To the editor:

Five years ago, RTR voters passed a $35 Million Bond for a new school. Now they want another $20 Million? And this is after a $15 million bond vote failed in 2023.

This is an additional 60% of the original bond. Was not this new $35 million school supposed to be complete and the answer to all the problems?

Why do they now, just five years later, need another $20 million? Was the board not informed that this new school was not adequate or was the board not informing the public in totality? Was it the intention all along to build an incomplete school and then in a few years ask for another bond with the rest of the “accessories” they wanted and then give a list of reasons it was needed?

To add on just to accommodate open enrollment is not a good business decision. Open enrollment will not continue to rise and in the near future could plateau or even decrease.

The other reasons for an additional bond should have been covered in the original plan and not pushed down the road just to pass a new school bond at that time.

Another issue to consider is the 70% Ag Tax Credit. Regardless of what Superintendent Marlette and the state tells us, it could disappear just as fast. We all know how the government works and if the state would face a deficit spending down the road, they could very easily start by eliminating this Ag Credit. When the State faces a deficit, where will they start the cut? Most likely by eliminating costs in outstate rural Minnesota as opposed to cutting programs in the metro areas.

I read Tami Nelson’s Sept. 4 letter to editor in the Tyler Tribute and the following week’s rebuttal letter from Superintendent Marlette. When Tami followed up with her next letter on Sept. 18 in the Tyler Tribute it certainly appeared to me that she contradicted his rebuttal. Reread them for yourself and make your own decision.

Now it is up to you the taxpayers to decide if they wish to spend another $20 Million on a NEW State of the Art $35 Million School.

Wayne Alderson

Ruthton