting in self-interest.” Wroblewski then turned things back over to the Superintendent. Going next into the Guiding Change document, Spicuzza said that it was important to get the communication with the community right.

“It is important that the question we are trying to answer is accurate,” he said, saying that otherwise there was a mismatch between community expectation and outcome. Each Guiding Change document had a Focus Question to answer. Wroblewski polled the board on their thoughts of the Focus Question from Team Work.

“I think there’s a lot of ambiguity in the term ‘improving,’” Sizemore offered. “What are we improving? Is that additions, is that grades?…if we really want to take care of the facilities I think we need to be clear in what we’re asking,” he said. Rudolph offered an “I got a word for you,” she said. “How about ‘transform’ instead of ‘improve?’” The older buildings were being used, but, “It’s transforming them into the school we need it to be, not what we had,” she said of the Focus Question. Holub, meanwhile, preferred to be more direct.

“What are we going to do to maintain our buildings?” she said. Adjectives came after in the answer section, she thought, while Sizemore had more input.

“The word ‘maintenance’ has got to be there somewhere,” Sizemore said as the board discussed Rudolph’s suggestion. Matzek had his own two cents.

“I think the Focus Question needs to be very simple,” he said, rejecting an “overwordy” approach that would just confuse people. “We don’t have to solve this tonight,” he said, adding that “safety and academics” along with maintenance defined as keeping the lights on were the main things for him. Meanwhile, board member Pat Block also offered his opinion.

“We’re getting hung up on a bunch of verbiage here, which is important, but which is muddying the waters,” he said. Wroblewski then digested what had been said.

“I think what we can do is take what you said, make some adjustments, and get them out to you,” she said, with the board providing more feedback by December 14 to make a decision at its next board meeting.

“We’ve seen a lot of investments and upgrades in Hudson, Ellsworth and River Falls,” Spicuzza offered of the need to stay competitive. “Based on the input from our community and conversation, I think we’re faced with three questions,” he said. Delay to the future, do a partial ‘ask’ to address pressing and urgent needs while still engaging the community, and finally to go all in” in regard to the School Pathways and Perceptions Survey.

“We are not to make decisions that are to create mistrust with our community,” Holub shared from the Guiding Changes document as to why she was leaning toward the two-part ask, given recent survey results. Appearing the chat reply, one non-board member also had input.

“Keep in mind that not all members of the community responded to the survey,” a user identified as ‘Andrew Wall’ said. “So did you really get a good snap shot of what the residents actually think?”

The deadline to have an approved referendum question on the April 2021 ballot for 2021 is January 16, with a decision to wait putting the district into February 2022 as its next opportunity to ask.