Decorah Council Rejects Elementary School Site Plan

If no one funds local news, your community is just rumors. Help Decorah News bring facts home. DECORAH — The Decorah City Council on Monday tabled a proposed joint-use agreement for the community's tennis courts and later rejected the Decorah Community School District's site plan for a new elementary school after a lengthy discussion about safety, parking, stormwater and the financial obligations tied to both projects. Council tables proposed 28E tennis agreement Council members debated a new 28E agreement that would dissolve the current joint-administration arrangement for the Claiborne Drive tennis courts and allow the school district to remove them to construct a new early elementary building. The proposal would replace the existing agreement, which runs through Sept. 30, 2026, and requires both parties to agree in writing to any changes. Under the new agreement, the city would reimburse the school district annually for 50% of routine maintenance costs, including "playing surfaces, fencing and striping," and assume responsibility for electricity once new lighting is installed. The district would be required to install lights within three years. Several council members questioned whether taxpayers could absorb those costs, given the city's recent investment in its athletic complex. City Manager Travis Goedken said, pointing to a clause in the document, "We need to keep in mind, as our budget gets smaller and smaller, I don't know that I would recommend to the council that we agree to half the maintenance costs, especially when we can't have input on what those maintenance costs are." Council member Kirsten Olson added that Decorah residents "seem to bear the cost twice… because they're part of the school district as well." Other council members referenced the school district's earlier withdrawal from a shared racquet complex, which left the city responsible for building the Decorah Athletic Complex alone. "The landscape has changed," Council member Emily Neal said. "It seems unfair to ask Decorah residents to pay twice for the same service." Council member Steve Zittergruen said the school district should be the primary taxing authority for tennis court maintenance. "I feel like they're the appropriate authority to provide services. I don't really see a great role for the city here." The council voted to table the item until its next meeting. Council rejects current elementary school site plan The council also voted down the school district's proposed site plan for a new elementary school at 101 Claiborne Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with contingencies related to stormwater, easements, right-of-way encroachments, sidewalks and fire hydrant requirements. Council members raised additional concerns. Olson said the southwest corner of the proposed building sits "actually 20 feet off the street," a slight curve on an upslope that "restricts vision and poses a safety hazard for young students." He added that the parking lot on the northeast side "extends into the city right-of-way," which would require the city to convey street right-of-way to the district. Neal read from prepared remarks, saying the school's design must "work in harmony with a highly visible location" downtown and uphold Decorah's goals for walkability, biking and safety. "My vote tonight represents the responsibility of a council member to represent the interests of the Decorah community," she said. "I will not let the pressure of a 15-year endeavor be the difference between a site plan that works… and one that is just passed to get it done." Neal also criticized a perceived lack of collaboration from the school district. "It is also essential to remind folks that the school project is already seven months behind schedule through no fault of the city's. Quite the opposite. The city has on several occasions gone above and beyond to see this project move forward. We did not see a final site plan until October, and even then, it was moved forward by city administration, which worked overtime to help the district by expanding deadlines that they missed so the site plan could be presented to us today… I repeatedly requested a meeting with the school board to discuss the issues I felt with the plan in the hope that compromises could be reached. But that never happened." Olson echoed Neal's sentiment, saying he also attempted to set up meetings with the board to no avail. Stormwater concerns Stormwater concerns also weighed heavily. City staff reiterated that the site drains toward the high school pond, which already experiences backup during heavy rains. Goedken described driving near the site with City Engineer John Hjelle and thinking, "we were gonna float away," pointing to an intake north of the property that "backs up" during storms. Several council members also questioned the volume and layout of parking, especially a large northeast parking area directly adjacent to a sidewalk used by elementary students. Zittergruen argued the design "creates a more hostile environment" for children because vehicles "back in" near walking paths. "It's bad to design parking lots that create that conflict," Zittergruen said. He also voiced frustration with the school board: "We proceeded in trust [and extended] the good faith and credit of the taxpayers we represent, but I don't feel that was always reciprocated fairly. If this frustrating, bad-faith process had produced a site plan that was adequate to the city's needs, I would have voted yes tonight and kept my concerns and reservations to myself. [But] the site plan that came out of this process is one I don't [believe] conforms to the area." Council member Brent Parker defended the plan. "We kind of talk about what the site plan looks like, and about Decorah, and what it is for Decorah. There may have been some good points in what the other council members have said. However, I do feel that it also meets the needs of our students. We can sit here and talk about all these things that it doesn't do for Decorah, but I do know that what it does do is meet the needs for our children," Parker said, gesturing to attendees, many of whom were Decorah School District teachers. "Trusting my two girls with all of you since they were little, I trust that you look out for their safety. I'm comfortable with the fact that I dropped them off every day and you're looking out for their best interest. I am 100% supportive that the site plan you have thought through is looking out for their best interest." Despite acknowledging the district's constraints on a tight site, Olson summarized the majority of the council's position. "The most important thing is to get this school site plan right, not built quickly. You'll have to live with a school in the middle of our downtown for decades to come. This school will exist long after I am gone from this Earth," Olson said. The vote failed, with support from Council members Randy Schissel and Parker, and the rest of the council voting against. Variances granted by the Board of Adjustment draw scrutiny The council also discussed four variances the Board of Adjustment previously granted for the project, including a 10-foot protective fence around the new tennis courts, an accessory restroom/storage building in a non-rear yard, parking up to the property line, and an 84-square-foot encroachment into the required 40-foot setback. City staff explained the variances remain valid for two years unless challenged. Council members debated whether some of the district's "practical difficulties" were "self-created," which could affect whether the variances met state and local standards. The council took no action but noted it has 30 days from approval of the Board of Adjustment minutes to consider filing a writ of certiorari. What happens next The school district may revise and resubmit the site plan. Goedken said the district could also bring the same plan back after Jan. 1, when new council membership takes effect. Site plan approvals lapse after 180 days if no building permit is secured. For the tennis courts, the current 28E agreement remains in effect through September 2026 unless both parties agree to termination or amendment. The proposal to replace it will return at a later meeting. One council member emphasized the shared goal behind both debates. "I think if there's one thing we all agree on, it's that we all want to see a new school get built," Olson said. "We just need to get it right." Stay ahead of the curve! Subscribe to free newsletters for exclusive insights, local trends and analysis delivered straight to your inbox.