O-M map to remain unchanged in second dissolution attempt

The Orient-Macksburg dissolution commission voted unanimously Monday, Oct. 21 to take another try at aiming for a dissolution vote utilizing the same map as before.

Dissolution means the school district, which faces significant challenges to operate stemming from dropping enrollment and financial resources, would close after the 2025-2026 school year.

That is all dependent on whether a March 4, 2025, vote to dissolve is successful.

The timeline for dissolution requires the map again be sent to the Department of Education and contiguous school districts, the public and set a public hearing date.

To satisfy all requirements of the process, that public hearing will likely be held in early January.

Because some commission members heard feedback, but none for or against the map previously presented, the group decided to stay with the approved map. It was objected to in the summer by Creston and Winterset districts. That is what halted a vote.

The understanding of Orient-Macksburg leaders is if the map is objected to, the portion that is approved would be what voters would decide on in a dissolution vote. The remainder would be determined by Iowa Department of Education Commissioner McKenzie Snow.

Commission member Jana Scott said based on communication she had from Creston School Board President Galen Zumbach, Creston wants the Adams and Union county parts of the district as much as Nodaway Valley wants Adair County portions. There are sharing agreements already in place between Nodaway Valley and Orient-Macksburg.

Winterset objected to a Madison County portion of the proposed map the first time.

“As long as we show a map that’s got less than 95% going to one district, which we do, even if the other two object, we’re still voting on just the Nodaway Valley parcel, and [Commissioner Snow] makes the decision [on the rest],” Kruse said. “All the information I’ve been given by the Department of Ed. makes it pretty clear.”

Dissolution Chairman Ryan Frederick said that it needs to be made clear that if residents or property owners end up in a district they didn’t want to be in because of other districts’ objections, it isn’t because the dissolution commission drew it up that way.

“That other district did that,” Frederick said. “We were trying to help. By objecting, those other school districts put the Department in the driver’s seat for those portions they were set to receive.”

In discussion at a previous meeting about the choice between dissolution or reorganization, school board member Bo Geidel wanted reorganization to remain on the table as a choice for Orient-Macksburg just as much as dissolution.

In Monday’s dissolution commission meeting, Kruse told the group that it is important to consider that in effect, dissolution is a form of reorganization “that one district votes on.” That said, all school board members seemed to ultimately support the work of the dissolution commission.

Commission member Kevin Blair moved and Gary Metzger seconded to accept the current map again, and it was unanimously passed.

The assets and liabilities were discussed and it unanimously passed that they will be divided by taxable valuation.

A letter will be sent to contiguous districts giving them chance to review and support or object the plan. They have 10 days to do so and the commission can revise the plan, but then a new 10-day calendar would restart. The school board cannot touch the plan until these 10 days have expired.

A separate process will continue to unfold about whole grade sharing with Nodaway Valley. Due to the timing of the dissolution process, both districts will be too far into their budgeting process for dissolution to take effect for the 2025-26 school year.

“For an appointed board like this, that is in charge of something this big, the most you can ask is that they go out to the people who are affected and see what they want,” Frederick said. “You can’t make everybody happy, but you go out tot he edges and see what those people want.”