A group of citizen taxpayers in the YME district has retained the services of the law firm of Gislason and Hunter, LLP of New Ulm. The law firm has notified the YME School District and the Minnesota Department of Education of the group’s strong opposition to the funding plan for over $12 million in facilities upgrades.
A January 6 letter to YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman from Gislason and Hunter attorney Dustin Cross states, “My clients are strongly opposed to the School District’s attempt to fund over $12 million in facilities upgrades through the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.”
The letter also informs Stoeckman that the firm has submitted a letter, on behalf of it clients to the Minnesota Department of Education outlining their opposition to the District’s proposal.
The letter puts the District on notice of potential litigation in court if the Department of Education approves the District’s proposal. The letter states, “In the event that the Department of Education approves the School District’s Application, my clients may need to pursue avenues against the School District and the Department of Education, including litigating this matter in the court system.”
In a letter to Alice Seagren, Minnesota Commissioner of Education, attorney Cross with Gislason & Hunter, LLP, outlines the citizen group’s opposition to the District’s Review and Comment and Alternative Bonding and Levy Program Application. The letter states, “I write to you to express the strong taxpayer opposition to this Application and the legal opinion that the Application overreaches the availability of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.” The letter continues, “YME is proposing to circumvent taxpayer approval and use a limited program to fund major renovations of its buildings.”
Cross identifies that the cost and scope of the proposal and the Minnesota Statutes that cover using the Bonding and Levy Program that does not require taxpayer approval and goes on to state, “The program is not meant to allow school districts to circumvent voter approval and levy costs of major renovations and building upgrades.” Cross states, “If approved, YME’s use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program would be contrary to Law, and the avenue of recourse my clients would have to pursue would include litigation against YME and potentially the Minnesota Department of Education.”
The Application
YME submitted the Application for review in late October and the Department of Education approved the Application on December 17.
“We received the notice that the State had approved the application on December 28,” shared Superintendent Stoeck-man.
In light of the letter Stoeckman received on January 6 from Gisalson & Hunter, he notified Kevin Rupp with Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. specialists in educational law. “I called Kevin to let him know about the letter.”
Stoeckman also contacted John Bulger, Educational Finance Specialist with the Minnesota Department of Education to inform him that the school had received the letter stating strong opposition to using the Alternative Funding for the proposed renovations to the facilities at YME. Stoeckman told the school board members at Monday’s meeting that he had not yet had any additional contact with Bulger.
Timetable
for renovations
The initial timetable for the $12 million plus renovations to the YME facilities could set the project in motion as early as February. The first step has been completed with the State’s approval of the application in a document dated December 17, 2009. The document states, “the Minnesota Department of Education, the Commis-sioner of Education judges the proposed construction to be educationally and economically advisable.”
The next steps will include the District selecting a company to sell the necessary bonds to fund the project, to call for bids on the project, to accept the bids and to move forward with the renovations. Action taken by the board late last year authorized Energy Services Group (ESG) to carry out the renovations. Initially the entire $12 Million plus renovations were to be completed by the end of 2010. After further review, representatives of ESG have recommended that the renovations at Bert Raney could be completed during the summer of 2010 and the renovations at the high school could be completed during the summer of 2011. In addition to the major renovations, additional work could be completed during the school years 2010 – 2012.
Opposition
A lengthy discussion at Monday night’s school board meeting may drastically change the ESG proposed timetable. Most of the board members voiced concerns about going forward with the renovations until information can be shared with the community at large. Several board members stated that they have gotten many questions over the past couple of weeks. Board member Jane Hagert stated, “More and more questions are coming up from the community.” Board member Grant Velde shared that he also had more comments lately including a comment about holding up on the project to look at the possibility of building a new school; let the voters decide and if the new school issue is defeated, then go ahead with the renovations. Larry Lee voiced a concern whether the Department of Education would permit YME to build a new school. Rich Jepson shared that the State has already indicated they would not approve an application to build a new school. In a memo to Stoeckman dated February 6, 2009 John Bulger from the Department of Education stated a recent facility audit of YME completed in October of 2008 states, “The primary structural components of both buildings are sound and serviceable.” He went on to outline the architectural guideline that states that when the estimated costs of renovating/improving a school facility approach 60 percent of the cost of replacing the facility, a school district needs to replace the facility. He notes in his memo that YME not only meets but exceeds the amount of space per student outlined in the State’s gross square foot per student guideline. The memo points out the fact that the district will continue to see declining enrollment. The conclusion that the memo draws states, “Based on the data provided, it appears not be to educationally and economically advisable for Yellow Medicine East to build a new school rather than repairing and modest renovations to existing facilities.”
Board member Tim Opdahl stated that there is apparently a great deal of confusion about the project and information is not clear to the general public. He and other members of the board pressed for a public meeting to discuss the proposed $12 million plus renovations to the YME facilities.
Information
meeting
Superintendent Al Stoeckman told the board that he would schedule a public meeting to be held at YME on Tuesday, January 26 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will include a complete overview of the proposed renovations, an explanation of the bonding process, information on the use of Alternative Bonding to finance the project, tax impacts on residents in the district, sharing information on multi-million dollar renovations in neighboring districts using the same funding, open discussion and architectural information on the costs of building a new facility and time for questions and concerns to be shared by citizens.
|
|
|
A group of citizen taxpayers in the YME district has retained the services of the law firm of Gislason and Hunter, LLP of New Ulm. The law firm has notified the YME School District and the Minnesota Department of Education of the group’s strong opposition to the funding plan for over $12 million in facilities upgrades.
A January 6 letter to YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman from Gislason and Hunter attorney Dustin Cross states, “My clients are strongly opposed to the School District’s attempt to fund over $12 million in facilities upgrades through the use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.”
The letter also informs Stoeckman that the firm has submitted a letter, on behalf of it clients to the Minnesota Department of Education outlining their opposition to the District’s proposal.
The letter puts the District on notice of potential litigation in court if the Department of Education approves the District’s proposal. The letter states, “In the event that the Department of Education approves the School District’s Application, my clients may need to pursue avenues against the School District and the Department of Education, including litigating this matter in the court system.”
In a letter to Alice Seagren, Minnesota Commissioner of Education, attorney Cross with Gislason & Hunter, LLP, outlines the citizen group’s opposition to the District’s Review and Comment and Alternative Bonding and Levy Program Application. The letter states, “I write to you to express the strong taxpayer opposition to this Application and the legal opinion that the Application overreaches the availability of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program.” The letter continues, “YME is proposing to circumvent taxpayer approval and use a limited program to fund major renovations of its buildings.”
Cross identifies that the cost and scope of the proposal and the Minnesota Statutes that cover using the Bonding and Levy Program that does not require taxpayer approval and goes on to state, “The program is not meant to allow school districts to circumvent voter approval and levy costs of major renovations and building upgrades.” Cross states, “If approved, YME’s use of the Alternative Facilities Bonding and Levy Program would be contrary to Law, and the avenue of recourse my clients would have to pursue would include litigation against YME and potentially the Minnesota Department of Education.”
The Application
YME submitted the Application for review in late October and the Department of Education approved the Application on December 17.
“We received the notice that the State had approved the application on December 28,” shared Superintendent Stoeck-man.
In light of the letter Stoeckman received on January 6 from Gisalson & Hunter, he notified Kevin Rupp with Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. specialists in educational law. “I called Kevin to let him know about the letter.”
Stoeckman also contacted John Bulger, Educational Finance Specialist with the Minnesota Department of Education to inform him that the school had received the letter stating strong opposition to using the Alternative Funding for the proposed renovations to the facilities at YME. Stoeckman told the school board members at Monday’s meeting that he had not yet had any additional contact with Bulger.
Timetable
for renovations
The initial timetable for the $12 million plus renovations to the YME facilities could set the project in motion as early as February. The first step has been completed with the State’s approval of the application in a document dated December 17, 2009. The document states, “the Minnesota Department of Education, the Commis-sioner of Education judges the proposed construction to be educationally and economically advisable.”
The next steps will include the District selecting a company to sell the necessary bonds to fund the project, to call for bids on the project, to accept the bids and to move forward with the renovations. Action taken by the board late last year authorized Energy Services Group (ESG) to carry out the renovations. Initially the entire $12 Million plus renovations were to be completed by the end of 2010. After further review, representatives of ESG have recommended that the renovations at Bert Raney could be completed during the summer of 2010 and the renovations at the high school could be completed during the summer of 2011. In addition to the major renovations, additional work could be completed during the school years 2010 – 2012.
Opposition
A lengthy discussion at Monday night’s school board meeting may drastically change the ESG proposed timetable. Most of the board members voiced concerns about going forward with the renovations until information can be shared with the community at large. Several board members stated that they have gotten many questions over the past couple of weeks. Board member Jane Hagert stated, “More and more questions are coming up from the community.” Board member Grant Velde shared that he also had more comments lately including a comment about holding up on the project to look at the possibility of building a new school; let the voters decide and if the new school issue is defeated, then go ahead with the renovations. Larry Lee voiced a concern whether the Department of Education would permit YME to build a new school. Rich Jepson shared that the State has already indicated they would not approve an application to build a new school. In a memo to Stoeckman dated February 6, 2009 John Bulger from the Department of Education stated a recent facility audit of YME completed in October of 2008 states, “The primary structural components of both buildings are sound and serviceable.” He went on to outline the architectural guideline that states that when the estimated costs of renovating/improving a school facility approach 60 percent of the cost of replacing the facility, a school district needs to replace the facility. He notes in his memo that YME not only meets but exceeds the amount of space per student outlined in the State’s gross square foot per student guideline. The memo points out the fact that the district will continue to see declining enrollment. The conclusion that the memo draws states, “Based on the data provided, it appears not be to educationally and economically advisable for Yellow Medicine East to build a new school rather than repairing and modest renovations to existing facilities.”
Board member Tim Opdahl stated that there is apparently a great deal of confusion about the project and information is not clear to the general public. He and other members of the board pressed for a public meeting to discuss the proposed $12 million plus renovations to the YME facilities.
Information
meeting
Superintendent Al Stoeckman told the board that he would schedule a public meeting to be held at YME on Tuesday, January 26 at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will include a complete overview of the proposed renovations, an explanation of the bonding process, information on the use of Alternative Bonding to finance the project, tax impacts on residents in the district, sharing information on multi-million dollar renovations in neighboring districts using the same funding, open discussion and architectural information on the costs of building a new facility and time for questions and concerns to be shared by citizens.
