Kathy Velde
Staff Writer
“It is so important - needs to be done. We didn’t want to risk not doing this because it is so important for the health and safety of our kids,” Y.M.E. School Board Chair Elmo Volstad shared in response to a statement from Leo Kuehl who voiced the opinion that if he were on the school board he wouldn’t want to go ahead with a $14 million improvement project without taking the issue to the voters.
Kuehl was not the only taxpayer present who shared concerns about the $14 million air quality/energy project proposed for the YME schools.
About 50 people gathered in the Little Theatre at the high school to hear more details on the project and to ask questions.
YME Superintendent Al Stoeckman walked the group through a powerpoint that included information on the studies that have been completed beginning back in 2002 indicating the need for improvements to the facilties at YME, a review and comment from the Minnesota Department of Education, the cost of building a new school and details about what improvements that the Energy Services Group (ESG) estimates the $14 million dollars will buy.
Jerry Halloran, a representative of ESG was on hand to explain many aspects of the project including the main component, $11.6 million dollar improvements to the ventilation system in the school. “Whenever a school plans any substantial improvements to its facilities, by law the school must bring the school up to air quality standards developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).” Halloran went on to explain in air quality tests done in 2009 at YME of the 63 rooms tested in the high school only 11 met the ASHRAE standards and in the 41 rooms tested in the elementary only 5 met the standard.
Stoeckman’s powerpoint listed nine specific areas of improvements relating to air quality and energy savings. The $14 million would: put new hot water heating systems in both the high school and elementary; the current air handing systems will be recommissioned or replaced with new systems; both buildings will have dehumidification systems installed; new exhaust systems will be installed; lighting systems will be replaced with energy efficient systems and controls; the plumbing throughout both buildings will be made more efficient; energy management and controls will be installed; both building’s electrical service will be upgraded; and tuck-pointing will be completed at the high school.
One of the questions that many board members had been asked was ‘why not just build new?’
In response to that question, Stoeckman shared information on the costs of building new and the conclusion from John Bulger, a representative from the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) review and comment memo sent to the district in the spring of 2009. The conclusion states, “Based on the data provided it appears not to be educationally and economically advisable for Yellow Medicine East to build a new school rather than repairing and modest renovations to the existing facilities.”
Many comments have been made about the cost of the Lakeview School District building new in 2002. Stoeckman shared that the Lakeview building did cost $12 million to build in 2002. The school has 124,750 sq. feet - only half of the space that the MDE recommends for a new building to house the projected enrollment at YME. Based on MDE recommendations a new building to meet projected YME needs would run as high as $32 million. A rough estimate given to Stoeckman last week set the cost of a new building to house YME anywhere between $27 million and $41 million. None of the estimated costs include the cost of land, infrastructure, parking lots, athletic fields, fixtures or contingency fees.
MDE does not easily approve a request to build a new building unless the needed renovations and improvements reach a level of 60 percent of the cost of a new building.
Another issue at hand was the cost to the taxpayers for the project. According to a report issued by Ehlers and Associates, the tax impact on a $100,000 homestead house would be $109 a year. The impact on an agricultural homestead of $600,000 including the house, garage and one acre would be $383 a year. The debt service would be for a total of 20 years.
Board members, ESG representatives and Stoeckman were unable to answer specific questions from the taxpayers on how the debt would affect the bond rating or how the debt would be amortized. Volstad stated that the questions posed were very good questions and that they would check with Ehlers and Associates to get the answers.
Looking at debt service, increased taxes and the need to pass a new operating levy in 2011 to replace the levy that will sunset in 2010, Kevin Stroup posed a pointed, strategic, political question: “How does the school district operate without a referendum?” He went on to caution that the school may not want to put themselves in a box where they have an upgraded facility and no money to operate the school. Stroup went on to say, “Make your case to the voters.”
In response to the possibility of not getting a new operating levy referendum passed, Volstad said, “We’ll deal with those questions when they come up - we won’t know the effect until a vote happens.”
Stroup also questioned the need for air quality improvements. He shared that he believed that the air quality was the same as 40 years ago and that the there is no law requiring the school undergo the improvements and no penalties in place if the school does not make improvements in air quality.
School board member Rich Jepson shared that over the past 20 years many changes have been made to the buildings to save energy. “We tightened the buildings up considerably. Energy used to be cheap and we didn’t care if the building was energy efficient. We tightened up the buildings to save energy and now we have an issue with air quality.”
Wink Lundell questioned if alternative improvements to improve the CO2 levels in the classrooms were looked into. Halloran from ESG explained that there are alternatives but even those would cost up to 80 percent of the proposed cost of putting in the central system.
“Why not do a pay-as-you-go improvement plan instead of doing it all at once,” questioned Kuehl. Again Halloran fielded the question explaining that the type of improvements the school is planning requires new boilers and new ventilation systems. “The change to hot water heat drives the need to make all the improvements at one time rather than in increments.” Halloran also stated that the cost of borrowing money is favorable now and the bidding climate is good. “The project in Montevideo came in 15 percent below our estimates.”
Superintendent Stoeckman shared his personal views on the project and the process when he said, “Trust and transparency are vital in any organization. If a need for the school district is communicated clearly, voters will respond based on trust and transparency. As a district we need to focus on the windshield rather than the rear view mirror.”
