West Bend district pitches pilot programs and shared management at former UW‑WC campus

A representative of the West Bend School District told the Washington County Executive Committee that the district is prepared to begin moving programs to the former UW‑WC campus as early as the 2025–26 school year while discussions continue about a larger, multi‑partner vision.

The superintendent (West Bend School District) told the committee the district currently serves about 125 students “in the basement of what is an office building,” without exterior lighting or campus amenities, and that the district has identified roughly 4,000 of the 6,000 square feet of office space on campus that it might occupy initially. “We would be poised to start migrating students and kids,” the superintendent said, adding the district runs programs including credit acceleration, alternative education and post‑graduation services for students through age 21.

County Executive Josh Schulman and several county supervisors framed the campus as a shared community asset and pressed for a single site manager and cost‑neutral operations where possible. Schulman said the county’s baseline “keep the lights on” operations for the campus run roughly $500,000 annually and that the county is looking for partners and combinations of tenants to reach operational sustainability. He said the county will circulate a letter of interest to test the pool of potential partners, and asked for responses within three to four months to inform whether to advance a binding lease or other arrangements.

Supervisors asked about rates and lease models; the superintendent said the district has not negotiated specific rates and described a range of options—from market lease rates to cost‑offset arrangements or in‑kind services—depending on who the partner is. The superintendent said co‑located services could reduce transportation costs the district now pays for students placed with external providers.

Committee members identified practical next steps: assembling a short list of potential campus tenants, clarifying which uses require facility modifications (for example, fire‑walling for childcare), and determining whether a single management entity should run building operations. County Attorney Brad Stern was thanked by supervisors for preparing draft legal documents including letters of intent.

The discussion ranged beyond indoor space. Supervisors noted the campus includes extensive exterior land—parking and former athletic fields—that could be used or redeveloped later, and that any plan should consider those acres separately. Multiple supervisors emphasized cost discipline: if partners cannot collectively fund operations or the master plan, the county may mothball or put the property back on the tax roll.

The superintendent said the district can convene its superintendent team and regional service agencies immediately if the committee gives a green light to take the next step and will return with a consolidated letter of interest and a short‑ and long‑term timeline.

The committee did not vote on a lease or binding agreement; members asked staff to proceed with the letter of interest and to return with a funding and occupancy inventory for the county executive and committee to review.

The presentation and committee discussion took roughly an hour and included detailed questions about access, sequencing of tenant moves and cost‑sharing for capital and operating expenses.

The conversation concluded with county leaders expressing cautious optimism about starting small and testing shared services before committing to a long‑term, county‑wide plan.