Whitehall district to move to next step of daycare planning

After the results of a survey showed residents would like the Whitehall School District to considering going to a referendum to add a daycare facility, the district’s administration is going to determine how much it could cost.

The school put out a survey after its November meeting to try and gauge the interest district residents would have in adding a daycare facility. Of the 251 who responded, 211 said they would support the district going to a referendum to finance a child care facility.

District superintendent Mike Beighley warned that the sample was small, noting that roughly 1,100 people voted during the district’s last building referendum. 

“The question I would have is: is this (response) consistent with what is thought throughout the community,” Beighley said. 

Beighley said the individual contacts he had were split on whether or not they thought the district should get involved in such a project. School board members also indicated they had received some mixed response, though member Leah Johnson said everything she heard had been in favor of adding a facility.

Board member Dave Estenson reiterated what he said at the November meeting, saying he didn’t think the school should get involved. He said he believes in limited government involvement and thinks the free market should solve the problem, adding that government is what has caused the child care issue.

“Government can’t be a solution to a government-created problem,” Estenson said. 

Fellow board member Julie Dokkestul disagreed with the notion that the district’s decision should be lumped in with other government actions. 

“I see this as the people have a need and we’re trying to come up with a solution,” Dokkestul said. “If the school is involved, I don’t see it as government in that sense. I see it as a more organic process to meet a need.” 

Estenson suggested that churches could help fill that need, saying he spoke to one church leader who would “love to do it.”

Board member Bill Jurowski said he was once involved with a church that tried to offer child care services, but it didn’t work. He noted issues with government regulations and “finding people at the right price because we couldn’t pay them, really.” 

Byron Fields wondered if the board could have more time to make a decision, citing the relatively low response total. Beighley said they could, though he warned that they can only go to referendum so many times in a calendar year and they could have one for operating expenses upcoming, depending on if and how much school aid is increased. 

Board president Jason Molis said he received an e-mail saying the school building a child care center is a “terrible idea on many levels.” Estenson said he had a text message from someone who was concerned about setting a precedent.

Johnson thought adding a child care would be best for the future students of the district. “Who can tell me it’s not good for the future of our kids?”

Estenson said that could be true about a lot of issues.

“What if a kid needs a home? Do we build housing? What happens if the need arises for overnight daycare? It’s crazy, but look at where we’re at now,” Estenson said. 

“I can understand that, I can,” Beighley responded to Estenson. “We have to deal with reality right now.” 

Molis suggested not building a child care could put the school at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to attracting staff members, noting that both Blair-Taylor and Arcadia already have centers. Elementary principal Damon Lisowski said the district has already lost students and staff members due to a lack of childcare. 

Lisowski also said he thought adding a child care center fits what the district has done in the past. 

“We do a lot of things for folks and, I think, with Mike’s leadership, that is something we have embraced,” Lisowski said. “We had families here the other night (Dec. 15) in the storm because they didn’t have other places to shelter. The school in a small community is kind of the lifeblood. It’s the hub.”

Beighley reminded the board that it isn’t up to them to decide if they should build the facility.

“I think the important thing to remember is: we don’t have to decide,” Beighley said. “All you’re talking about is: should you put it to the community to say ‘should we do this or not?’ That’s all we’re talking about. That’s the very nature of what we do. We’ve always listened.”

The consensus of the board was that the district should move forward. Beighley said they can work to get a better idea of the costs for the meeting scheduled for Jan. 17. 

Molis addressed Estenson to see if he was on the same page. “Good, bad or ugly, you know where the sentiment is pointing right now?”

“I have no delusions that I’m on the winning side of this,” Estenson said. 

In other matters, the board discussed refinancing the general obligation debt, a move that could save the district about $470,000, district finance manager Vicki Hagberg said. 

The board also voted to increase coaching salaries.  

“Over time, we got behind a little bit in our coaching salaries,” Beighley said. “This puts us toward the middle, maybe upper-middle, maybe not leading the area, though you could argue our folks deserve to lead the area.” 

Head coaches for wrestling and basketball will make $3,950; football and volleyball, $3,500; baseball, softball and track, $3,200; golf, $2,850 and cross country, $2,500. 

The total salary increase throughout the district is $26,756.76.