The roll call vote showed the board members heavily in favor of the decision. While Grant Velde was absent from the meeting, five of the six remaining board members voted to pass three separate resolutions that would allow the district to move ahead. The lone holdout was board member Steve Zumhofe who answered each vote call saying, “As a representative of the voters and being of sound mind, I vote no.”
The scope of the projects involves improvements laid out in three scenarios in a comprehensive plan presented to the board by Energy Savings Group (ESG). Scenario #1 does all the cost saving improvements district wide, plus addresses the most urgent items at the high school with the lowest cost solution estimated at $3,734,429. Scenario #2 does the same scope of work as Scenario #1, but provides longer term solution for urgent needs at the high school at an estimated cost of $7,570,985. Scenario #3 does the same scope of work as Scenario #1 and #2 and addresses all the needs at the high school and includes BRE. at an estimated cost of $14,066,140.
Several constituents were present at the meeting and challenged the board for more information about the improvement plan. An open dialogue continued for the next two hours as information was shared on the ramifications of not fixing the buildings, why the rush to do the project now, how the board had the ability to tax without a referendum, if making the costly improvements would impede building a new facility in the future, what the tax impact will be, the scope and cost of the project and the timeline to complete the project.
Ramifications
Mark Jensen, a Granite Falls resident, asked the board, “What are the ramifications if you don’t do anything?”
The answer that was shared is that new state health and safety guidelines were set in 2003 with an original deadline for all schools to be in compliance by 2006. However, the MDE backed down in that they kept the standards but not the deadline.
“Board member Rich Jepson stated, “the state hasn’t put any penalties on it.” He went on to explain that the boards in the past have put off the building improvements because of the necessity of other budget cuts.
Why the rush?
George Rysdahl of Clarkfield asked “Why the rush. We’re not breaking any laws?”
He went on to question if other studies have been done beside the proposal from ESG.
Board members shared that two studies beside ESG’s proposal have been completed. All three studies indicated that air quality within the building is inadequate to meet the new standards.
“When the unit vents in the elementary and high school were installed, the standard was 3 - 5 cubic feet of fresh air per minute. Now the standard is 15 cubic feet of fresh air per minute,” explained ESG representative Jerry Halloran. He went on to explain that the unit vents simply cannot heat the volume of air that is being brought into the building.
YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman shared that Musser Environmental of Clarkfield had just completed an independent study of the air quality in the school buildings. While Musser was unable to do the exact type of measurements done by ESG he did measure CO2 levels. “Looking at the numbers provided by Messer, they mirror the ESG report findings,” said Stoeckman. “Most classrooms and most rooms had high CO2 content.”
School’s right to tax
“What are the state requirements for bonding?” asked local hardware owner Bob Ladner.
Jepson explained that a couple of years ago the state legislature allowed school districts to levy to pay for costly health and safety improvements over a long period of time. He went on to explain that schools cannot levy for maintenance. Jepson pointed out that several districts in the area have used the law to levy for health and safety improvements to their buildings.
Halloran stated, “MDE regulations do not allow the use of health and safety dollars to fix what’s broken unless the fix brings the equipment up to code.”
Volstad stated that $12 - $15 million is a lot of money, especially without a vote.
Rysdahl pointedly asked, “Are you scared of a vote?”
Volstad, paused and in a low voice sighed slowly, “Yes.”
Rysdahl continued, “If it’s needed the voters might vote for it.”
Jepson explained his point of view about a vote passing when he stated, “Odds are slim to none. We’ll still have the problem and if it fails we can go ahead and do it. I think that would be worse.”
Why not build new?
With a $15 million fix looming, questions were asked about the possibility of building a new facility. At the last board meeting, Stoeckman had shared a figure from the Knutson study that estimated a new building would cost upwards of $75 million dollars. Mark Henderson, who was on a committee when the Knutson study was done related that the $75 million dollar figure was arrived at when the committee was asked to come up with everything that they ever wanted in a new school facility. “We came up with the Taj Mahal. We don’t need a Taj Mahal,” he said.
At that point Stoeckman shared some figures for a new building that he had gotten from Ron Halgerson of TSP Architects in Marshall earlier in the day. A new building to house the elementary, junior and senior high that meets the MDE guideline for space per pupil would cost approximately $44,634,950. That design would provide approximately 244,000 square feet. Currently the YME facility, elementary, junior and senior high provides the district with a little over 400,000 sq. feet.
“That cost doesn’t include land acquisition, utilities infrastructure, streets, parking lots, playgrounds or athletic fields,” said Stoeckman.
Other board members shared their views that building new is not an option at this time.
Tax Impact
At one point in the discussion, Stoeckman shared the tax impact for Potential Alternative Facilities Bonds prepared by Ehlers and Associates. According to the preliminary schedule the tax increase would be $109 a year on a taxable market value $100,000 residential homestead, $1,011 per year on a taxable market value $500,000 commercial/ industrial property, $437 per year on taxable market value agricultural homestead, and $4.37 per acre on a taxable market value $4,000 per acre agricultural non-homestead. The figures are for bonded debt only and do not include tax levies for other purposes.
In addition, Stoeckman shared two additional slides prepared by Ehlers and Associates comparing total school taxes, payable in 2009 on a home with a taxable market value of $100,000. Yellow Medicine East came in at $359, just eight dollars higher than the state average. Only Canby and Minneota have lower taxes. Dawson-Boyd and Montevideo came in as the two highest districts in the area with tax payers paying $459 in Dawson-Boyd and $458 in Montevideo on a home with a taxable market value of $100,000.
A comparison on total taxes, payable in 2009, on a farm with taxable market value of $600,000 including a house, garage and one acre valued at $100,000 also showed Yellow Medicine East coming in at $564. The $564 comes in below the state average with only Milroy coming in lower. The top three districts in the area using the same criteria were Montevideo at $1,279, Lakeview at $1,132, and Dawson-Boyd at $1,122.
Cost
Board members and those attending the meeting were all very sensitive to the tax burden that would put on the taxpayers. “You’re putting a lot of stress on your tax payers,” Mark Jensen stated.
Halloran agreed that there would be stress on the taxpayers but pointed out that the studies have shown that the current facility is structurally sound, but is getting old and getting tired. He acknowledged that the state has not put any penalties or timelines in place that require the improvements be made now. “You have a choice, you can wait ‘til it fails.”
He also pointed out that doing the improvements later would only drive up the costs. “There are hungry bidders out there right now. You’ve got to ask yourself if you risk giving that up by waiting.” He went on to explain that in other projects he has seen the bids come in at 15 percent less than what was projected.
Stoeckman asked how waiting might affect the $ 4 million interest-free money that the school will apply for as part payment for the project. “The $4 million in interest-free money is available now. It’s stimulus dollars that the school will apply for. It amounts to about $1.5 million in interest saved,” Halloran answered. The implication is that the stimulus money will not be available if the district waits until 2011 to make the improvements.
Timeline
With the approval of the three resolutions, the district has started the clock on the improvements. The first step is to submit the ESG proposal to the MDE for approval. The approval is expected by mid-January. While waiting on the approval, ESG will begin preparing bid specs. Bids on the projects will be called for by the end of May. If everything goes as planned, the majority of the work should be completed by fall.
“I’ve thought about this a lot,” stated Steve Zumhofe, the board member who cast the sole dissenting vote. He passed two handouts to those present. One was titled, “The Good, The Bad and the Ugly.” In it he compared nine points about the project. “The Ugly” was a summary of the stark reality of the current economic situation facing this county. He stated that he knows that he and other members of the community will face higher city taxes, county taxes and state taxes due to the shortfalls in government budgets and questioned the logic of adding additional school taxes on homeowners, businesses, farmers and landowners.
The second handout was a non-scientific summary of a 20 person survey that he conducted. The results showed that of the 20 people surveyed, 5 would vote yes; 13 no and 2 were undecided.
He questioned the number of options open to solve the problem and stated, “I think we need public input on this whole thing.” He ended his remarks by saying, “If we are going to go ahead we need to do a much better job of communicating with the public.”
Before the final vote was taken, Volstad asked for comments from the floor. In response, Ladner said, “I built a new building and had an opportunity to deal with the new codes. I feel I have more heating and cooling systems in the building than I will ever need. I’m absolutely in favor of taking care of what we’ve got.” He continued by cautioning the board to “look really hard at the dollars that are spent.”
Mark Henderson shared, “After what I’ve heard, from a stewardship point, I think we should go ahead.”
Volstad polled each board member for additional comments. While the five remaining board members shared their concern about being sensitive to what the voters want, it was apparent that they felt a responsibility to cast their vote to address the health and safety issues facing the district. Volstad also asked Stoeckman to voice his opinion. Stoeckman shared, “If we were growing, I’d say we should wait. I have no stake in this other than the health and safety of the students.”
